puppytreats

Yet those first years often have three years of reviewing documents and sitting in a library doing research during their minimum 80-hour/week summer internships during law school, were editors of their Law Reviews, and were mentored not only by the best academic legal minds, but also by teachers with years of actual experience in some law schools. If they can't expect more than anonymous scut work as a first year, why would a newly minted member of the corps at the equivalents of Skadden, Arps, et. al. expect special opportunities? Interesting analogy. It would be interesting to hear from someone who had a similar experience at a white shoe law firm or a big law firm. (I once read a book, a long time ago, which, I think, asserted that Skadden was formed as a response to discrimination in white shoe firms, so I have never thought of it as "white shoe".) I can attest to lots of "scut work" at small firms, too. One of my main jobs there was to make love and war with the photocopy machine (an olden day, broken down, beaten up, miserable s.o.b. who caused me many late nights and misery.) The dungeon document reviews were a reprieve and relative pleasure in comparison. Boring, tedious, skin destroying, but a break from the fight with the toner and paper jams. Back to ballet: an uninterested witness would give his opinion, but we have seen wide divergences of opinion, from observers of the same performance.

Catherine stated above that the contracts describe taxes withheld. I wonder if this happens in any other country. I also wonder why a Russian employer would withhold U.S. taxes, regardless of any obligation on behalf of the taxpayer.

Yes, which is why I find it odd that people then say her problem was that she was a small fish in a big pond, because it is not a big deal to complain about doing grunt work. But if they want to sling mud against her accusation about the $10K, to make her unlikable and decrease her credibility, then it makes more sense that they would say, "Well, she only had to pay because she is a small fish", because this might deflect attention from the illegality of the demand for payment. Their suit would likewise be an unwise strategy (but a frequent s.o.p.) if she had said something truthful about her employer's demand for the $10K, since truth is a defense to a claim of defamation.

Yet those first years often have three years of reviewing documents and sitting in a library doing research during their minimum 80-hour/week summer internships during law school, were editors of their Law Reviews, and were mentored not only by the best academic legal minds, but also by teachers with years of actual experience in some law schools. If they can't expect more than anonymous scut work as a first year, why would a newly minted member of the corps at the equivalents of Skadden, Arps, et. al. expect special opportunities? Yes, this is why I find the statements about impatience and entitlement to obtain solo roles to be a bit too neat. Sure, no one likes sitting in the dungeon reviewing documents, and everyone sits around complaining and whining. Except for people who have connections and money, a special relationship with the client, or unusual experience and talent (e.g., a family of trial attorneys or a first year who had a prior career doing something significant), I did not think anyone in a big firm thought it would be any different. I thought people who wanted early trial experience typically go to the DA office or a small firm. Some people leave big firms to get more training, experience, and responsibility at an earlier stage in their career, but that is not typically a scandal, nor are the grumblings about it considered a scandal typically. Saying bad things about a prior employer would be imprudent, but is it even a bad thing to say one did not conduct a trial in year one or had to do grunt work?

Circumstances could have intervened. Sometimes people take a principled stand, and then suffer the consequences, and then are beaten into submission. If someone complaints about sexual harassment, then is abandoned, blacklisted, defamed, can't work....she might eventually be silenced. It is a war of attrition. She might have been warned or threatened and then erased her twitter page. She might do something and then be frightened. Yes, I agree, Urin is certainly a professional, experienced bureaucrat and manager with excellent advisors, skills and experience. He greatly outmatches a young girl taught to be obedient.

Gosh, does any first year in a big firm do anything other than review documents in a conference room or sit in a library doing research? Who on earth would expect to let a first year, untrained and billing at the lowest rate, conduct a trial? I can't even imagine wanting to do such a thing.

I think men and women face these problems. Many people, including on these boards, seem to be angry with her for complaining about something bad, because it is not unique to her, and everyone else faced it. Maybe she was taught not give up her seat on the bus. Maybe she thought she was protecting the other girls and boys by speaking up for them, describing their suffering and inequities. Maybe they tried to quiet her with threats and she didn't want anyone else subjected to the same suffering that she experienced. Of course, maybe she could have found a more strategic way to help them if she had not spoken up, or refused to be silent, or lie about things.

As balletomanes, do you find watching orchestras sufficiently entertaining, elucidating, or satisfying, in the absence of viewing a physical interpretation through dance? Did music bring you to ballet or ballet bring you to music? How did you educate yourself about music?

"She spoke casually of the theater’s cruelty, its corruption, the sexual “skeletons in its closet,” and admitted that she been hardened by her experiences there. ... Womack talked about this practice openly when we met in January at a cafe up the street from the Bolshoi. She said she had been “given an opportunity” which she described as, “I want you to be my lover, and I will support you.” Deeply insulted by the offer, Womack says she refused. “ Wednesday link, http://world.time.com/2013/11/13/american-ballerina-quits-bolshoi-accuses-theater-of-extortion/

If she were 19, and had spent only a year in the company, I think she woke up pretty quickly. I did not say that she did not face much competition. I did not say that she could or could not come up to speed eventually, or did or did not want to pay her dues. I am just saying that the arm-chair psychology type of quick clean up proffered by the theatre or the media, to avoid discussing the issues she faced or avoid ameliorating them, is reductionist. Did she even say she was leaving because she could not (yet) get solo roles? Or did she say that she was insulted or (shocked or frightened?) that she was told about payments of fees related to solo parts. I read her say she was insulted by the sexual offers that she had received and the demand for a sham marriage. Certainly, that has nothing to do with being a small fish. Maybe the poor girls who did not leave did not have that opportunity. Maybe they are not paid so they are forced to become involved with rich patrons, like wage slaves.

What is a red diploma?

I thought Volcanohunter had stated that he was asked to make a report the day before the acid attack, but you are saying it was months before. Was this from press reports of evidence presented in trial? Are you suggesting that he Tsiskaridze knew of this evidence or had any relationship to the person hired? Is that what Iksanov was suggesting when he blamed Tsiskaridze in the press? When you say he had a duty to report the activity, are you saying to the police or the theatre? People routinely make threats (veiled or not) in negotiations, so I have a hard time believing that he had a "duty" to report to either. His duty was to pursue the best interests of the dancers, which could have taken a number of forms, under the circumstances, which may or may not have included reporting any coercive activity. For example, if one side makes a show of force, the other side may counter with its own show of force.

Why would you assume anyone would be safe simply by leaving Russia, if she is complaining about unsavory situations in Russia and they want to silence her? I always laugh when I watch TV and people are advised to get out of town, as if they would be safe because the person who wants to harm or get rid of them can't harm them in another place. Similarly, didn't a Russian die of radioactive poisoning in London in the last decade? As I said earlier, the theatre can respond without "sling[ing] mud" itself, by investigating (or appearing to be investigating), instituting reforms (if necessary or positive), eliminating wrongdoers (or the worst forms of wrongdoing, after providing due process), instituting protections, paying its dancers (the amounts promised, as well as a fair wage), all without making up lies or stories about her.

And that is Dmitrichenko's reality. You state earlier that going to the authorities to report the corrupt would put his life and that of his family in danger. What would you expect the outcome to be if he claims police brutality and that the Chief of Police is lying through his teeth? So how does one deal with an untrue or illegally derived confession?

That sounds facile. A lot of people are creating a lot of negative push back against girls who allegedly complain or quit based on this appearance of impatience for undeserved or unearned solo roles. I really doubt that happened. Certainly, the news and gossipy boards love to talk about it. Marketable armchair psychology. The publicity machine thereby accomplishes its mission, I guess. You would be disillusioned, at the least, if you had been young, idealistic, naive, trusting, passionate, a perfectionist, devoted to creating art and beauty, taught to be an obedient follower, far away from home, and then came to a hostile environment in which you learned about and/or experienced, claques, acid attacks, threats, hacking, defamation, circulation of false emails and facebook hacks, unfair labor practices, nonpayment, breach of contract, breach of trust, glass in your toe shoes, political influence, improper treatment of respected artists, disloyalty, gamesmanship, forced abandonment of a teacher and star not currently in power, sexual favors with patrons and possibly others, infighting, and how the game is played through the making of payments. All while you were worrying about money you had not been paid and while you were starving and aching and exhausted, physically and emotionally, from working all day. But I guess it is easier or more useful to say she was greedy and aggressive and a small fish in a big pond.

Sounds like the book Manon.

Has he reaffirmed the confession in court? If he does not, then he will be asked why. And if he is asked why, he would have to say, because he was coerced, or it is an inaccurate transcript, or ?

How often do police admit to misconduct? I would estimate close to never.

Do you mean he should have risked life and limb of himself and his family to report something and not fear retribution for blowing the whistle on those in power? Or would he have been better off to enter into negotiations in a powerful position, without going to the police? I think everyone who says, e.g., Joy Womack should go to the police are very brave from the sidelines, but they have no consideration of the consequences she and her family will face.

I don't recall reading that Pavel said the prosecution or the court (i.e., the judge) were corrupt. Did he? I read on these boards about a "99% percent conviction rate", and the "odds [being] stacked against him," which gives rise to certain inevitable questions about fairness, but I don't remember Pavel commenting on issues related to presenting his case in court (or rather, of any such issues being discussed on these boards). I recall reading that Pavel said that (a) he was beaten into a partial confession and (b) he was attacked after entering prison by masked guards. I also recall reading that another alleged attacker was stating that he was threatened by police. Those are factors I would assume anyone would raise in his defense. How could he not, even if might offend the prosecution or make it defensive? As far as the issue of alleged corruption in the rebuilding of the Bolshoi, the admitted claquers, the influence of politics and oligarchs, the fighting for roles, the rich patrons and favors - that has been discussed on these boards, and in the press, but has Pavel raised it in the trial? As Volcanohunter stated, Pavel was asked to write a report to the management by management about certain (unidentified?) issues, but that is not an accusation against the court. I can see how those who might have thought they would be identified in a report, or in court, would not be happy, though, Helene.

I don't recall reading that he went to or said that he intended to or did go to law enforcement with evidence about the corruption in the theater. To whom, if anyone, did he present the "stack of evidence" that you describe, on Jan. 16, as someone above mentions? Does any article indicate what it contained? Does law enforcement have those "stacks of evidence"? Have they been used at the trial? I don't know the hierarchies, methods, or rules regarding labor negotiations, but I thought he represented dancers in negotiations. Applying the question of "stacks of evidence" to the above hypotheticals, one can think of a range of ways to use stacks of evidence or involve thugs that do not involve going to law enforcement. Maybe he planned to or did use the evidence in negotiations, or someone else did. For example, maybe he said, "Here is a problem, here is evidence of it, how can we address it?" Or maybe he said, "Here is a problem to address, here is evidence of it, don't think you can threaten me not to use this evidence or raise this issue, because I have people on my side to protect me." Or maybe he said, "Here is evidence of something bad, I will use it against you or beat you up unless you agree to fix it." (This would assume he did not know of or intend the acid throwing, but rather, something more mild or escalating, as negotiations ensued.) Those are all different ways he could have used the evidence that did not involve law enforcement. Or maybe the person he talked to about the stack of evidence used it without his knowledge. Maybe the person who threw the acid wanted to get Filin out of the way, so someone more vulnerable or amenable would be frightened, bribed, or extorted, based upon the stack of evidence, to change things in exchange for payment or favors. Maybe Filin was going to address the problems so someone wanted to get him out of the way, and the stacks of evidence would be buried, and things would stay the same. And then Pavel would be blamed for being a vindictive hot-head with an egotistical girlfriend who wanted a solo role, which would be a convenient, albeit not entirely logical or plausible, excuse. Or maybe he kept the stacks of evidence as backup so something bad would not happen to him, or if something bad were to happen to him, then no one innocent would be blamed or framed for it.

Nothing justifies throwing acid in Sergei Filin's face or causing him pain and suffering. From a legal standpoint, I can think of a range of reasons why a trial might involve different types of testimony and evidence on the issues you raise. The degree of injury could be relevant for a number of reasons. If one needs multiple operations and continuing care, that could cost more money and require payment to cover larger medical costs, cause a longer period of time out of work with more lost wages, and generate greater pain and suffering. In criminal cases, the degree of injury may affect the degree of a crime. By analogy, one could commit petit larceny or grand larceny, depending on the amount in question. I don't understand the discussion of dancers demanding the right to solo roles in a number of different scenarios discussed here. I thought the prosecutor or the press had raised it, to show a motive for animosity toward Sergei Filin. However, it seemed tenuous, unless they are suggesting a Nancy Kerrigan type situation. If you are asking why the defense would raise it, emotional distress could affect the degree of a crime in America. If one were to demand sexual favors from a man's wife or girlfriend, I can imagine the husband/boyfriend taking serious offense or wanting to protect his girlfriend and responding physically. The defendant's emotional state would be at issue, and he would need to show why. I can imagine a number of reasons why one would inquire into Sergei Filin's theatre management and labor negotiation activities. I will pose a few hypotheticals. If someone in negotiations at the theatre with a labor leader, hypothetically, threatened a union leader, or his girlfriend or family, and law enforcement is not a reliable source of protection for political or economic/corruption reasons, then one could imagine the union leader asking for protection for himself or his girlfriend from a thug, to give an appearance that one is not to be further threatened, not knowing or intending that the thug would harm anyone or throw concentrated battery acid in his face. Alternatively, one could imagine the thug might have wanted something from the theatre or its head or its affiliates, and approached the union leader as a way to have an excuse to approach the theatre head. As another alternative, the thug may even have used the name of the union leader or his girlfriend as a way to get himself to the head of the theatre, wholly unbeknownst to the union leader or his girlfriend. Under another scenario, one could imagine the union head being introduced to the thug and saying he was scared for his girlfriend, and asking what to do, and then the thug offering to talk to someone, or do something else, and being rejected. The thug could have proceeded on his own, intending maybe to demand payment for his services thereafter, or attain the benefit of access to the theatre head, regardless. These all could affect questions of proof of the defendant's mental intent or involvement in any action. One can imagine a range of similar scenarios. However, I raise them to address the issue of relevance to a trial. Even the prosecution is asking why, and trying to show intent, as well as knowledge and participation in various actions. The defense is trying to show a lack of intent, and even lack of knowledge of or involvement in the wrongful action, and why. I can also imagine a lawyer would try to introduce such evidence to counter evidence of the prosecution. For example, imagine a golden child is injured. The personal injury attorney or criminal prosecutor will appeal to the jury to see the wrongdoer as evil incarnate, harming a defenseless, perfect, beautiful, innocent child. This would consciously and subconsciously lead to a greater monetary award or harsher criminal sentence. However, if the defense attorney shows or insinuates that the victim is not pure, and maybe even provoked a response or left the defendant with no reasonable alternative but to fight, then the jury could consciously and subconsciously be influenced to modify the harsh view of the accused. Again, I don't know how rules of evidence operate in Russia.

Gelsey's second books talks about this, but only in connection with her guest roles.

If we are to believe Womack, she was essentially working for free at the Bolshoi. Why end a contract with someone who is apparently so enamored of working for the Bolshoi that it costs the Bolshoi little to keep her on. Virtually free labor is the best kind of labor as far as an employer is concerned I don't agree that free labor is the best. No one would advocate for slavery. Paying low, unfair, or disparate wages for the same job by the same level and quality of worker, certainly hurts morale, discourages loyalty, and leads to feelings of unfairness, having been taken advantage of, discrimination, and a lack of unity. I am sure women who get paid much less then men, because they don't have the information to know the right salary to ask for, or the power, because other stereotypes or discriminatory beliefs, do not think that free or low paid work is the best.

Sorry, what link? I don't see any Ashton Cinderella pic that may come from the Joffrey, as you hinted at earlier. As for the Serenade photo at the top of the Sarasota site, I believe that is of the Sarasota Ballet, as Serenade will be danced in next week's program (along with Illuminations and Who Cares?). The Aston "Cinderella" picture is in the ABT spring ticket brochure that I received in the mail. I think that "Serenade" picture on the Sarasota site is in a Koch Theatre Fall playbill, too (NYCB or ABT, I would have to check.)