puppytreats

But from what I read, Womack did not pay money, but rather, left, so I don't know what kind of money would be at issue or be subject to forensic analysis. If someone asks you for money and you say no, and then you tell a friend that, because you are scared or upset, or naive or trusting and honest, well, poor girl. I am sure she will suffer some consequences; she already felt she had to leave.

If the sophisticated, experienced head of a theatre hears about it and has his lawyer threaten a criminal liable suit in the press, I would question what is he so scared of or defensive about that he would even address it or address it in that way. He could just have easily said nothing, or said that he would investigate it, or said that sponsorship is not wrongful.

Helene states: "n the meantime, the people she accuses in the press of criminal behavior without pursuing criminal charges through the system have the right to point her to the process and to defend themselves against her accusations in any legal way they see fit."

Response: If she is telling the truth, then he does not have to say "she is lying" automatically, as you suggest.

You did not respond to my statement in context. I asked "Are you suggesting that anyone who walks into a police station and makes an accusation has their word accepted at face value with no corroborating evidence, that the prosecutors automatically will accept it -- estimated 99% conviction rate in Russia -- and that the accused will sit back and not say, "S/he's lying" or "S/he misunderstood"?"

In other words, is the statement of a person who goes to the police about any charge -- not applicable to Womack -- automatically accepted without question, and do you expect the person accused to accept charges -- again, not specific to Womack, because she did not go to the police with evidence of criminal activity -- to sit back and not refute them?

The "he" remains anonymous, since, according to an article in "The Telegraph" in today's Links, she's not planning to name who told her about spending $10K/role/performance, "because I greatly respect him." Given the context of her statement, that she "learned" about the going price from this highly respected person, it doesn't follow automatically that this person was the one receiving bribes.

How often does an extortion attempt, if that is even the word she used, come in writing or on tape? Sometimes, I guess, but one could just as readily assume someone pulled her aside and whispered something in her ear, or more loudly threatened her, in a conversation. Even if someone slapped her, which is not alleged, what "back up" would she have if she were to complain about that?

She probably gave an interview and probably answered a question about why she quit, honestly, although not necessarily shrewdly.

I read one of the articles and it said the reporter had talked to her, but I don't remember if it said it was an "interview", so I'm not even sure that qualifies as an accusation made to or through the press.

Helene states: "n the meantime, the people she accuses in the press of criminal behavior without pursuing criminal charges through the system have the right to point her to the process and to defend themselves against her accusations in any legal way they see fit."

Response: If she is telling the truth, then he does not have to say "she is lying" automatically, as you suggest. He could say nothing, or he could say, "I have investigated, and she is telling the truth, and I am sorry, and I am trying to fix things so no one else gets hurt."

Alternatively, he could say, "That is life, it is outside the theatre, we don't condone it." Or he could say, "What is wrong with having a sponsor?" I don't know what Russian law is in that regard.

She did not necessarily go to the press with a scandal or threat. She probably gave an interview and probably answered a question about why she quit, honestly, although not necessarily shrewdly.

Unfortunately, as I said above, often defense does not involve "any legal way they see fit", based on my reading of these boards.

Would testimony (e.g., a statement under oath) constitutes proof under Russian law? It is, under New York law. Of course, to win on a claim, one would have to meet a certain burden of proof, based on assessments of credibility and an evaluation of competing evidence (including testimony of other witnesses). So when you mention a need to "back it up with evidence," are you saying her word is not enough, or is not enough to satisfy a burden of proof to win or defeat a claim in court?

Are you suggesting that anyone who walks into a police station and makes an accusation has their word accepted at face value with no corroborating evidence, that the prosecutors automatically will accept it -- estimated 99% conviction rate in Russia -- and that the accused will sit back and not say, "S/he's lying" or "S/he misunderstood"?

"Backing it up with evidence" might be notes from phone calls, a paper trail, an audit of books and bank accounts, corroborating witnesses, police investigations, etc.

Going to the police doesn't even necessarily mean testifying: it could be providing enough for them to decide to investigate and gather their own evidence.

If she were subpoenaed in someone else's civil case, or deposed in his civil suit against her, then her testimony alone would constitute evidence in New York. Whether the evidence would be sufficient to meet a burden of proof, I cannot say. If she were sued criminally (after he went to law enforcement authorities and lodged a complaint, I assume), then she would have a right not to testify in New York. I don't know what the law is in Russia in this regard.

I doubt the prosecutors would bring a case with a 99% conviction rate against the powerful leaders or patrons (inside and outside of government) of the theatre. The more typical behavior against those not in power involves a campaign of defamation, harassment, and threats, or the disregard of any complaint against those in power. The prosecutor would simply exercise discretion or say he lacks sufficient evidence to bring a case. I would suggest that his focus on her statement brings more attention to it.

Would testimony (e.g., a statement under oath) constitutes proof under Russian law? It is, under New York law. Of course, to win on a claim, one would have to meet a certain burden of proof, based on assessments of credibility and an evaluation of competing evidence (including testimony of other witnesses). So when you mention a need to "back it up with evidence," are you saying her word is not enough, or is not enough to satisfy a burden of proof to win or defeat a claim in court? (If testimony does not suffice, one questions how one would ever bring a case. Solely with respect to the issue of testimonial evidence, I am reminded of the need to prove rape by outside witnesses in certain cultures, which often, but not always, does not occur in the presence of outside witnesses.).

If he were to bring a claim, wouldn't he have the burden of proof, or is that not the case in Russia? Also, in New York, I believe he would have to show special damages, or a specific harm. He is a public figure involved in labor negotiations about conditions of workers. I doubt he could establish any financial suffering from her saying she was not treated well in her job. Nor could he establish malice, which is necessary here. Of course, I have no idea about the laws there.

In any event, my point about threats is, what would be her incentive for bringing a civil claim or reporting to law enforcement for them to decide whether to bring a criminal action? In a hostile environment, which is described on these boards as, to some degree, lawless, contemptuous of a system of legal justice, and governed by politics and thuggery (as also evidenced by the attack on Filin), she would be subjecting herself to further threats not to testify, which could be physically, emotionally, and financially dangerous to her and her family. What would she achieve by testifying or even by going to law enforcement? Does one really think any positive reform would result (that calls for speculation, but one has good reason to make a pessimistic cost/benefit analysis in this regard.)

He has no reason to say he preserves his right to sue, since he always has that right. That is not an issue of speculation.

If he is saying he has a right to sue, which he is not now asserting but preserves, then he must be asserting that what she says is not true and also that he has suffered a personal damage, unless he is being mouthy, spontaneous and defensive, or untruthful. That is not an issue of speculation.

People are often threatened with respect to money, regardless of whether a civil or criminal trial ensues.

If she follows advise of Urin to go to law enforcement regarding extortion, then one assumes he is saying to make a criminal complaint.

Vladimir Urin, meanwhile, has stated that Womack ought to take her allegations of corruption to law enforcement and promised that the Bolshoi Theater would cooperate with any investigation. He acknowledges that there were some irregularities with her contracts and that her salary was not always paid on time, which he blames on red tape associated with the fact that she is a foreign national. He also says the money was withheld from her salary because she had not formally established that she was a tax resident of the United States. Urin says he's sorry her career at the Bolshoi did not work out and hopes that she will fare better with her new company.

http://news.mail.ru/inregions/moscow/90/culture/15630807/

What could they sue her for?

What could they prove?

What evidence do they have that what she said is untrue?

What damage did they suffer?

Does Filin preserve rights for himself or the Bolshoi?

How would he not "preserve" rights, anyway? He could always sue her, regardless.

1. So who pocketed the 1/3?

There's no evidence that anyone "pocketed" the 1/3, aside from the usual and final destination for withholding taxes, the government.

Where the unofficial tours are concerned, she says she was told her participation would help her down the line. Her suspicions about not being paid what she was owed stem from the fact that a third of her Bolshoi pay was deducted as income tax despite the fact that the Russian equivalent of a Social Security Number was never issued to her.

As for being an American, Womack seems to think that it had a great deal to do with the way she was treated. The article puts it this way, though it doesn't quote her directly: "Oh, she's an American; she must have money. Why doesn't she pay, or why doesn't she find herself a sponsor?" She didn't say that $10,000 was demanded of every dancer. Perhaps there is a sliding scale of corruption within the company.

1. So who pocketed the 1/3?

2. Yes, all Americans are rich, just like all Jews are rich and crooked, and all lawyers, too.

3. Wasn't she offered a job elsewhere and lured to the Bolshoi? I wonder what she was told at that point.

(Oh - I meant the MT2. Someone called it Costco bc it resembles the square-box form of Costco...)

You were not referring to the Bolshoi reno, too?

Lord, at this point, I suppose sky is the limit. I want to say, "it would depend on the legal situation" but apparently nothing is based on that here anymore. In the article they note that the audit also involves "educational" processes. How can the Ministry of Culture audit the way a 275 year old ballet academy teaches its own students, I'd like to know?

Financial audits are obviously more black-and-white. If they find missing funds, yes, I'm sure someone will be charged. Then the irony is why aren't people responsible for building billion dollar Costco theatres also being audited? ahem. We'd have a quick list of jail applicants in that case...

The fact that none of the rectors were given employment contracts however, is a reflection on the MINISTRY and not on the administration of the Academy. So I honestly do not know what they plan to "find" in this audit.

Between that and the "idea to unify" the schools, I....have no more words.

1. How does a lack of employment contract lead to the conclusion that one may not find anything in a financial audit? Even if a contract were determinative of a specific issue related to employment, a range of issues would still be subject to audit related to the contract, and a larger range of issues would be subject to audit unrelated to the contract, unless the audit were limited in scope.

2. Financial audits are not necessarily black and white. Accountants make projections and assumptions that are subjective. Methods of accounting are also subject to the accountant's judgment, within a range of standards.

3. If AA ran the educational docket and DV ran the budget, then why would AA have to run away, Birdsall? Also, what about DV?

4. Why the pressing agenda to unify the schools and the theatres? Is it for greater access to larger budgets and greater power over more supplicants? Or to standardize outputs? Or both?

5. Why do London, NY, and other orchestras need Gergiev?

6. Is the word audit used in a nonfinancial setting in Russia, to mean an internal investigation of other behaviors?

We got a glimpse of the dysfunctional Russian court system during the Pussy Riot Trial last year. Here's a Russian columnist from the NY Times describing the shameful system (and there is extensive documentation elsewhere of the Russian court system). I can't imagine it's gotten any better in the last year:

http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/theshame-of-putins-courts/

Regarding the condition of and treatment in the penal system, see the open letter regarding the Pussy Riot hunger strike.

I assume the laws about hearsay, personal knowledge, and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses are different there.

Nat, the picture on the website seen at the link above looks very similar to the one in the recent NYCB Koch program, doesn't it?

What theater is the earlier episodes filmed in? The Koch does not have green seats.

I read "Emergence" and then "Ender's Game" in succession a few weeks ago. I would love to see the ballet with those books fresh in my mind. Too bad.

Did anyone who saw the ballet read "Emergence" and can one comment on the relationship?

"Emergence", while in many ways enlightening, contains some intellectual dishonesty and inaccurate conclusions, which are not logically based, but rather seem a failed, insulting attempt at marketing and persuasion. The author starts by stating that one must saturate an initial market with a monopoly to succeed, but then argues that (everyone else?) must have no secrets or privacy (including, I guess, economic secrets with which to enter and conquer the market to be monopolized) with the always powerful argument of "get over it". Because of bee and ant colonies and their architecture.

I assume the ballet did not contain the same message.

Apologies, I confused "Emergence" with "Breakpoint". Both seem to deal with insects and colonies and relationships.

Was the recent ballet similar in any way to "Metamorphoses"?

Is that the NYCB on the Ashton promo on the Sarasota website? The ABT Spring brochure contains a central photo of the Joffrey performing Ashton. How strange.

I read "Emergence" and then "Ender's Game" in succession a few weeks ago. I would love to see the ballet with those books fresh in my mind. Too bad.

Did anyone who saw the ballet read "Emergence" and can one comment on the relationship?

"Emergence", while in many ways enlightening, contains some intellectual dishonesty and inaccurate conclusions, which are not logically based, but rather seem a failed, insulting attempt at marketing and persuasion. The author starts by stating that one must saturate an initial market with a monopoly to succeed, but then argues that (everyone else?) must have no secrets or privacy (including, I guess, economic secrets with which to enter and conquer the market to be monopolized) with the always powerful argument of "get over it". Because of bee and ant colonies and their architecture.

I assume the ballet did not contain the same message.

I know Jared has a lot of enthusiastic fans who always praise him, and he is praiseworthy, but he often gets solo spinning parts, which are central to his section of the dance, and I think he is not the best spinner. The Spring brochure shows him as "Puck", and I can't imagine him in that role. (Besides, I really want to see Herman in that role).

I agree with comments regarding how good Gabe Stone Shayer, Jose Sebastian, and Tom Forster were in "Clear." I was surprised by Forster, since I really did not think he had any presence in the rehearsal for "Sylphides".

I think that it's a bit harsh to make firm or hard judgements on a dancers performance which are based soley on the rehearsal. Rehearsals are for the benefit of the dancers not the audience.

What you say is correct. However, I didn't make a firm or hard judgment; I merely reported my observations and thoughts. I also commented because I thought the nature of the choreography might contribute to the issue.

More curious, then, is Gergiev's role heading the orchestras of other major cities internationally. What does that say about Putin or Russia?

Tamicute, your statement about taking out rival garbage collectors for political favors and getting a piece of the pie is even more telling than the other words you have used to explain Gergiev's treatment of the ballet, and the absence of input by the ballet in designing the new buildings.

It is also possible that he was so happy to be alive right after the attack that he said this after being visited by a priest and realizing that he'd survive.

going after the wrong part of the stereotype.

The right part of the stereotype is??