The post went viral.
The backlash came, of course - not against the judge, but against an attorney.
You would think it is happening in America - as it usually does.
But no, it is happening in Russia.
Yet, same as in America, of course, the attorney is wrong and the judge is right.
And, of course, the judge submitted contracts for services at the wedding reception that did not amount to even close to what a reception with live performance by top pop-stars could cost, and the public is supposed to believe that bullshit, because the investigators did.
And, of course, those singers who were filmed (and the video posted) performing at the wedding, performed there for free, or for a song.
And, of course, since attorney Zhorin specializes on representing stars of Russian show business, and since his information may have come from sources with first-hand information, the pop stars who performed (or were underpaid, or were not invited) to the reception, his post should be considered totally unbelievable.
And, of course, when Zhorin claimed he made his exposing publications based on a reliable source, that should be totally disregarded.
Now, in a classic spinoff of what usually happens to American lawyers exposing a judge for what appears to be evidence of corruption, the heat is not on the judge - who claimed that it was her ex-husband businessman who paid for the wedding, 1 mln roubles, which is an equivalent roughly of $17,000, and not $2 mln, which was attorney Zhorin's assessment, based on the video, the caliber of performers at the wedding, his knowledge of such pop stars' usual fees, and a tip from a reliable source.
Of course, it is clear that such a star as Nikolay Baskov will not look in the direction of the Krasnodar region (where the wedding was held) for the claimed amount covering the entire wedding, yet he was filmed making speeches at the wedding while embraced with the judge:
Of course, it is possible that Nikolay Baskov is merely a personal friend of the judge who flew from Moscow to the provincial Krasnodar region to perform at her wedding for free, as friends do.
Same as the other pop stars:
Vera Brezhneva and
Joseph Kobson - who, by the way, was, reportedly, repeatedly denied US visas since 1994.
Of course, one of the unnamed guests at the wedding denied participation of these stars, and denied that Nikolay Baskov was acting as host at the wedding - so, what you see in the video of the wedding and the screenshot about is just a collective visual illusion to be disregarded.
And, of course, Joseph Kobzon, when asked about his participation in the wedding, preferred to feint indignation about the "invasion of privacy" on behalf of the judge, while the local press published, and quickly deleted an article about the judge's wedding.
And, of course, the judge and her guests were not served caviar or crabs at the wedding, as the unnamed guests assures.
And, of course, the cost of a wedding involving live performances of top Russian pop stars was assessed not just by attorney Zhorin, but by experts of such fees, judging by the video of the wedding that surfaced on the Internet, and is still available on YouTube.
So, who is to blame for the scandal and backlash in social media that ensued?
Of course, attorney Zhorin, who "fouled his own nest" by exposing the wedding that had to cost, by conservative assessment, about 2 mln DOLLARS, while the judge's income by the tax declaration for the last year was around 2 mln ROUBLES (around $34,000).
How could he ... do what?
Post the video in his Instagram account?
Say that it is a feast in time of plague?
Say the truth?
How could he?
And, of course, the court where this "royal judge" sits, was known for a story where a large brick multi-story building was captured under the guise of a "legitimate transaction" where the unwilling seller ended up in jail "for fraud", and the very willing buyers sued claiming that the 10 000 roubles ($166) that they have transferred to the bank account of the unwilling seller constituted just and proper consideration for the building.
And, of course, the public would have a reason to worry about such a lavish wedding of a judge's daughter if a judge:
- sits on a court handling land issues;
- sits on a court handling land issues in Krasnodar region;
- sits on a court handling land issues in Krasnodar region where Sochi is located (remember the Sochi Olympics?);
- sits on a court handling land issues in Krasnodar region while it was reported that land was unfairly expropriated, through the court system including, so that the right land lands in the hands of the "right people" who would benefit from the Olympics, and from the tourist industry afterwards.
- engage in multiple ex parte "consultations" with unknown persons during hearings;
- put parole evidence from plaintiff Khakhalev (the "former" husband of Judge Khakhaleva) over properly drawn and registered title documents.
For some reason, attorney Zhorin thought that he is powerful enough to not be afraid to poke the dragon in the eye with a stick and exposed the judge.
- they refuse to set up rules of professional conduct for themselves - like the U.S. Supreme Court does despite encouragements by scholars and despite criticsm in the press;
- they issue rules of their own conduct excluding gifts from attorneys, parties and foreign governments from inappropriate and treasonous behavior for themselves,
- and then gorge on those gifts, which they report only a tiny portion of - imagine having a job like that when you can define your own ethical rules; and - TADA
- they issue court decisions changing the U.S. Constitution in that everybody has to abide by it, but the judges can give themselves immunity from malicious and corrupt acts in violation of the U.S. Constitution and their own oath of office and depriving victims of their unconstitutional behavior of any possibility of a legal remedy. In fact, courts regularly authorize victimizing these victims even further by sanctions and monetary fines for the audacity of asking for such a legal remedy, suing a judge who gave himself the gift of immunity against constitutional violations;
- and, if charges for public corruption are made a little bit too close to home - at the level of governors (and top state legislators, since the case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court just after conviction of BOTH heads of the New York State Legislators for public corruption - of the State House and the State Senate), judges simply change the laws (by illegally legislating from the bench) - and make prosecution for public corruption nearly impossible, which is a great gift to their own precious selves.
- the subtlety of corruption; and
- about the means of quashing the public dissent - through regulating the legal profession, nipping the most knowledgeable and vocal critics of judges in the bud, and depriving the public of independent legal representation