Who Does The Law Serve?

Published on Global Research.ca, by Paul Craig Roberts, June 26, 2011.

… As readers know by now, I have little patience with those who let their emotions determine their analysis.  Let’s look further at this case.  It is a known fact that Sarkozy’s political operatives in France knew of Strauss-Kahn’s arrest before it was announced by the New York police. French, but not American, newspapers have wondered how this could be.

Perhaps the hotel maid thought to call up Sarkozy’s people and tell them.

Note also that the alleged victim has a very high-priced major league lawyer representing her that she not only does not need but also obviously cannot afford to pay. 

It is not up to the maid to prosecute the defendant.  That job is done at public expense by the New York attorney general. The alleged victim has another high-priced lawyer in France whose job is to round up Strauss-Kahn victims among French women with the prospect of sharing in a settlement.

These facts mean one of two things: The “victim” is after money, not justice, and the lawyers are operating on contingency with shares in a settlement between DSK and whatever the collection of women turns out to be.  Alternatively, Strauss-Kahn was set-up, as he predicted that he would be, but there is no evidence other than a disheveled woman performing for the hotel security camera.  Therefore, whoever is behind the set-up sent the fancy lawyer to the maid–certainly the emigrant maid would not have known how to find such a lawyer–with the instructions to drive the case toward settlement.

The public regards large financial settlements as evidence of guilt, and thus a settlement is all that is needed to terminate Strauss-Kahn’s career. The left-wing would scream that money again had defeated justice.  As DSK has already been convicted in the media, he no doubt would welcome a settlement rather than risk a trial by jurors prejudiced by the media.

A settlement, of course, has to be blamed on DSK, not on the maid or her attorneys. This is impossible to do, because if the maid was not after a settlement, she would not have two attorneys driving the case in that direction.  How to pull this rabbit out of the hat?

If CounterPunch’s accounts are correct, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has stepped up to frame the story. If a crime actually occurred, a settlement between the two sides’ lawyers would be obstruction of justice, itself a crime, and the lawyers know it.  But the maid’s attorneys know that the big money belongs to DSK’s wife, not to DSK.

This rules out the maid getting much out of a civil suit for damages following a felony conviction of DSK.  To get a settlement, the maid needs to get money from DSK’s wife by agreeing not to testify, thus collapsing a trial. The path to a settlement, Dershowitz, says, is for DSK’s lawyers not to negotiate with the maid or the maid’s lawyers, but with the maid’s family as long as it is done outside of New York and her home country of Guinea.

Notice that in Dershowitz’s explanation, it is DSK who initiates the settlement talks. Dershowitz says that the maid’s lawyer “may want to see justice done, but ultimately, money is more important.” If justice were the goal, the maid would not need a lawyer.

So who is using the law against who?  In the event of a settlement, the left-wing will say that DSK or his rich wife bought his way out of a crime.  They will not consider the possibility that the law served an immigrant maid who bilked a wife out of millions of dollars and destroyed the reputation of a member of the establishment who was in the way of those more powerful than he.

The only way the left-wing’s myth about law being the servant of the rich can be saved is by seeing the case as a set-up of DSK by someone who is richer and more powerful than he is. This someone could be the current president of France and the financial and political forces behind him, which includes the US government for which Sarkozy has been a reliable puppet. (full text).

Comments are closed.