Who Does The Law Serve?

When my book
(with Lawrence Stratton),

The Tyranny of Good Intentions, was published,

progressives and the left wing refused to believe that
the rich suffer frame-ups from prosecutorial abuse. 
Their response was that law is controlled by the rich
and functions in their service.  Only the poor and
minorities suffer at the hands of the law.

The political
left knew that

Michael Milken
was guilty, because the rich
"junk bond king"
financed takeovers of corporations that threw workers
out of jobs.  Leftists accepted the

Justice (sic) Department`s
fanciful claim that the
Exxon Valdez oil spill was a

criminal act,
not an accident for which civil
damages were the remedy.

Leona Helmsley
was guilty, because she was a rich
bitch. So was
Martha
Stewart. 
The left wing was firm:  all rich
white people in prison are guilty, and the only reason
they are in prison is that they are so obviously guilty
that the system couldn`t let them off. In other words,
they were so audacious in their crimes that the crimes
couldn`t be covered up.

The same
mentality now dominates discussions of the

Dominique Strauss-Kahn
case.

Strauss-Kahn,
who was at the time of his highly-publicized arrest the
head of the

International Monetary Fund
and the expected winner
of the next French presidential election, was arrested
on sexual abuse and attempted rape charges on the word
of an immigrant hotel maid in New York.  

Whereas the
police are required to respond to charges by questioning
the accused, they are not supposed to make a public
spectacle of him in order to create the impression that
he is guilty before he is even charged.  Yet DSK
was arrested aboard an airliner as it was about to
depart for France and portrayed by the police as a
fleeing criminal. Photos were released of him in
handcuffs and stripped of his business attire.

The judge
refused bail to one of the West`s most high profile
persons on the basis of the prosecutor`s statement that
DSK would flee the country and hide out abroad. 
All of this quickly was passed to reporters, who obliged
the prosecutors and police by portraying DSK as
obviously guilty, as he was apprehended fleeing from the
country. 

The police even
planted the story that DSK was in such a hurry to flee
that he left behind his cell phone and that that is how
they found him. This was a bald-faced lie. The fact of
the matter is that when DSK arrived at the airport, he
discovered that he had left his cell phone and called
the hotel, the scene of the alleged crime, to ask that
it be retrieved and brought to him at the airport. When
the police boarded his flight, he asked them,
"Did you bring my
cell phone?"
  He had no idea the police were
there to detain him for questioning.

DSK`s treatment
raises serious problems for the leftist myth that law
serves the interests of the rich and powerful.  If
law was the preserve of the rich and powerful, DSK would
never have been taken off a departing airliner and made
a public spectacle on the basis of an immigrant hotel
maid`s accusation. The airliner would have been allowed
to depart and the case would not have been pursued. If
the maid`s story was ever reported, the police would
have dismissed it as the story of a hysterical person or
a person out for money. In the unlikely case that the
police were pressed by reporters, the police would say
that DSK had left the country before they could find him
and that they were arranging to question him in France. 
In the very least, DSK`s detention would have been very
discreet, and he would have been given the benefit of
"innocent until proven guilty" and granted bail.  

Clearly, in
DSK`s case, the law is not serving the rich and
powerful. Moreover, there are powerful biases against
him.  Feminists
"know" that
DSK is guilty, because
"all men are
sexual predators."
Progressives and leftists
"know" that
DSK is guilty, because
"as a person of
wealth and power, he is used to getting away with
everything."
 

When it became
known that the police had
"found" DSK
only because the alleged fleeing suspect telephoned the
hotel and asked for his cell phone, leftists did not
wonder why the police had painted DSK guilty with a
false story.  Instead, they explained the alleged
criminal`s revelation of his whereabouts on the basis of
their myth that as one of the rich and powerful, he
expected to be able to rape women at will with nothing
ever done about it.  Soon the story was that
attempted rape was ordinary behavior on DSK`s part. 
But leftists did not explain why this time the law
failed to protect him from a hotel maid when it had
protected him from higher-placed women.  

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
dishevelled 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. [Dershowitz
Promotes Settlement for Strauss-Kahn as Hotel
Housekeeper Lawyers Up
, By Pam Martens,
CounterPunch, June 20, 2011]

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 whom?  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.


Paul Craig Roberts

[email
him
]
was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during
President Reagan`s first term.  He was Associate
Editor of the
Wall Street Journal.  He has
held numerous academic appointments, including the
William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and
International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior
Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford
University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French
President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of




Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider`s Account of
Policymaking in Washington
;
 
Alienation
and the Soviet Economy

and



Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy
,
and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of




The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and
Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name
of Justice
. Click




here

for Peter Brimelow`s
Forbes Magazine
interview with Roberts about the epidemic of
prosecutorial misconduct.