US Court Rules Yulia Tymoshenko's Claims Lack Credibility, Not Founded on Facts

NEW YORK, March 29, 2013 /PRNewswire/ --

Earlier this week, US District Court Judge Kimba Wood dismissed a case in the US initiated by Yulia Tymoshenko with a strong opinion that cited a clear lack of facts to support her claims. In the case, Tymoshenko stated that she was arbitrarily detained and politically persecuted. In addition, she claimed that her persecution was orchestrated by the Yanukovich Administration and funded by Dimitry Firtash.  All of her claims lacked credibility and were dismissed by the Judge.

Tymoshenko's attempt to address her grievances in US courts was a poor choice and the Judge cited her claims as weak and not based on facts or US law. Judge Wood ruled that US Courts should not be used by foreign parties for their own personal purposes and noted that Tymoshenko's attempt to use the court for a public relations stunt meant to bring international pressure on Ukrainian politicians, and her own political purposes was not credible.

In the complaint, Tymoshenko attempted to argue that she was "arbitrarily detained" by the Yanukovich Administration as a result of being sentenced for wreaking havoc on Ukraine's economy by signing malicious gas contracts with Russia.  Her actions resulted in Ukraine paying the highest price for gas in Europe, and destroyed its economy.  

Tymoshenko's claim about being arbitrarily detained had no credibility according to Judge Wood.  In fact, the Judge was very clear that Tymoshenko was aware of her alleged crimes when charged, she was indicted, went through a trial process, had legal representation, and was tried according to the laws in Ukraine. The Judge stated that Tymoshenko's  detention was "not arbitrary detention, but rather a detention (with a legal process)" which Tymoshenko deemed unjustified.

More importantly, the Judge concluded that given the facts of Tymoshenko's trial, "no international norms" were violated in her claim of arbitrary detention, and that the US courts were not the place Tymoshenko should be using for redress of her problems. Tymoshenko had earlier attempted to bring other cases before the US courts - all of which were dismissed for lacking credibility.  

Finally, the Judge determined that in almost no conceivable situation based on the facts as presented by Tymoshenko would US defendants be deemed as engaged in any action that would allow Tymoshenko to have legal redress in the US Court systems.

The ruling by Judge Wood makes it clear that Tymoshenko presented very weak and unsubstantiated claims. Challenging the Judge's decision would present multiple complications for Tymoshenko. The US ruling was a clear indication that Tymoshenko had failed in every aspect of her case.