Mark Seidenfeld
Help Mark Seidenfeld and Boycott Ducat is a blog dedicated to reporting on the Seidenfeld case, apparently run by his attorney, Derek Bloom. If you want to read up on the case, or express your sympathies, this seems to be the place to go. I am not a lawyer and know little about big business so I am hesitant to give my opinion as if it was authoritative–once we get into takeovers and share prices, I am barely treading water. As an American working here (not in big business), I have never encountered any kind of problems. However, the evidence that Seidenfeld is innocent does seem pretty secure, namely that the money he is accused of stealing has been audited by Price, Waterhouse and Cooper, and in fact was used for what Seidenfeld said it was. In other words, the money isn’t missing, so how could he have stolen it?
In any case, no matter what side you are in, it’s worth reading about it and Help Mark Seidenfeld and Boycott Ducat, while biased in Seidenfeld’s favor has links to all the resources you need to read up on it and form your own opinion.
RSS 2.0
The record should reflect that, due to an unhappy marriage, Mark and Dvorah Seidenfeld were divorced two years ago under the laws of the State of Nevada. I am informed by persons close to Mark’s family that he pays Dvorah $4,300 a month. I am also informed that, by Jewish law, they are still married and this is solely because she refuses to accept the divorce papers in Israel from the US state which granted the divorce. Over five years ago, Mark signed an irrevocable power of attorney to the Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem appointing that court at any time to serve his former spouse with the papers that have formalized their divorce, which she refuses to accept. The statements made on this site have, of course, nothing to do with the lack of merit of the false criminal accusations brought against Mark Seidenfeld in Kazakhstan and this “debate” about their divorce might best be removed from this public forum. Derek Bloom
Comment by Derek Bloom — 11 May 2007 @ 9:24 pm
First, I would like to thank KZ blog for picking up this story from my blog and making it further available. Second, I want to note that I received an anonymous note regarding my post that was full of character assassination along these lines. When I requested documentary information to verify claims, (e.g., newspaper documentation or any source of any kind) I never heard back.
Third, I also think that combining these cases is against the rules of a fair trial. The case against Mark Seidenfeld in Kazakhstan is not related to any family law issue, but to a commercial issue. The evidence so far presented has exonerated Mr. Seidenfeld, and the rationale for extradition has been found wrong. Therefore, Mr. Seidenfeld should be released.
Comment by Bonnie Boyd — 12 May 2007 @ 5:01 am
Wow that was an intense 7 minutes of activity there.
Any chance we can keep these comments on topic - this post, as previously stated, is regarding the current (il)legal situation for Mark, not the background to his civil cases and personal life.
By the sound of it, you’ve all had experience polluting other blogs or forums already with your personal vendettas, so please stick to the original post in your comments, the blogger here has been very generous so far in allowing your comments to be published - don’t push your luck.
PS I’m not taking sides on the personal matters here, I just don’t think these comments are going to get anybody any further in a reconciliation, they are simply be (ab)used for personal insults.
Comment by Chris Merriman — 12 May 2007 @ 2:05 pm
After some thought, I deleted the comments that I felt were primarily aimed at either attacking Mr. Seidenfeld’s character or the character of other commenters. There were also some suspicious comments made from the same IP address within minutes of each other, a bit odd. I closed comments to this post.
I put this post up because: 1) I wanted to draw attention to a web resource with lots of primary information on this case and thus one that I thought would be of interest to people who wanted reliable information; 2) I thought this case had implications for the development of Kazakhstan touching on potential charges of corruption, cronyism, and because it may impact the mood of international investors. Mr. Seidenfeld’s character is not relevant to either of these aims and also I have absolutely no way of verifying any of these facts, or that these commenters are who they say they are.
Bonnie and Chris; thanks for making basically the points I would have made. And Bonnie, you have a great site (click on her name here to check it out–real link coming soon), although I have been aware of this case for a while now!
Keep reading, keep commenting everyone as long as it’s relevant and nice!
Comment by KZBlog — 12 May 2007 @ 5:10 pm