Default judgments are by and large miscarriages of justice whether done by Russia or the United States of America. If the defendant allocates just as much money for the defense of the plaintiff as their own case, then I'd start to give a default judgement some consideration as being legitimate. A lawyer can be assigned who argues the case for the defendant who is of higher competence than usual because they have to make excuses for a defendant who didn't show up in addition to their ordinary duties.
In the USA there was a $1.6 billion default judgement against what seems to be something like a $5 million dollar asset media company because one of their listeners was allegedly cruel to the subjects of one of their stories. The content listener or viewer is alleged to have taken it upon them self to act without any direct instructions from the media company. In spite of all that, a default judgement was issued based on the assumption they were not completing paperwork to the satisfaction of the judge, which is a crystal clear denial of the freedom to remain silent.
An attorney is an officer of the court, under the authority of the judge. Since he is such, when anybody hires an attorney, what he has really done is to contract his case over to the arguments presented by the opposing attorneys, with the judge deciding the whole thing... even if a jury is included.
If an attorney wants to override the authority of the judge, he has to be really smart, or the judge has to be really stupid, so that the attorney can bring a 'fraud upon the court' case, or a 'fraud upon the court by the court' case, against the judge. Most attorneys are afraid to do this because they might lose their license to practice law in the process.
So, the best idea is to stand as a man/woman in court, without an attorney. And to do this, one needs to be really sharp. The attorneys can be hired - if they wish - as co-counsel. In this position they can't speak in court, but they can advise their non-client man/woman by whispering in their ear, or by notes.
In the case of Russia vs. Google, Russia can do it because they have been screwed by the Western banking system. The interesting thing about it is that we don't really know that the amount of the Russian judgment is really more than all the money in the world. The Western banking has been screwing people over for more than 100 years, and nobody knows how much money they have created on their books through this theft.
More than likely, the amount is so high, that the only reason they don't use more of it, is that use of more than a tiny fraction of it would bring their whole system down... as is happening through BRICS using REAL material to back their money, rather than only 'paper' like the West.
