Hollywood Law Firm Embroiled In Jamaican Extradition Controversy - Part 2

This is a continuation of the March 22. 2010 article Hollywood Law Firm Embroiled In Jamaican Extradition Controversy, regarding the dubious law firm Manatt, Phelps and Phillips and their questionable involvement in an extradition request between Jamaica and the United States, for alleged drug dealer Christopher Michael Coke.

Two days after the article ran on the site, it was announced the FBI is investigating Manatt, Phelphs and Phillips in the matter. The Judiciary Report raised the conflict of interest issue surrounding the case in the aforementioned article, as over a dozen high profile Manatt, Phelps and Phillips clients in Hollywood, have actively and irrationally tried to destroy Jamaica, via publicized boycotts and sponsored defamation, over the lyrics of a few dancehall rappers that represent themselves, not the Caribbean island.

It was vile and unbalanced for members of the so-called "gay mafia" and their associates in Hollywood to seek to destroy an entire nation over a dozen dancehall entertainers. It was equally inappropriate for Manatt, Phelps and Phillips to officially wade into the extradition case, knowing who is lingering under their preexisting client list. Their conduct constitutes code of ethics violations.

Under American Bar Association protocols and rules of professional conduct, the law firm should have disclosed the massive conflict of interest, before talking $50,000 - $100,000 in Jamaican taxpayer money, in their bid at being the country's legal representation.

Lawyers are supposed to do conflict of interest searches from the outset and Manatt, Phelps and Phillips clearly did not disclose their Hollywood based, anti-Jamaican client list, before they offered their services and accepted the money.

The Judiciary Report is of the belief, it was a deliberate act of egregious misrepresentation. A firm of that size does not make such mistakes and oversights and the Hollywood orchestrated "Boycott Jamaica" campaign that failed, was publicized and pushed by parties in Hollywood, known to the law firm as clients.

It was Manatt, Phelps and Phillips' legal duty as a law firm to disclose the conflict of interest. The sad fact of the matter is Manatt, Phelps and Phillips got involved in the case on both ends, which is grossly unprofessional and inappropriate according to the dictates of the American Bar Association.

It was a deceitful attempt to directly get involved in the national and international politics of a sovereign foreign nation, some of the firm's other prominent clients tried to financially damage, destroy and defame. It's also quite telling that the firm clammed up and refused to comment on the story this week, when asked by the press.

Once again, Hollywood trying to get into areas they have no business being - the official politics of a nation. I dare Manatt to disclose its Hollywood anti-Jamaican client list by name.

Eric Holder

What the Judiciary Report also dislikes in this case is the fact the extradition evidence does not meet the international legal standard. Extraditions are a useful legal tool, but must meet the respective international rule of law.

Once again, U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, has shown himself to be bumbling, incompetent and hypocritical and embarrassing the Obama administration, not only via his unprepared appearances in the U.S. Congress, but the international community as well.

Jamaica has extradited dozens of criminals to America upon request. Yet, Holder, defamed and slammed the Jamaican government as complicit in drug crime, after his legally deficient argument and illegal wiretap evidence he submitted in the Coke case, qualifies him and FBI Director Mueller for a 5 year stretch in a Jamaican prison, for violating the DOJ/FBI's Congressional mandate, as they criminally broke Jamaican law, to illegally wiretap a foreign citizen in his own nation, without permission.

Then, in the next breath, Holder and Mueller, in tandem with Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, this week declined the Indian government's valid, official extradition request for suspect David Headley, believed to be apart of the terrible terrorist attacks on their nation in November 2008 that left scores of people dead.

The Indian government is displeased with the decision. The Judiciary Report finds Holder's conduct regarding India hypocritical in light of what he has put the Jamaican government through, due to his folly in breaking Jamaican law with illegal wiretaps.

Furthermore, in the legal world, a terrorist is worst than a drug dealer, yet Holder would have the world thinking otherwise. How can you besmirch the Jamaican government's name, via placed pieces on the Associated Press, over an alleged drug dealer, in a case where you failed to meet the requirement of law, while shielding an alleged terrorist accused of killing many innocent people, from the Indian government, who met the requirement of law for an extradition to take place. Maybe Mr. Holder and Mr. Mueller are the ones that are complicit with crime.

RELATED ARTICLE

Hollywood Law Firm Embroiled In Jamaican Extradition Controversy

Model Rules of Professional Conduct

Client-Lawyer Relationship

Rule 1.8 Conflict Of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules

(a) A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless:

(1) the transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing in a manner that can be reasonably understood by the client;

(2) the client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel on the transaction; and

(3) the client gives informed consent, in a writing signed by the client, to the essential terms of the transaction and the lawyer's role in the transaction, including whether the lawyer is representing the client in the transaction.

(b) A lawyer shall not use information relating to representation of a client to the disadvantage of the client unless the client gives informed consent, except as permitted or required by these Rules.

(c) A lawyer shall not solicit any substantial gift from a client, including a testamentary gift, or prepare on behalf of a client an instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer any substantial gift unless the lawyer or other recipient of the gift is related to the client. For purposes of this paragraph, related persons include a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent or other relative or individual with whom the lawyer or the client maintains a close, familial relationship.

(d) Prior to the conclusion of representation of a client, a lawyer shall not make or negotiate an agreement giving the lawyer literary or media rights to a portrayal or account based in substantial part on information relating to the representation...

http://www.abanet.org

FBI watching US law firm deal

Wednesday, 24 March 2010 - The Bruce Golding led administration is yet to comment on reports that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has taken an interest in the controversial contract involving the US law firm Manatt, Phelps and Phillips and Harold Brady.

RJR news has been reporting that the FBI is eyeing the case. However, it is not known what triggered the query. Mr. Brady who crafted the arrangement with Manatt, Phelps and Phillips has refused to disclose whether payments have been made to the law firm.

He cited client confidentiality for not disclosing any information about payments to the American firm. However, RJR News has obtained a copy of the latest filings with the Department of Justice which indicate that almost US$50,000 has been paid to Manatt by Mr. Brady's firm.

In the filings, representatives of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips met on three occasions in October and November with State Department officials to discuss treaty issues.

http://www.radiojamaica.com

U.S. Decision Not to Extradite Confessed Mumbai Terror Suspect Angers India

Thursday, March 25, 2010 - (CNSNews.com) – India plans to challenge a U.S. plea bargain agreement barring the extradition of a Pakistan-born U.S. national who admitted playing a key role in planning the deadly November 2008 terror assault in Mumbai.

The simmering disagreement comes amid concern in New Delhi that the Obama administration’s warming ties with neighboring Pakistan will leave unaddressed India’s primary concern – Islamabad’s suspected involvement in anti-India terror...

Yet not only have Indian investigators not been given access to Headley for questioning in the U.S., but a plea agreement reached last week seems to rule out his extradition to India to face trial...

http://www.cnsnews.com

Hollywood Law Firm Embroiled In Jamaican Extradition Controversy

Eric Holder (left) President Obama (right)

There is controversy today, regarding the American law firm, Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, having lobbied the Obama administration, to gain the extradition of alleged local drug dealer, Christopher Michael Coke.

Mr. Harold Brady of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, also allegedly approached the incumbent Jamaican Prime Minister, to be the legal representation of the island of Jamaica.

That would constitute a massive conflict of interest, due to who Manatt, Phelps and Phillips' other clients in Hollywood are and what they have been doing regarding Jamaica.

Manatt, Phelps and Phillips represent the Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers, Warner Bros and Sony studios and record labels, American Idol and Madonna to name a few (Robert Jacobs of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips in New York). http://www.manatt.com/Entertainment.aspx. There are more suitable U.S. firms in operation.

The Coke extradition has hit an extraordinary snag, as it has been revealed, the evidence the U.S. Department of Justice submitted in attempting to gain Coke's removal from the island, consists of items that violated Jamaican wiretap laws and in turn, Mr. Coke's rights under Jamaican statutes and the Jamaican Constitution, which was born from the British Constitution (Queen Elizabeth is still Jamaica's monarch, as it is a former British colony).

One of the oddities of this case is the fact the law firm Manatt, Phelps and Phillips represents many Hollywood clients that are apart of the "boycott Jamaica" campaign tinsel town initiated a year ago, through a member of the U.S. Congress and separately racist, n-word using gay blogger, Perez Hilton, due to certain dancehall artists' anti-gay lyrics.

Manatt, Phelps and Phillips represent Hollywood stars that have irrationally slammed the entire nation of Jamaica, for the deeds of a few anti-gay rappers. Manatt, Phelps and Phillips have also represented members of Hollywood's "gay mafia" as they are called.

Manatt, Phelps and Phillips does not mean Jamaica well in any measure, nor does some of its clients in Hollywood that tried to destroy the island nation last year with an international boycott they called for that failed.

Eric Holder (courtesy of the New York Times)

Where most sane people call for boycotts of products or companies, nasty Hollywood called for a boycott of an entire nation of men, women, children and babies, because they disliked the free speech lyrics of a few people that do not even constitute 1% of the island nation's population. That is the definition of ignorance.

Manatt, Phelps and Phillips knew of Coke from stories about "The Shower Posse" drug ring and sought to cause trouble in Jamaica with the extradition they lobbied for.

It is the rule, not the exception, that the U.S. Department of Justice must meet the rule of law that exists in other nations and vice versa, when requesting extraditions. Going to the Jamaican government with illegally wiretapped evidence is unlawful and inadmissible in court. That's the rule of law in many nations.

If I were in government in Jamaica and suspected a U.S. citizen located in New York, for example, of committing crimes in America that touched Jamaican shores, violating laws on the island as well, I could not legally engage the Jamaica Constabulary (Police) Force to bypass the U.S. government and wiretap said suspect in New York, from all the way in Jamaica without warrant or permission from the host nation, then march into the U.S. State Department demanding they extradite the person with the illegally obtained wiretap evidence.

Another example, if I were in government in America and suspected a British citizen of engaging in crimes in London that touched American shores, I could not legally engage the FBI to bypass the British government and wiretap said suspect in London, from all the way in America, without warrant or permission, then march into the British Foreign Secretary's office, demanding they extradite the person, using the illegally obtained wiretap evidence.

Therefore, why is Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder and the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, submitting evidence for an extradition that was obtained via illegal wiretaps that violate Jamaican law. Why are you putting the Jamaican government in that position, Mr. Holder.

Americans don't even like it when you violate the Constitution and illegally wiretap U.S. citizens. Why would you think Jamaicans in Jamaica would welcome that invasiveness and massive overreach of your authority. Your congressional mandate is confined to U.S. Shores. Why have you done this.

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller is consistently in trouble in the U.S. Congress for illegally wiretapping people in America

Now, you are asking the Jamaican government to extradite a man on illegally obtained evidence, who community activists are openly stating in the press, will not go without a gunfight, where innocent Jamaicans could get killed in the crossfire.

What that says to the world is, as long as you and your kids are safe, Mr. Holder, you clearly could care less about any Jamaican grandparents, parents and kids in Tivoli Gardens (Jamaica) that could die.

Once again, the Judiciary Report is for law and order, but does not respect the way this was done. Typically in drug cases, they nab one guy and get him to sing on the others. That evidence is then used in tandem with additional items, to gain a proper, lawful extradition. That is the accepted international legal standard. Jamaica has extradited dozens of people to America in this manner.

However, Obama's Department of Justice, headed up by Eric Holder, is testing the waters in Jamaica, to set an international legal precedent for illegally wiretapping foreigners in their own nations, in violation of foreign law and using it in U.S. courts to gain convictions. Today, it is Jamaica, tomorrow it could be Britain, Spain, France, Canada or any of the other islands in the Caribbean.

Furthermore, it is a felony to wiretap someone on Jamaican shores without a proper warrant from the Attorney General and Jamaican Police. It is a criminal offense punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

Manatt, Phelps and Phillips is the law firm that willfully and knowingly submitted falsified evidence and committed perjury in court, in acting on behalf of Madonna and co, to steal preexisting copyrights registered to me in the Library of Congress, years before she stole them.

Copyrights whose proceeds were meant to go towards producing cures to AIDS and cancer, but instead went to lining the pockets of stars criminally breaking U.S. and U.N. law.

That decision almost cost me my life, as described here, because after the corrupt ruling went through in 2005, sicko Madonna cast off all restraint and sent members of the Miami Kabbalah center to threaten, harass and assault me in documented incidents, believing there would be no consequences for her crimes.

With the horrible ill-will and unprovoked hatred Manatt, Phelps and Phillips' famous clients have shown Jamaicans, in trying to destroy the entire island nation over the anti-gay music of a few, not to mention abusing an innocent Jamaican family, what business do they have petitioning the Jamaican government to be their legal representation, collecting Jamaican taxpayer dollars, unless it is a Hollywood trojan horse, seeking to surreptitiously damage Jamaica from the inside.

Why have you misrepresented yourselves and gone out to Jamaica, reportedly taken Jamaican taxpayer money, knowing full well your famous clients have been actively acting against the island nation, in bids at destroying it.

Was money paid to lobby the US for 'Dudus'?

Published: Sunday | March 21, 2010 - Red-hot controversy continues to swirl around the Government over the deal involving top-flight American law firm Manatt, Phelps and Phillips.

The troubling arrangement, which attracted a hefty US$100,000- (approximately J$8.9 million) per-quarter fee, kicked off last October.

The firm then filed documents on the United States Department of Justice website claiming that it represented the Government of Jamaica.

"We will be speaking with members of the (US) executive branch to provide information on issues regarding existing political and economic matters, including existing treaty agreements between Jamaica and the US," the firm stated in its documentation.

And even as the controversy deepens, more questions are being asked about who paid the bill charged by the American firm.

"The questions still remain to be answered as to what money was paid, by whom was it paid, what services were rendered, and whether the resources of the taxpayers were used to engage this firm, and I add, if not the taxpayers' whose resources?" declared Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller.

"This new development, which has been linked to the already complicated, sensitive, controversial and contentious extradition impasse between Jamaica and the United States of America will only serve to further jeopardise Jamaica's standing and reputation and diminish its credibility within the community of nations," Simpson Miller added.

So far, the Bruce Golding administration has rejected all allegations of wrongdoing, as well as the insinuation that the firm was contracted to deal with the impasse surrounding the extradition request for Christopher 'Dudus' Coke.

Instead, the administration is pointing the finger at attorney-at-law Harold Brady, who continues to argue that reports that he contracted the company to work for the Government are all a mistake, which has been corrected by the firm.

But there is no correction on the Department of Justice website, and up to Friday, officials at that office were still reporting that the firm was dealing with political and economic matters, including treaty arrangements, for Jamaica.

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com

‘I didn’t know it was Dudus’ phone'

...In the dispute, Jamaica accuses the US of breaching the Interception of Communications Act 2002 (ICA) which governs wire-tapping in Jamaica.

Jamaica insists that there is a general Constitutional right of freedom of expression in Jamaica, including the right of freedom from interference to receive and impart ideas, as well as freedom from interference with one's correspondence and other means of communication.

Moreover, Jamaica argues, because the ICA is an intrusion on a citizen's Constitutional right to freedom of expression, its provisions have to be scrupulously observed and followed.

No order was ever made authorising the disclosure of information to a foreign government, agents of a foreign government or an agency of a foreign government, says Jamaica.

The Act provides that any person who intercepts communication in unauthorised circumstances commits a criminal offence and is liable to imprisonment for a period of three years or a fine not exceeding $3 million or both; and that any person who knowingly discloses the contents of any communication commits a criminal offence and is liable to imprisonment for a period of five years or a fine of $5 million or both.

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com