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

More From Michael Jackson's Bodyguards

In part two of an exclusive interview with Good Morning America, the three bodyguards of the late singer, Michael Jackson, spoke of their boss as a kind man, who was always being sued, which placed him in great debt.

They told of long hours at attorneys offices, regarding lawsuits, some undoubtedly frivolously, that drained his finances to the point his credit cards were rejected at hotels, with management asking them to leave the premises.

For someone whose music and image generated a billion dollars during his lifetime, that ought not to have happened. However, Jackson suffered from financial mismanagement, exploitative music industry executives ripping him off and his own expensive tastes putting a crimp in his finances.

Michael Jackson

The bodyguards also spoke of an incident where his brother, Randy, crashed through the gate of Michael's home, as he would not see him. His family members were supposed to have appointments to meet with him.

The trio wished Jackson's kids well and stated they are proud of them. One has to wonder how they will adjust to the tragedy that occurred when he died, the media circus surrounding it and the long term impact it will have on them. Hopefully, they will avoid the pitfalls of Hollywood that destroyed their dad's life.

Hollywood is not a good place. For someone to have had the kind of career Jackson did, generating significant income and accolades, only to spend his days as a recluse in financial straits, so emotionally hounded and destroyed, he turned to pharmaceutical drugs for solace, says Hollywood is a sick place. They drove him to such despair.

Michael Jackson and Randy Jackson

But that's the problem with Hollywood. They are animals and savages. Once you have any talent, as Jackson did, the vultures come out. Once you earn any assets they deem exploitable, they will threaten, abuse, smear and even try to have you killed to get control and fraudulent, false ownership of it. They are crooks, thieves, pariahs, leeches and murderers.

The bodyguards referred to Jackson's doctor that overdosed him as a "scapegoat." As stated on this site previously, a bigger conspiracy was afoot and it had everything to do with that Beatles/Sony music publishing catalog that Sony wants full control over, but Jackson refused to sell.

And don't think certain individuals in Hollywood are above interfering in someone's medical care to gain disastrous results, via medically damaging the person. It's been done to others in Hollywood, in violation of U.S. law. There was an incident where they wanted the talent pliable and obedient, as said person's assets are worth a fortune and they interfered in the person's medical treatment, bribing the doctor to prescribe the wrong type of medicine for the person's ailment. Rather than relieving pain, the goal was sedating the person to the point, the subject was open to suggestion, allowing others to take control of their assets to steal from the person.

In another case, they wanted a star deemed mentally incompetent, to take control of the person's estate. Said person was prescribed controversial pills with a known side effect of paranoid delusions, for a basic ailment. When the person started acting crazy, due to the medication, others took control and helped themselves to money and other assets they were not entitled to in any measure. Those are just two of quite a few cases.

Michael Jackson: Inside His Finances and Family

March 10, 2010 - Bodyguards Say King of Pop Did Not Often See His Family

While the Jackson family portrayed a unified front at Michael Jackson's funeral, three of his former bodyguards said Jackson did not often see his family in the two years prior to his death.

When he died, Michael Jackson faced drug problems and debt...

"There was another occasion when Randy came to the house and crashed the security gate with his vehicle and came inside. And at the time, I didn't know who he was and I drew my weapon on him and the first thing out of his mouth was 'Get that thing out of my face or I'll call the press,'" Whitfield said, who said he put away his weapon when he realized it was Randy.

http://abcnews.go.com