| | | | | |
Hollywood Law Firm Embroiled In Jamaican Extradition Controversy
March 22. 2010
March 22. 2010
Eric Holder (left) President Obama (right)
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.
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.
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller is consistently in
trouble in the U.S. Congress for illegally wiretapping people in America
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 parents and
kids in Tivoli Gardens (Jamaica) that could die.
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
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.
ĎI didnít know it was Dudusí 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.
Aisha | Aisha Blog | Aisha Blog Archive | Goodison Trust | Sonustar | Sonustar News | Judiciary Report | Sound Off Column | Celluloid Film Review | Consumer News Reviews | Compendius | United Peace Initiative | Justice And Truth