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
