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