New twist to 'Dudus' case

[Karl]

New twist to 'Dudus' case

Published: Sunday | July 25, 2010


Drug Enforcement Agency personnel bring alleged gangster Christopher Coke to a waiting vehicle at Westchester County Airport in White Plains, New York, recently. - AP Photo

There is growing speculation surrounding Christopher 'Dudus' Coke in the United States after news surfaced last week that prosecutors have filed a new sealed document with the courts.

Prosecutors gave no indication of what is contained in the document filed on June 20 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York where Dudus is to be tried on gun and drug-running charges.
"Possibly an indictment of those individuals who assisted Coke during the 10 months that the Government delayed his extradition from Jamaica," a US-based lawyer told The Sunday Gleaner.

"It could also be a product of the Department of Justice investigation into the Manatt FARA filings," the attorney said.

However, the attorney was quick to dismiss speculation that the sealed document could be a statement from the man the US authorities claim led the notorious Shower Posse.

"The US attorney could not take a cooperative statement from Coke unless he changes his plea to guilty or to nolo contendere (I do not wish to contest the charges).

Furthermore, all plea agreements are public record after being signed.
"Factual proffers made pursuant to a plea agreement cannot be filed under seal and can only be viewed by the court as part of the evidence at a Rule 35 hearing. This could be part of an appellate transcript but not a trial docket sheet," the attorney explained.

Superseding indictment
He noted that one day after the security forces moved into Tivoli in an attempt to capture Coke, an application was made to the court to unseal a superseding indictment against him.

That will replace the indictment, which was unsealed in August 29 and used by the US as part of its request to the Jamaican Government for the extradition of the west Kingston strongman.

"This is not going away, no matter what the spin doctors in Jamaica try," the US-based attorney said.

Coke remains in custody in a US jail facing charges of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and cocaine and conspiracy to distribute firearms.

He is to return to court in September but to date, the only attorney on record for the alleged drug kingpin is the state-appointed Russell Neufeld


http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/glean...ead/lead1.html

[Gamma]

david rowe?

[Time]

New twist to 'Dudus' case

Published: Sunday | July 25, 2010


Drug Enforcement Agency personnel bring alleged gangster Christopher Coke to a waiting vehicle at Westchester County Airport in White Plains, New York, recently. - AP Photo

There is growing speculation surrounding Christopher 'Dudus' Coke in the United States after news surfaced last week that prosecutors have filed a new sealed document with the courts.

Prosecutors gave no indication of what is contained in the document filed on June 20 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York where Dudus is to be tried on gun and drug-running charges.
"Possibly an indictment of those individuals who assisted Coke during the 10 months that the Government delayed his extradition from Jamaica," a US-based lawyer told The Sunday Gleaner.

"It could also be a product of the Department of Justice investigation into the Manatt FARA filings," the attorney said.

However, the attorney was quick to dismiss speculation that the sealed document could be a statement from the man the US authorities claim led the notorious Shower Posse.

"The US attorney could not take a cooperative statement from Coke unless he changes his plea to guilty or to nolo contendere (I do not wish to contest the charges).

Furthermore, all plea agreements are public record after being signed.
"Factual proffers made pursuant to a plea agreement cannot be filed under seal and can only be viewed by the court as part of the evidence at a Rule 35 hearing. This could be part of an appellate transcript but not a trial docket sheet," the attorney explained.

Superseding indictment
He noted that one day after the security forces moved into Tivoli in an attempt to capture Coke, an application was made to the court to unseal a superseding indictment against him.

That will replace the indictment, which was unsealed in August 29 and used by the US as part of its request to the Jamaican Government for the extradition of the west Kingston strongman.

"This is not going away, no matter what the spin doctors in Jamaica try," the US-based attorney said.

Coke remains in custody in a US jail facing charges of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and cocaine and conspiracy to distribute firearms.

He is to return to court in September but to date, the only attorney on record for the alleged drug kingpin is the state-appointed Russell Neufeld


http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/glean...ead/lead1.html

"Possibly an indictment of those individuals who assisted Coke during the 10 months that the Government delayed his extradition from Jamaica," a US-based lawyer told The Sunday Gleaner.

LOL - Now that would be nice

[Don1]

interesting.... di nex shoe fi drap

[Mosiah]

Wll, Bruce Golding should have been the very first Person of Interest in the recent SoE. Why wasn't he declared as such and asked to turn himself in?

He is the Chief Person of Interest and should be charged by Jamaican police before the US puts out an extradition request for his lying ass!

[Farmah]

Mo, if I'm not mistaken I think Drivah is protected by Parliamentary Privilege and thus is not expected to be impeached, sued or arrested.

[Mosiah]

Mo, if I'm not mistaken I think Drivah is protected by Parliamentary Privilege and thus is not expected to be impeached, sued or arrested.

not sure bout dat:

Parliamentary privilege
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parliamentary privilege (also absolute privilege) is a legal immunity enjoyed by members of certain legislatures, in which legislators are granted protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made related to one's duties as a legislator. It is common in countries whose constitutions are based on the Westminster system. A similar mechanism is known as parliamentary immunity.

In the United Kingdom, it allows members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to speak freely during ordinary parliamentary proceedings without fear of legal action on the grounds of slander, contempt of court or breeching the Official Secrets Act[1][2]. It also means that members of Parliament cannot be arrested on civil matters for statements made or acts undertaken as an MP within the grounds of the Palace of Westminster, on the condition that such statements or acts occur as part of a proceeding in Parliament - for example, as a question to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. This allows Members to raise questions or debate issues which could slander an individual, interfere with an ongoing court case or threaten to reveal state secrets, such as in the Zircon affair or several cases involving the Labour MP Tam Dalyell.

There is no immunity from arrest on criminal grounds, nor does the civil privilege entirely extend to the devolved administrations in Scotland or Wales.[3] A consequence of the privilege of free speech is that legislators in Westminster systems are forbidden by conventions of their House from uttering certain words, such as "liar" (see unparliamentary language).

The rights and privileges of members are overseen by the powerful Committee on Standards and Privileges. If a member of the house is in breach of the rules then he/she can be suspended or even expelled from the House. Such past breaches have included giving false evidence before a committee of the House and the taking of bribes by members.

Similar rights apply in other Westminster system countries, such as Canada and Australia. In the United States, the Speech or Debate Clause in Article One of the United States Constitution provides for parliamentary privilege based on Westminster, and many state constitutions provide similar clauses for their state legislatures.

Parliamentary privilege is controversial because of its potential for abuse; a member can use privilege to make damaging allegations that would ordinarily be discouraged by defamation laws, without first determining whether those allegations have a strong foundation. A member could, even more seriously, undermine national security and/or the safety of an ongoing military or covert operation or undermine relations with a foreign state by releasing information that the Government does not wish in the public domain.

Hopefully our laws allow our leaders to be arrested in certain situations, like aiding and abetting a wanted person.

[Don1]

Mo, if I'm not mistaken I think Drivah is protected by Parliamentary Privilege and thus is not expected to be impeached, sued or arrested.

he is covered for statements made within Parliament.....not conspiracies without

[Jawge]

Don't forget the US treaty, maybe you can't be arrested in JA but elsewhere different kettle of fish. Mi nuh really know cause mi neva draft di treaty (whoever did was agenius though).

[Reggaedoc]

Anytime a self-respecting Jamaican sees that pic of Dudus it should bring shame upon us. Smirk on his face. Give me a break. Hopefully he will get a fair trial, found guilty, and get 25 to life. That is one of my Christmas wishes.

[Mosiah]

And I wish the same for Bruce!