Tweet
Perkins On Perkins
Published: Tuesday | September 14, 20107 Comments and 0 Reactions
Robinson
Gordon Robinson, Contributor
On September 5, Lloyd Perkins wrote in The Gleaner that there's no contract with the Government to be found in Manatt, Phelps & Phillips' (MPP) October 1, 2009 letter to Harold Brady and concluded that MPP might have been duplicitous.
The following day, someone with a similar surname fawned all over the article, proclaiming that it brought a whole new perspective to the issue. Well, blow me down! That article repeated what I have been writing for months. In my April 18 column, 'Face that large green elephant', I wrote:
"... what has Harold Brady done so far to attract the sort of burning at the stake proposed? The letter he signed does not in fact contain any contract with anybody but his firm."
For five months, I have pointed out that the October 1 letter does not contain a contract with the Government of Jamaica (GOJ), but one can easily be inferred from the solicitor general's (SG's) actions. In that same column, I wrote:
"The ... actions of the SG, after he was lobbied to retain (MPP), are the actions of an SG who has either contracted informally with MPP, and/or accepted that Brady and MPP's 'arrangement' was good enough for him to act upon and use their services ... or is an incorrigible nitwit."
On May 2, I went further in my column 'Really, Mr Samuda?':
"Every single independent court of law ... will tell you ... that the actions of your SG and of your minister of state have in fact amounted to ... an informal contract on behalf of the GOJ."
No contract with the gov't
After the exposé of the notorious e-mails, I wrote even more definitively on August 29, in 'Nothing new, Minister?':
"October 1, 2009: MPP writes to Brady ... The letter states "for the purposes of this engagement, we will be representing you only and we will not be deemed to represent the interests of any of your affiliates, ... partners, PRINCIPALS (my emphasis) ... or employees (collectively 'your affiliates')". In the letter, MPP specifically defines 'you' as 'Brady & Co, attorneys-at-law'.
"So, as I've repeatedly pointed out, there's no contract with the GOJ in this letter. Please note the care taken by both parties to this end, but yet (a) so careless a footnote error is made and (b) in its initial FARA filing, MPP cites this letter as its written contract with GOJ.
"Either we must conclude that Harold Brady and MPP ... are illiterate or this was always a ruse ... to trick the US government into believing it was dealing with the GOJ."
The idea of a duplicitous MPP pretending that a contract with Brady & Co was a GOJ contract is not new. Congratulations to both Perkins for seeing the light, but both should be aware that because a specific contract cannot be found in one place does not mean that it cannot be found anywhere.
As I have repeatedly written, the contract between GOJ and MPP does not arise out of the October 1 letter but from the actions of the solicitor general who, wittingly or unwittingly, assisted JLP/MPP to dupe the United States' state and justice departments.
But, as I have also written, this is not about finding a contract with GOJ. Contract, schmontract!
Everything links
For those still wondering what the fuss is about, let me sum up one last time. Within three weeks of the extradition request's receipt and before any official GOJ communication with the US government (USG), MPP was contacted, briefed and retained to lobby USG to withdraw its extradition request for an individual described by US prosecutors as "the long-time leader of an international criminal organisation known as the Shower Posse" and considered by US Justice Department as among the world's most dangerous narcotics kingpins.
We are told this "initiative" was a JLP undertaking. The initiative, sanctioned by our prime minister (PM), involved the duping of USG officials into believing that MPP represented GOJ. This JLP/MPP duplicity, sanctioned by the PM, was aided and abetted by GOJ officials, the solicitor general (who sent instructions on GOJ's position to MPP the day after its retainer was paid; met with MPP; legitimised MPP's contacts with USG; and worked with them continuously until at least February 11) and the junior minister of foreign affairs (who resigned when his actions became public). The duplicity gained MPP access, under false pretences, to sensitive GOJ/USG negotiations, which it tried to influence effectively to Dudus' benefit.
And so, Dudus was publicly or privately tipped off; prepared fulsomely for any attempted arrest; and the first attempt cost billions of dollars and 73 lives. All the above can be directly linked to Driva's sanction, for which he's promised to take "full responsibility". Still bored, Mutty?
Peace and love.
Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.
Published: Tuesday | September 14, 20107 Comments and 0 Reactions
Robinson
Gordon Robinson, Contributor
On September 5, Lloyd Perkins wrote in The Gleaner that there's no contract with the Government to be found in Manatt, Phelps & Phillips' (MPP) October 1, 2009 letter to Harold Brady and concluded that MPP might have been duplicitous.
The following day, someone with a similar surname fawned all over the article, proclaiming that it brought a whole new perspective to the issue. Well, blow me down! That article repeated what I have been writing for months. In my April 18 column, 'Face that large green elephant', I wrote:
"... what has Harold Brady done so far to attract the sort of burning at the stake proposed? The letter he signed does not in fact contain any contract with anybody but his firm."
For five months, I have pointed out that the October 1 letter does not contain a contract with the Government of Jamaica (GOJ), but one can easily be inferred from the solicitor general's (SG's) actions. In that same column, I wrote:
"The ... actions of the SG, after he was lobbied to retain (MPP), are the actions of an SG who has either contracted informally with MPP, and/or accepted that Brady and MPP's 'arrangement' was good enough for him to act upon and use their services ... or is an incorrigible nitwit."
On May 2, I went further in my column 'Really, Mr Samuda?':
"Every single independent court of law ... will tell you ... that the actions of your SG and of your minister of state have in fact amounted to ... an informal contract on behalf of the GOJ."
No contract with the gov't
After the exposé of the notorious e-mails, I wrote even more definitively on August 29, in 'Nothing new, Minister?':
"October 1, 2009: MPP writes to Brady ... The letter states "for the purposes of this engagement, we will be representing you only and we will not be deemed to represent the interests of any of your affiliates, ... partners, PRINCIPALS (my emphasis) ... or employees (collectively 'your affiliates')". In the letter, MPP specifically defines 'you' as 'Brady & Co, attorneys-at-law'.
"So, as I've repeatedly pointed out, there's no contract with the GOJ in this letter. Please note the care taken by both parties to this end, but yet (a) so careless a footnote error is made and (b) in its initial FARA filing, MPP cites this letter as its written contract with GOJ.
"Either we must conclude that Harold Brady and MPP ... are illiterate or this was always a ruse ... to trick the US government into believing it was dealing with the GOJ."
The idea of a duplicitous MPP pretending that a contract with Brady & Co was a GOJ contract is not new. Congratulations to both Perkins for seeing the light, but both should be aware that because a specific contract cannot be found in one place does not mean that it cannot be found anywhere.
As I have repeatedly written, the contract between GOJ and MPP does not arise out of the October 1 letter but from the actions of the solicitor general who, wittingly or unwittingly, assisted JLP/MPP to dupe the United States' state and justice departments.
But, as I have also written, this is not about finding a contract with GOJ. Contract, schmontract!
Everything links
For those still wondering what the fuss is about, let me sum up one last time. Within three weeks of the extradition request's receipt and before any official GOJ communication with the US government (USG), MPP was contacted, briefed and retained to lobby USG to withdraw its extradition request for an individual described by US prosecutors as "the long-time leader of an international criminal organisation known as the Shower Posse" and considered by US Justice Department as among the world's most dangerous narcotics kingpins.
We are told this "initiative" was a JLP undertaking. The initiative, sanctioned by our prime minister (PM), involved the duping of USG officials into believing that MPP represented GOJ. This JLP/MPP duplicity, sanctioned by the PM, was aided and abetted by GOJ officials, the solicitor general (who sent instructions on GOJ's position to MPP the day after its retainer was paid; met with MPP; legitimised MPP's contacts with USG; and worked with them continuously until at least February 11) and the junior minister of foreign affairs (who resigned when his actions became public). The duplicity gained MPP access, under false pretences, to sensitive GOJ/USG negotiations, which it tried to influence effectively to Dudus' benefit.
And so, Dudus was publicly or privately tipped off; prepared fulsomely for any attempted arrest; and the first attempt cost billions of dollars and 73 lives. All the above can be directly linked to Driva's sanction, for which he's promised to take "full responsibility". Still bored, Mutty?
Peace and love.
Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.
Comment