Search This Blog

Translate

Blog Archive

Middleboro Review 2

NEW CONTENT MOVED TO MIDDLEBORO REVIEW 2

Toyota

Since the Dilly, Dally, Delay & Stall Law Firms are adding their billable hours, the Toyota U.S.A. and Route 44 Toyota posts have been separated here:

Route 44 Toyota Sold Me A Lemon



Showing posts with label attorney-client privilege. Show all posts
Showing posts with label attorney-client privilege. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

John Kiriakou | Is the Law More Important to the Court Than It Was to Manafort?





Reader Supported News
07 November 17
It's Live on the HomePage Now: 

FOCUS: John Kiriakou | Is the Law More Important to the Court Than It Was to Manafort? 
John Kiriakou. (photo: The Washington Post)
John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News
Kiriakou writes: "What would you do if you got into legal trouble, hired the best attorney money could buy, and he then testified against you in the grand jury empaneled to indict you? It's crazy, right? Illegal? Unethical? Can't happen here? But that's exactly what happened last week to Paul Manafort."
READ MORE
Here's How to Support Puerto Rico as It Recovers From Devastating Hurricane Maria
Remezcla
Excerpt: "With the island expected to go without power for months, Puerto Rico now needs our help. The US territory is in the midst of a financial crisis and already struggling in many ways."
READ MORE

Become a Fan of RSN on Facebook and Twitter





Thursday, November 2, 2017

Why a Judge Ruled Paul Manafort Isn't Entitled to Attorney-Client Privilege




Reader Supported News
01 November 17 PM
It's Live on the HomePage Now: 
Reader Supported News

Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort hides behind his car visor as he leaves his home in Alexandria, Virginia, on Monday. (photo: Reuters)
Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort hides behind his car visor as he leaves his home in 
Alexandria, Virginia, on Monday. (photo: Reuters)

Why a Judge Ruled Paul Manafort Isn't Entitled to Attorney-Client Privilege

By Dahlia Lithwick and Scott Pilutik, Slate
01 November 17

t’s not an overstatement to characterize the attorney-client privilege as the cornerstone of criminal law, an inviolable right that can and must withstand all manner of legal aggression.* It’s also one of the small handful of criminal procedural notions sewn directly into our pop culture fabric. Even if all your legal knowledge comes from watching Law & Order, you’re still likely aware of your Miranda rights; that law enforcement needs probable cause to search your apartment and maybe (but maybe not) your car; and most especially that when you meet with your lawyer, you can tell her the whole ugly story because she can’t be forced to testify against you or even to divulge what you’ve discussed to anyone. Period. Right?
Well … mostly right. On Monday, Politico reported that Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had agreed to allow Robert Mueller to use something called the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege to compel testimony from an attorney who formerly represented Paul Manafort and Manafort’s onetime employee Rick Gates. Although that development got lost in the blizzard of Robert Mueller news, Howell’s willingness to pierce attorney-client privilege, as well as her frank description of falsehoods as falsehoods, was in some sense the big news of the day. It was an astonishing win for the special counsel, one that reveals both Mueller’s willingness to use tough tactics and the ways in which the judicial branch may be willing to treat the cover-ups that emerge from the Trump probe. In a way, the decision revealed that the courts may be as tired of houses built of deception as the rest of us are.
Other than relatively common third-party waivers (which happen when the attorney-client communication occurs outside that protective bubble), exceptions to the sacred attorney-client privilege are incredibly rare. The crime-fraud exception is perhaps the rarest exception of them all. These cases are so infrequent precisely because they require uniquely awful behavior by the client and even sometimes by the client’s attorney. Rule of thumb? Behind any successful crime-fraud exception application there is almost certainly one hell of a story.
In a 37-page opinion dated Oct. 2 and unsealed this week, Judge Howell determined that Manafort and Gates’ former attorney could be compelled by Mueller “to testify before a grand jury regarding limited aspects of her legal representation of the Targets, which testimony the [special counsel’s office] believes will reveal whether the Targets intentionally misled [the Department of Justice] about their work on behalf of a foreign government and foreign officials.”
The crime-fraud exception holds that if a client seeks legal advice in furtherance of a crime, privileged communications between the attorney and client are waived. In effect, the distinction is as follows: You can safely tell your lawyer where you buried the bodies, but you can’t ask your lawyer how to bury the bodies.
The indictment against Manafort and Gates is a veritable laundry list, 12 counts in all, but the charges can be summarized as conspiracy to launder money, failure to disclose foreign bank accounts, failure to register as agents of a foreign principal, and making false and misleading statements to the Foreign Agents Registration Unit. The special counsel’s office alleges that Manafort collected millions of dollars for work he did on behalf of the Ukrainian government between 2007 and 2012 yet declined to report that work to FARA and failed to inform the Internal Revenue Service about the income he earned from this activity.
Fast-forward to late March 2016, when Manafort became Donald Trump’s campaign manager. That lasted until Manafort’s Russian connections—specifically the August 2016 discovery of handwritten ledgers showing $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments to Manafort—suddenly become a problem for Trump. The then–Republican nominee accepted Manafort’s resignation on Aug. 19, 2016.
A short time later, Trump won the presidential election, an event that surprised many, including perhaps even Trump himself. Consequently, key figures in the Trump campaign began to receive a level of scrutiny they likely hadn’t anticipated. A short time after the election, Manafort and Gates responded to FARA’s request for an explanation of their activities. No doubt aware of their quandary—they should’ve registered but didn’t—Manafort and Gates sought legal help, and so it was their attorney who responded to FARA three times: on Nov. 23, 2016; Feb. 20, 2017; and June 27, 2017.
The problem here was that some of these letters made assertions that turned out to be, from the vantage of the special counsel’s office and then the judge, quite false. As Judge Howell characterized it, the “2017 FARA Submission attempts to paint the Targets as mere spectators in a game when they actually were integral players.” Judge Howell notes that the special counsel’s office wasn’t seeking confidential notes or discussions between counsel and her clients. Mueller and his team merely wanted to confirm facts she had passed along as having originated with Manafort and Gates. To put it another way, Mueller is asking the judge to get him answers to simple questions about whether Manafort and Gates lied to counsel and whether counsel in turn passed those lies along.
In her opinion, Judge Howell says she’s well aware of the centrality of the attorney-client privilege. “The attorney-client and work-product privileges play vital roles in the American legal system, by encouraging persons to consult freely and candidly with counsel, and counsel to advocate vigorously on their clients’ behalves, without fear that doing so may expose a client to embarrassment or further legal jeopardy,” she writes. She pits that privilege, though, against the need to have grand juries do their work, noting that they are “an essential bedrock of democracy, ensuring the peoples’ direct and active participation in determining who must stand trial for criminal offenses.”
The nature of counts 11 and 12 of the indictment—lying, falsifying, and misleading the government—went a long way toward dictating the availability of the crime-fraud exception, which requires a showing that the engagement of legal advice was to further a “criminal or fraudulent scheme.” The evidence suggests Manafort and Gates planned to lie and decided that having a lawyer do that lying for them might help shield them from prosecution. But in so doing they made it easy for Judge Howell to find the requisite nexus between the crime—the lies—and the crime-fraud exception. In addition to allegedly laundering money through Cyprus corporations and Hamptons landscapers, Manafort is effectively being called out for laundering his alleged lies through his attorney. (It’s worth noting that it’s not Manafort and Gates’ attorney who is on the hot seat here. That’s largely because the crime-fraud exception applies when the crime in question involves lying to the government and your attorney is merely a conduit for those lies.)
Assuming the indictment’s accuracy, Manafort has been a modern-day version of Henry Hill in Goodfellas: accepting millions of dollars from dictators, funneling that cash through dozens of foreign corporations, and buying up the good life here in the states (one can never have too many $1,000 neckties). High risk, high reward, and … wait, is that helicopter following me? It shouldn’t surprise anyone, then, to see Manafort allegedly playing fast and loose with his own lawyers. Like his former boss, Manafort seems to hold the view that attorneys are hired help, good for emptying ashtrays and passing along lies.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/46619-why-a-judge-ruled-paul-manafort-isnt-entitled-to-attorney-client-privilege

Become a Fan of RSN on Facebook and Twitter

Monday, March 27, 2017

RSN: 700 Attorneys Spied On in One Prison, Investigator Finds



This is so egregious, it deserves to stand alone. 

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!




700 Attorneys Spied On in One Prison, Investigator Finds 
Justin Glawe, The Daily Beast 
Glaw writes: "A court-appointed investigator has found that the United States attorney's office for Kansas is in possession of hundreds of phone and video recordings of communications between attorneys and their clients, inmates at a privately run prison facility in Leavenworth." 
READ MORE


Hundreds of calls and dozens of videos were discovered in a U.S. attorney's office. (image: Elizabeth Brockway/Daily Beast)
Hundreds of calls and dozens of videos were discovered in a U.S. attorney's office. (image: Elizabeth Brockway/Daily Beast)


700 Attorneys Spied On in One Prison, Investigator Finds

By Justin Glawe, The Daily Beast
27 March 17

A U.S. Attorney’s Office is found to have stashed hundreds of calls between inmates and lawyers. A veteran prosecutor says his old colleagues have gone rogue.

 court-appointed investigator has found that the United States Attorney’s Office for Kansas is in possession of hundreds of phone and video recordings of communications between attorneys and their clients, inmates at a privately run prison facility in Leavenworth.
At least 700 attorneys are believed to have been recorded without their knowledge, the investigator’s report submitted to a federal court said. Last week Special Master David Cohen asked to expand his probe to determine whether prosecutors regularly listened to and compiled attorney-client conversations. Already, 227 phone call recordings and at least 30 videos of attorney-client meetings have been discovered in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Kansas City.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment for this story.
Prosecutors obtained recordings of the conversations with the help of the private-prison company that runs Leavenworth, CoreCivic, and the company that provides communications services there, Securus Technologies. Both companies have been sued several times in the past for violating the constitutional rights of inmates by recording calls between them and their attorneys. (CoreCivic did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Securus did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)
The systematic recordings were discovered by a defense attorney who was recorded speaking with her client about the government’s case against a drug ring inside the prison.
Jackie Rokusek told The Daily Beast she was called to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Kansas City last August, where she said she was told by prosecutors that they had video evidence of her providing her client with confidential information about a drug ring case. Rokusek was given a computer and she watched the video, then she says she accidentally clicked on another file. A window opened, and a video showing another attorney meeting with their client at Leavenworth played. Stunned, Rokusek immediately went to the Federal Public Defender’s office in Kansas City and told them what she’d found.
Law enforcement had been listening to inmates talk to their accomplices outside the prison for months, and prosecutors had built a strong case around the evidence gained from those calls. The allegations were detailed in an April affidavit filed by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. A drug dealer named Lorenzo Black supplied drugs to a prison guard, Anthony Aiono, who smuggled the drugs into the prison and gave them to the head of the drug ring, a violent inmate named Karl Carter. The drugs would then go to another inmate, Stephen Rowlette, before being distributed to paying prisoners. In the final six weeks of the investigation, nearly $15,000 had been deposited into Carter’s account.
With thousands of phone calls and a confession from Aiono, law enforcement and prosecutors had more than enough evidence to file charges against Aiono, Black, Carter, Rowlette, and several others.
Special Agent Jeff Stokes of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation filed his affidavit on April 9, 2016.U.S.A vs. Black was officially underway in Judge Julie Robinson’s Kansas City courtroom.
***
It was an inmate with secondary involvement in the Black case who would soon be responsible for shifting its focus from the drug ring to the recording of attorney-client conversations.
Inmate Richard Dertinger was named as a non-indicted co-conspirator in the Black case, and has been convicted for his involvement in a separate synthetic marijuana operation inside Leavenworth. During Dertinger’s meeting with his attorney, Jackie Rokusek, prosecutors believed she provided him with confidential information regarding the Black case—an alleged conflict of interest that the U.S. Attorney’s office thought would force Rokusek to recuse herself from Dertinger’s synthetic marijuana case. Several sources close to the Black case who spoke to The Daily Beast on the condition of anonymity said prosecutors wanted Rokusek off Dertinger’s case because she is a “feared lawyer.”
Rokusek said prosecutors planned to show her video in which she allegedly provided Dertinger with the confidential information during their meeting at Leavenworth under the belief she would recuse herself from the case. It backfired.
Critics of prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s office say that, not only should they never have watched and listened to conversations between attorneys and their inmate clients, but that as soon as those recordings came into their possession, defense attorneys like Rokusek should have been immediately informed. Such conversations are privileged, said Peter Joy, a law professor at Washington University who testified in the August hearing that addressed the Rokusek video.
“It is like a dealer at a casino having a secret camera to look at the player’s cards,” said Joy. “Just like that would be cheating at a casino and lead to the dealer always winning, intruding into the confidential communications of clients and lawyers takes away the promise of a fair trial.”
***
The Black case isn’t the first time that CoreCivic and Securus have been accused of violating inmates’ constitutional rights. The revelation that the two companies had recorded and stored massive quantities of inmate phone calls came only after someone hacked Securus in 2015 and released 70,000 recordings to The Intercept, which found some 14,000 attorney-client conversations in the database.
At Leavenworth, CoreCivic’s head of security told an investigator with the Federal Public Defender’s office that cameras in meeting rooms there did not record attorney-client conversations, according to the investigator’s testimony at a hearing regarding the Rokusek video. When pressed, CoreCivic eventually admitted that it had been recording attorneys and their clients in meeting rooms at Leavenworth—and storing those videos for 30 days—since 2008, according to an investigator with the Federal Public Defender’s office.
For a 12-week period in 2016, any attorney that met with a client—even those who were not involved with the drug ring—had their meetings recorded on video, the investigator found.
***
CoreCivic’s stock was plummeting six months ago following a Justice Department order that called for the federal government to stop using private prisons, but the company’s outlook—and its stock price—have been invigorated with the election of Donald Trump. The company’s hopes were raised even further when Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded an Obama-era directive to end the use of private companies to run federal prisons.
That was the icing on the cake for CoreCivic, which already saw hope for its bottom line with Trump’spromises to lock up large numbers of illegal immigrants, thereby filling CoreCivic facilities, many of which house immigrants and refugees, to capacity and perhaps beyond.
Accusations that CoreCivic violated inmates’ constitutional rights by recording conversations with their lawyers are the mildest of allegations compared with some of the other lawsuits the company has recently been involved in.
Understaffing—to the point of dangerous conditions that have claimed the lives of both inmates and staff—is a major theme at CoreCivic facilities. A federal jury in Idaho found CoreCivic regularly understaffed a prison there, partly resulting in a “mass attempted murder” in which eight men were stabbed dozens of times by rival gang members, according to the lawsuit filed on the inmates’ behalf. Incredibly, all of the inmates lived. CoreCivic wasn’t required to pay any fines as a result of a judge’s decision, which came down in February.
As for Leavenworth, it is portrayed as a fairly lawless place in the affidavit filed by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation in the Black case. Not only was Aiono smuggling drugs into the prison, he is also accused of providing a knife to Karl Carter, the leader of the drug ring. (Carter is accused in the affidavit of stabbing two men in Leavenworth, but it isn’t known if the weapon he used was the one given to him by Aiono.) The drug ring itself was alleged to have operated partly from a 12-step recovery program inside the prison. Despite having to pass through security to get into the area where the program’s meetings were held, members of the drug ring had little trouble getting their product past guards.
Informants told law enforcement that “90 percent of the time, when metal detectors went off,” guards stopped no one, according to the Black affidavit. One guard is accused by law enforcement of purposefully turning a blind eye toward the sale of drugs, as well as their open and frequent use.
“It’s not an impressive facility,” said a source close to the Black case.
***
Mike Warner is not surprised about the allegations that have come out of the Black case. From 2010 to 2013, Warner was the first assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Kansas, serving directly under former U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom. What Warner saw in his time in the Kansas City office is in line with Rokusek’s allegations of heavy-handed practices there.
In an interview with The Daily Beast, Warner voiced “strong disagreement with prosecution practices” in the Kansas City office, where he said there exists a “culture immune from supervision.”
“Prosecutors are supposed to be ministers of justice, exclusively concerned with matters of fairness and due process. The polar opposite is a ‘win at all costs’ mentality or a self righteous ‘ends justifies the means’ approach,” Warner told The Daily Beast. “Further, one of the most fundamental things prosecutors must do is make sure a defendant’s constitutional rights are protected.”
The investigation conducted by Cohen, who was appointed by Judge Robinson to conduct his investigation, has been restricted to the practice of listening to and storing recordings only as it relates to the Black case. It is now up to Robinson to decide whether to allow Cohen to expand the investigation to see if what happened in the Black case has occurred in other cases. Warren and others believe it’s appropriate for Cohen to expand the probe into a pattern-and-practice investigation.
“I cannot fathom how an office acquired such a high volume of Sixth Amendment materials whether unwittingly or not,” Warner said. “I also cannot imagine this situation being dismissed without a full and complete investigation either by the Special Master or other federal investigative entity about how something like this occurred or why the U.S. Attorney didn’t know what was going on in his own office.”
In his final report, released last week, Cohen recommended continuing his investigation while noting that it would likely back up his “tentative conclusion” that prosecutors were not regularly viewing videos of attorney-client meetings. The most important focus of the investigation, though, would be determining how, why, and when the U.S. attorney’s office obtained phone call recordings of inmates at Leavenworth—something that Cohen hasn’t yet been asked to determine by Judge Robinson.
Cohen wrote that he was optimistic that further investigation will lay to rest any suspicions on the part of defense attorneys in Kansas and the Western District of Missouri that prosecutors are playing with a stacked deck of privileged communications. Warner, however, was skeptical of the report’s effectiveness at answering whether prosecutors regularly listened to attorney-client communications.
“For reasons unknown, the report also ignored the deliberate use of those materials against [Rokusek],” Warner said. “Nonetheless, I’m hopeful the Special Master will continue his investigation as alluded in the report’s conclusion. Maybe then widely reported abusive practices will actually be addressed.”