In Tom
Barrack Trial As UAE Agent
He Wins Reconsideration on
Privilege
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell
book
BBC -
Honduras
- CIA
Trial book - NY
Mag
EDNY COURTHOUSE,
Oct 16 –
Thomas Barrack
and Matthew
Grimes,
indicted for
illegal
lobbying for
the United
Arab Emirates,
were arraigned
on July 26,
2021 before
U.S. District
Court for the
Eastern
District of
New York
Magistrate
Judge Sanket
Bulsara. Inner
City Press
live tweeted
it here
(and podcast here)
On
October 4,
FBI Special
Agent Liz
Sidaros was
still on the
stand, but now for
cross
examination.
Barrack's
lawyer asked
her what
Instagram is,
then
emphasized
that neither
Malik nor
Barrack were
sneaking
around.
He showed
Barrack's
disclosure to
the US State
Department when he
applied for
the US
diplomatic
job, as Rex
Tillerson
testified on
October 3.
Then Colony
Capital
marketing materials,
including
Barrack's links
withe First
Republic Bank
and others.
On Sunday
October 16,
Judge Cogan
ruled "
Barrack’s
[321, 322]
request for
reconsideration
is granted.
Finding a
waiver or
failure to
demonstrate
privilege is
too severe a
sanction for
the errors of
Barrack’s
counsel. In a
trial of this
complexity, a
ball or two
will
inevitably be
dropped, and
crucially, the
record does
not reflect
Barrack
“treat[ing]
the
communications
in question in
such a
careless
manner as to
negate [his]
intent to keep
them
confidential.”
U.S. v. Mejia,
655 F.3d 126,
134 (2d Cir.
2011). The
Court has
reviewed the
retention
agreements
that Thomas
Davis and/or
his firm,
Davis Advisors
LLC (“Davis
Advisors”),
entered into
with defense
counsel for
Barrack on
February 26,
2019, August
29, 2021, and
October 26,
2021,
respectively.
Barrack has
met his burden
of showing
that Davis was
acting as an
agent of
defense
counsel. See
U.S. v. Kovel,
296 F.2d 918,
923 (2d Cir.
1961); von
Bulow by
Auersperg v.
von Bulow, 811
F.2d 136, 146
(2d Cir.
1987). Thus,
communications
between and
among Davis,
Davis
Advisors,
Barrack,
Steptoe &
Johnson, LLP,
Paul Hastings
LLP, O’Melveny
& Myers
LLP, and/or
Willkie Farr
&
Gallagher LLP,
made on or
after February
26, 2019, are
privileged to
the extent
that each
individual
communication
was made “in
confidence for
the purpose of
obtaining
legal advice"
- full
order on
Patreon here.
US filing
on Patreon here.
On
FARA, full
order on
Patreon here.
Analysis:
Because of the
possibility of
(success)
appeal to any
conviction
under Section
951, on
a claim
that the jurors
confused it
with FARA, the
attempt is
made to keep
FARA out of testimony
as much as
possible. But what
about
the jury
instructions?
Watch this
site.
Watch
this site -
and this Sept
30 vlog,
and Twitter
Space here. Oct
4 vlog here.
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2022 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|