I've been asking DUers for help on this for weeks

[malaise]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041503600.html?hpid%3Dmoreheadlines
<snip>
Last fall, the blue-chip law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips signed a $400,000 contract to lobby on behalf of the government of Jamaica, spending the next several months talking with White House and other administration officials about why the United States should not extradite an accused Kingston drug kingpin.

But the unusual arrangement has fallen apart amid a flurry of charges and countercharges that have reverberated from Kingston to Washington. The government of Jamaica contends that it never hired Manatt; the attorney who arranged the deal says it was all a big misunderstanding; and opposition leaders allege that Jamaica's prime minister was doing the bidding of a fugitive the United States wants to arrest.

Above it all hangs a question: If the government of Jamaica didn't pay Manatt, who did?

The controversy has rocked Jamaican politics and has further strained the Caribbean nation's relations with the Obama administration, which has grown increasingly frustrated in its attempts to bring the alleged drug dealer, Christopher "Dudus" Coke, to New York for trial. The country's prime minister, Bruce Golding, has led efforts to resist Coke's extradition, arguing that the efforts to bring him to this country are based on illegal drug and gun charges.

Administration officials said they had no reason to believe that Manatt was representing anyone other than the Jamaican government. The Manatt firm, which is headquartered in Los Angeles, declined to comment, citing client confidentiality.

[EFerrari]

1. Holy cow! Maybe it was Evita!

http://www.zoopy.com/video/1k3t/evita-meets-with-vito-palazzolo

[malaise]

2. ROFL

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah :rofl:
Seriously word is that a grand jury will be investigating in New York

[EFerrari]

6. I don't know how I managed to miss the whole thing.

Fascinating. How could such a negotiation go so far.

[Canuckistanian]

3. What's your position on this?

Seems to me that the course of action is clear - the Jamaican govt. should compel Manatt to divulge his TRUE client. Otherwise, he should be charged with misrepresenting himself as an agent of the Jamaican government.

[malaise]

4. The real question in Jamaica is did Manatt misrepresent

the firm or is the Government of Jamaica covering up for the chief don of the party (son of Jim Broan, who just happens to be the don in the Prime Minister's Constituency.
Did the GOJ pay or did the Don himself.
There is non-stop chaos on this topic here. Most people believe this will bring down the government

[Canuckistanian]

5. What's a "don"?

I'm not familiar with that term.

[anigbrowl]

7. Organized crime boss, like in The Godfather. nt

[anigbrowl]

8. I'm not sure what sort of help you are looking for

I've been following this story for a while too, but I'm no wiser than you. There's no way the law firm will reveal the details of its contractual arrangements; this would be considered a massive violation of professional ethics, and it happens that California has the strongest client confidentiality standards of the US; it would be very, very difficult indeed to compel them to yield up that information, as most of the judiciary would probably oppose it.

Looks like it will be dumped in the lap of Jamaica's supreme Court to resolve, but you probably know that already.

[malaise]

9. If you've been following this then you know that

the contract was public knowledge because Manatt had to inform the DOJ and the letter was on the DOJ website (as are all contracts with lobbyists and foreign governments).
The Prime Minister here denied that the contract was with GOJ. It makes no sense that Manatt is lying to DOJ given its political connections with the present administration.
On the other hand the local connections stink big time.
We heard from a source that a Grand Jury has been arranged to examine the facts about this and want to know if that's true.

add

[eShirl]

10. How can we help?

[malaise]

11. Is there a Grand Jury

in New York or anywhere else?

[anigbrowl]

12. No, but here is some additional information for you

My (unqualified!) reading of the situation is that any question of professional ethics turns on whether Manatt knew whether or not Brady was authorized to engage them on behalf of the Jamaican government, and that such a question would be a matter for a Jamaican rather than an American Grand Jury. It is not illegal, as far as I know, for a foreign government to engage an American attorney or law firm to represent their interests in an American court.

http://www.law.com/jsp/LawArticlePC.jsp?id=1202447754312&hbxlogin=1 has a summary of the events and at the bottom includes copies of all the official filings made at the US end. The firm could certainly claim that they acted in good faith - their contract with Brady includes a declaration by him that he was a consultant to the the Jamaican government and authorized to act on their behalf in hiring MPP.

So it would appear that any ethical problems center on Brady and what basis he had for claiming the authority to sign such a contract. I see he has since said it was a mistake, but I guess the question now is whether he takes all responsibility or whether someone in the government asked him to act.