Nothing new, Minister? Follow the email trail ...

Gordon Robinson, Contributor

The Government has fallen into a deep coma and lost all olfactory senses. It can't wake up and smell the coffee. With apologies to Rexton Rawlston Fernando Gordon, we must provide the "remedy fe di body" to make them "choo choo like a train" (o/c run them out of town on a rail). Government's need to obfuscate is made easier by media's hodge-podge approach to the presentation of facts. Lest we forget, this is the timeline of known events:

August 2009: Federal Prosecutors unsealed an indictment accusing 'Dudus' of conspiracy to distribute guns and illegal drugs. A press release describing 'Dudus' as the long-time leader of "an international criminal organisation known as the Shower Posse" and noting that the US Justice Department considers him among "the world's most dangerous narcotics kingpins" accompanied this. It quotes US attorney for New York's Southern District, Preet Bharara, as calling Dudus' indictment "another important step in bringing to justice the world's most dangerous criminals, wherever they may be found".

August 25, 2009: An extradition request is received by the Government of Jamaica (GOJ) for Dudus.

September 2009: The solicitor general (SG) and Harold Brady have frequent discussions on the legal issues surrounding the extradition request. The SG says this happens despite his ignorance of Brady's client's identity. He mentions similar discussions with many other lawyers. Like who?

September 18, 2009: Although no formal contract is yet in place, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (MPP) are retained and US$49,892.62 paid to MPP.

September 19, 2009: Jamaica's SG sends a brief of the GOJ's legal issues to MPP (Attention: Harold Brady).

Driva acknowledged that he sanctioned the retaining of MPP. On May 11, 2010, he said, "I made it clear, however, that this was an initiative to be undertaken by the [JLP], not by or on behalf of the Government." But, one day after his initiative was cemented by the payment of a partial retainer, Government's SG felt comfortable sending sensitive government information to the JLP's lobbyist. Driva didn't know? The SG took it upon himself, without anyone's approval, to make such an ethically monumental faux pas? At the same time, a herd of pigs was seen taking off from the Palisadoes runway!

The SG says he knew not who MPP was at that time believing it was just another email address for Brady. But, on May 16, 2010, he was quoted by The Sunday Gleaner thus, "From my recollection, it was some time in September that Mr Brady started to suggest that the Government should consider engaging the   services of Manatt, Phelps". Douglas, both don't compute.

October 1, 2009: MPP writes to Brady to "describe the terms of our relationship" which was already in place as MPP's retainer was paid and services rendered before October 1. 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 if any of your affiliates, subsidiaries, parent companies, joint ventures, officers, directors, partners, PRINCIPALS [my emphasis], individual members, investors 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, despite the hype surrounding Harold Brady's description in the footnote (which he calls "an error"), 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.

Clear thinkers have only two options. Either we must conclude that Harold Brady and MPP (particularly Charles Manatt, signatory of the letter and Susan Schmidt, maker of the The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filing are illiterate or this was always a ruse to subvert the FARA requirements and to trick the US government into believing it was dealing with the GOJ.

So, this plot, hatched by the JLP and sanctioned by Driva, involved hiring a firm of US lobbyists, disguised as GOJ representatives, to convince the US government to withdraw the extradition request while ensuring that the GOJ's fingerprints were nowhere to be seen. This because Brady's client must have known that the US Government won't talk to political parties so had to be made to believe that it's talking to the GOJ. Here's where an unwitting simpleton or a willing conspirator of an SG comes in.

There's more.

October 13-15, 2009: MPP holds several meetings (ostensibly on behalf of GOJ regarding "treaty issues") with high-ranking US government officials.

November 20, 2009: MPP has a second meeting with Bisa Williams, a US State Department director. On that same day, according to the May 11 statement of the prime minister:

"Dr Ronald Robinson, minister of state in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and (JLP) deputy general secretary, ... was invited by Mr Brady to attend a meeting at the State Department but declined ... . He did attend an informal meeting between Mr Brady and a representative of [MPP] ... to discuss the matters in relation to which the firm had been retained."

The inference from Driva's statement is that Brady was at that State Department meeting. If so, why? In what capacity? Did he obtain national security clearance? On what authority was he inviting Mr Robinson to attend? On what authority did Mr Robinson entertain the invitation so much so that, although he declined, he attended what could only have been a subsequent debriefing meeting with MPP and Brady?

"Knowing what he knows; and knowing that I know what he knows; he's either daft or needs to have his head examined."

If these were innocent meetings, why has Robinson resigned? Why was MPP secretly briefing the GOJ's junior foreign affairs minister after the fact if MPP thought all along that it represented GOJ? Why was Robinson wary of being seen with Brady/MPP at the State Department meeting? Two plus two always equals four.

This happened in November 2009. Why was nothing done to reprimand Robinson until the matter became public? The foreign affairs minister has admitted that Robinson was not, at the time, on any sort of leave known to Government service. He was officially on duty as junior foreign affairs minister. But for the evidence of the cautious wording of the October 1 letter, it's easy to understand how MPP themselves might have been deceived into believing that they were working for GOJ. How many more public officials willingly participated in this JLP plot, sanctioned by the JLP Leader, to deceive the US government (and maybe MPP) that it was engaged in government-to-government talks?

December 17, 2009: The SG and Harold Brady accidentally find themselves on the same plane heading to the same city apparently on the same matter. The SG meets with MPP. After three months of discussions/lobbying, he knows not who, if anybody, Brady was representing. He thinks MPP is just hustling a work. But he meets with MPP, discusses the Government's legal strategies to have the request withdrawn, and invites MPP (oops, sorry, allows MPP to invite itself) to his meeting with the departments of Justice and State. He arranges security clearance and MPP in fact attends the meeting.

December 28, 2009: Susan Schmidt of MPP writes to Harold Brady and Douglas Leys (although the SG says MPP has no business with him) attaching a proposed draft joint press release as follows: "Attached are two versions of the press release we would like to run by the USG.

If the USG agrees, then it can say that the two governments are committed together."

Why is Schmidt asking Leys' permission to run it by the "USG"? According to Leys, she's not working for GOJ. Why can she say, without contradiction from Leys, that USG "can say that the TWO GOVERNMENTS are committed together"? She isn't working for either government. Right, Douglas? Well, we can expect a sharp rebuke, on GOJ's behalf, from our SG. Right?

December 28, 2009: Our SG replies immediately - no hesitation. "My preference is for the first option mentioned in your email. I would not, however, object to the second option. Why don't we put the joint one first and if they object we could always say we will reconsider and then come back with the last option as an alternative."

Oops! No rebuke? He agrees MPP has authority to put options forward on behalf of the GOJ! He keeps warbling on about what "WE" might do.

December 30, 2009: MPP makes formal filing under FARA regarding its activities for six months ending November 30, 2009. None of its JLP/GOJ activities is disclosed. MPP states it's only worked for the Dominican Republic during that period.

By January, the email correspondence is no longer to Brady and Leys but to Leys alone.

January 15, 2010: Kevin DiGregory (with whom the SG met in December and who attended the State/Justice Department meeting) sends a friendly email to Leys ALONE (courtesy copy to the facilitator, Brady): "I spoke with Molly ... about current DOJ protocols; Molly asked that the discussion be with a government official". He drafts for Leys a response to "Molly".

Did any Government official have discussions with the Justice Department shortly after January 15, 2010?

February 3, 2010: MPP makes a supplemental FARA filing (five days before it says its engagement is terminated) belatedly disclosing its 2009 GOJ activities.

February 11, 2010: MPP emails Douglas Leys ALONE (not even a courtesy copy to Brady) with legal advice on US law with special reference to "your Government ... concern". This is three days AFTER it alleges it no longer works for Jamaica.

March 2010: PNP raises the issue in Parliament and drama begins.

March 18, 2010: MPP makes a final FARA filing, asserting "Manatt ceased activities on behalf of [GOJ] through Harold Brady ... as of February 8, 2010." So, for whom was MPP working when it sent the February 11 email?

Since the Gleaner's exposé of the emails' damning details, a mad tea party lasting two days was convened in Wonderland. Attorney-General Alice, who knew not MPP before March 2010 despite the frequent contact with her SG who says she was fully briefed; Doug LaysDown, the sleeping Dormouse; March Hare Bruceontheloose; and Dare-El Hatter stared deeply into the looking glass and announced "Nothing new".

Nothing new? As I wrote last Tuesday, no new perspective. We always knew foul play was afoot. But nothing new in the emails? Only proof of GOJ/JLP/MPP's intent to deceive, my dear Hatter, only proof. Driva says he has the ultimate proof (the identities of the person(s) who paid the retainer) but won't tell. Why? After all, he who pays the piper...

So, Driva, fire up your engines. Alice, Mad Hatter, Dormouse, all aboard! It's time to go now.

Peace and Love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney at law. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.