US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy & FARA

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 17188
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by Suranis »

A secret photo has just been released, showing how the Whitehouse lawyers explained "filing under seal" to DOLTUS.

Image
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 2457
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III
Occupation: Criminal defense attorney - I am not your lawyer, and my posts do not constitute legal advice

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by fierceredpanda »

:clap: :rotflmao:
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton


User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by Notorial Dissent »

Definitely the poster child of the KISS function.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4508
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by NMgirl »

Judge Jackson isn't giving a whole lot of quarter to defense attorneys in this order. The January 25 hearing date remains unchanged.
DxIybwAXcAArbsV.jpg-large.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Somerset
Posts: 4391
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by Somerset »

Lani wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:15 am
Sounds to me like he's expecting a pardon.
Yeah, that thought crossed my mind as well :madguy:

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 10338
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by Chilidog »

Suranis wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:09 am
A secret photo has just been released, showing how the Whitehouse lawyers explained "filing under seal" to DOLTUS.

Image
This guy approves

Image

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9581
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

Stern will definitely be :rotflmao:.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/prominen ... -principal
Prominent Global Law Firm Agrees to Register as an Agent of a Foreign Principal

Civil settlement resolves Department of Justice national security inquiry into violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP has entered into a settlement agreement with the Department of Justice, resolving its liability for violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), announced Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Demers.

According to the Agreement, Skadden acted as an agent of the Government of Ukraine within the meaning of FARA, 22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq., by contributing to a public relations campaign directed at select members of the U.S. news media in 2012. Moreover, in 2012 and 2013, Skadden received multiple inquiries from the Department’s FARA Registration Unit about its role in that campaign. A partner then at Skadden made false and misleading statements to the FARA Unit, which led it to conclude in 2013 that the firm was not obligated to register under FARA. The facts, when uncovered, showed that Skadden was indeed required to register in 2012, and, under the Agreement, it will do so retroactively.

In addition to agreeing to register under FARA, Skadden has agreed to pay the U.S. Treasury more than $4.6 million, which it received in fees and expenses for its work with Ukraine, and will ensure that it has formal, robust procedures for responding to inquiries concerning its conduct from any federal government entity and ensuring FARA compliance as to its engagements on behalf of foreign clients.

According to the Agreement, in the spring of 2012, Ukraine, Ministry of Justice (MOJ), with the assistance of Paul Manafort, hired Skadden to write a report (Report) on the evidence and procedures used during the 2011 prosecution and trial of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and to address various questions regarding its fairness. Skadden also agreed to advise Ukraine in connection with a second, potential future prosecution of Tymoshenko. Although the engagement letter between Skadden and the MOJ stated that Skadden would be paid its customary fees and expenses, the contract Skadden signed with the MOJ, and which the MOJ made public, stated that the law firm would be paid only 95,000 Ukrainian hryvynas, which is approximately $12,000. Skadden understood that a Ukrainian business person would be paying its fees, which the law firm received from a Cypriot bank account of an entity named Black Sea View Ltd., which Manafort controlled. Skadden was eventually paid $4,657,568.91 for its work on behalf of the MOJ. The arrangements with the Ukrainian business person, the amounts paid, and advice on a second criminal prosecution of Tymoshenko were not disclosed in connection with the issuance of the Report.
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment:
The 19th Amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1878, yet it was not approved by Congress until 1919 – 41 years later.
- https://legaldictionary.net/19th-amendment/

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4508
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by NMgirl »

Remember Alexander van der Zwaan, convicted, jailed and deported early on?
Mr. van der Zwaan’s relationship with the other men dates to at least 2012. His law firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, assigned him to work with Mr. Gates and Mr. Manafort on a report used to defend their client Viktor F. Yanukovych, the pro-Russia former president of Ukraine, from international criticism over the prosecution and imprisonment of a political rival.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/us/a ... eller.html

:rotflmao: , indeed!
Edit:
ABBC3_OFFTOPIC
Ammon Bundy's attorney in the Oregon trials, Marcus Mumpoot, was an associate in Skadden's New York office. So another reason for me, personally, to be :-D

User avatar
tek
Posts: 3955
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by tek »

d-1.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
There's no way back
from there to here

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 2457
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III
Occupation: Criminal defense attorney - I am not your lawyer, and my posts do not constitute legal advice

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by fierceredpanda »

Fuck Skadden. Far and away the most evil of Biglaw firms.
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton


User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 15334
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by Kendra »

Mueller seems to be turning a profit so far vs the expenses laid out to date?

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4508
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by NMgirl »

Mueller is good to go. :boxing: The hearing is scheduled for January 25. :popcorn: (But maybe no popcorn for us. :( So many of the exhibits are Sekret.)

Government's Response to Order of the Court.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... Court.html

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4508
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by NMgirl »

I suspect the judge will have the redacted version carefully screened, this time around. :fingerwag:

https://twitter.com/JakeBGibson/status/ ... 6495090688

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 15334
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by Kendra »

I'd rather have another redaction oops. That was fun.

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4508
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by NMgirl »

Haven't read it yet. At least the redactions are done properly.

DEFENDANT PAUL J. MANAFORT JR.’S REPLY TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF ITS BREACH DETERMINATION

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... -Reply.pdf
Edit: Manafort didn't lie! His statements to OSC "merely demonstrate a lack of consistency in Mr. Manafort's recollection of certain facts and events."

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4508
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by NMgirl »

Paulie has to show up on Friday for the hearing. Manafort's presence means media will once again focus on something that matters, rather than the SOTU and CovCath.
DxoE58GW0AAizMk.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4508
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by NMgirl »

We learned in the Bundy trials that defendants can wear suits. Is that only true for trials with the jury present :?:
DxoNLLaXcAA7qmA.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9581
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

NMgirl wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:50 pm
Haven't read it yet. At least the redactions are done properly.

DEFENDANT PAUL J. MANAFORT JR.’S REPLY TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF ITS BREACH DETERMINATION

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... -Reply.pdf
Edit: Manafort didn't lie! His statements to OSC "merely demonstrate a lack of consistency in Mr. Manafort's recollection of certain facts and events."
I wonder how overawed Judge Amy will be about Paulie's lack of consistency argument? :bored:
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment:
The 19th Amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1878, yet it was not approved by Congress until 1919 – 41 years later.
- https://legaldictionary.net/19th-amendment/

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5882
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by Maybenaut »

NMgirl wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:22 pm
We learned in the Bundy trials that defendants can wear suits. Is that only true for trials with the jury present :?:

DxoNLLaXcAA7qmA.jpg
That's right. The court *must * allow defendants to wear a suit in front of the jury to avoid undermining the presumption of innocence. Given the amount of media attention, and the possibility that case is going to end up in front of another jury, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge grants the defense motion. Nor would I be surprised if she denies it. I could personally care less.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4508
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by NMgirl »

Maybenaut wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:55 pm
NMgirl wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:22 pm
We learned in the Bundy trials that defendants can wear suits. Is that only true for trials with the jury present :?:

DxoNLLaXcAA7qmA.jpg
That's right. The court *must * allow defendants to wear a suit in front of the jury to avoid undermining the presumption of innocence. Given the amount of media attention, and the possibility that case is going to end up in front of another jury, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge grants the defense motion. Nor would I be surprised if she denies it. I could personally care less.
Thank you for answering that question for me. :bighug:

User avatar
NMgirl
Posts: 4508
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by NMgirl »

Fashionista Alert! Manafort gets to showcase one of his $10k suits. Ostrich skin?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... Order.html

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6824
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by neonzx »

NMgirl wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 1:08 pm
Fashionista Alert! Manafort gets to showcase one of his $10k suits. Ostrich skin?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... Order.html
He'd making an error in optics unless he shows up in JCP suit-separates -- from the clearance rack.
8-)
To which Trump replied, Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2636
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by Res Ipsa »

The one thing I like most about Manafort is his taste in suits.
Thanks pal.

Adrianinflorida
Posts: 3110
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:07 pm
Location: South Detroit

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by Adrianinflorida »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:02 pm
The one thing I like most about Manafort is his taste in suits.
Pinstripes
Image

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 7275
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: US v. Manafort (Guilty Plea); Kilimnik; Gates (Guilty Plea): 17-cr-201: USDC for DC; Money-Laundering, Conspiracy &

Post by Slim Cognito »

I suddenly have an urge to watch Oh Brother, Where Art Thou.
ImageImageImage x4

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”