BREAKING NEWS:JAMMEH'S GOV'T IN DEATH THREAT,BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION ALLEGATIONS-EAW GROUP!!!
  The half a million United States law suit brought against The Gambian Government by the leading US lobby Group EAW INC, is taking an ugly twist, as the court is about to hear  death threat motion or deposition filed by the plaintiff John E. Aycoth, the Freedom Newspaper can reveal today.
  
  JAMMEH TRYING TO BLOCK DEATH THREATS AND 
  CORRUPTION ALLEGATION CLAIMS!!!!
  Attempts by Mr. Aycoth’s attorney to get the said deposition heard by the next court’s hearing date scheduled for May is being blocked by The Gambia Government lawyer resident here in the United States. The government had filed an affidavit in opposition to block the said controversial proceedings to be heard in a US District Court.
  The EAW Group, INC Chief Executive is charging death threats, since the filing of the high profile case against the Jammeh government, alleged bribery and corruption involving Gambian officials among a host other things.
  The issue of state secrets, and Jammeh’s shopping sprees will also feature prominently in this trial if ever granted to be heard by the court, this paper was informed. 
  In opposition to the said deposition, the defendant’s lawyer filed motion in limine to block the EAW’S move to get what many considered as damaging revelations ever made by lobby firm hired by Jammeh. 
  “ DEFENDANT S MOTION IN LIMINE COMES NOW the Defendant, The Republic of The Gambia, and moves for an order precluding the following evidence at the trial of this matter: 1. State secrets; 2. Alleged bribery and/or corruption involving Gambian officials; 3. Alleged shopping sprees by HE. President Jammeh; 4. Alleged death threats against John E. Aycoth since the filing of the Complaint; 5. Documents not produced during discovery.“ said a motion filed by the defendant’s attorney.
  The Defendant, the document went on “relies on the attached Memorandum of Law. Case 1:02-cv-02425-GK-AK Document 89 Filed 03/01/2006 Page 2 ot2 WHEREFORE, the Defendant, The Republic of The Gambia respectfully ruests that Honorable Court enter an Order precluding the Plaintiff from introducing the aforementioned evidence at the trial of this matter. March 1, 2006 Respectfully submitted.”

  ARGUMENT
  In a counter motion the EAW attorney asked the court to deny the request made by The Gambia government for the said death threat and bribery and corruption charges be dropped. 
  “The Gambia seeks to exclude evidence at trial regarding 1) “state secrets;” 2) bribery and/or corruption involving Gambian officials; 3) shopping sprees by President Jammeh; 4) death threats against EAW’s President Mr. Aycoth’; and 5) documents produced after the written discovery deadline. As an initial matter, The Gambia’s Motion should be denied -- or at the very EAW does not plan to introduce at trial evidence relating to the death threats Mr. Aycoth has received unless The Gambia “opens the door” to such testimony.” said Mr.Aycoth attorney.
  
  The attorney went further to add ”For example, if The Gambia asks Mr. Aycoth to reveal his home address, as happened during his deposition, Mr. Aycoth should be free to explain why he will not reveal it. See Deposition Transcript of John E, Aycoth (“Aycoth Tr.”) at 5:4-6:2 (relevant portions attached as Exhibit 1).DCO1:439236.1least, deferred -- because it is premature. The Gambia’s Motion is predicated a’most entirely upon objections of relevance and prejudice. The Gambia’s Motion cannot in fairness be granted unless and until such evidence is actually offered at trial and the Court has some ability to assess the context in which it is offered. On the other hand, as demonstrated below, the Motion can be denied immediately, because the grounds for exclusion of these categories of highly-relevant and probative evidence are completely baseless.“
  The Gambia’s Claim Of “State Secrets” Privilege said the motion “is Vague And Improper.” The document went on to add that “The Gambia seeks to exclude purportedly privileged information regarding “sensitive state secrets . . such as diplomatic and military information, . . . particularly information contained in the records of The Gambia’s Embassies, Consulates, or Missions.” Motion at 3 (citing Boeing Airplane Co. v Coggeshall, 280 F.2d 654, 660 (D.C. Cir. 1960); Kessler v. Best, 121 F. 439 (S.D.N.Y. 1903)). The Supreme Court set forth the “military and state secrets” privilege in United States v. Revnods, 345 U.S. 1(1953):
  Judicial experience with the privilege which protects military and state secrets has been limited in this country. . .The privilege belongs to the [United States] Government and must be asserted by it; it can neither be claimed nor waived by a private party. It is not to be lightly invoked.”
  
  According to the plaintiff’s motion “There must be formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer. The court itself must determine whether the circumstances are appropriate for the claim of privilege.2 In contrast to The Gambia’s Motion, EAW’s Motion in Limine can and should be granted before the trial because it is based entirely upon a legal issue -- the applicability of the parol evidence rule to exclude testimony on the meaning of an unambiguous contract term.” 
  This Court, the motion went on “ has already ruled that certain provisions of the contract at issue are unambiguous. As such, it is perfectly appropriate for the Court to rule before trial that evidence conflicting with the plain meaning of the contract is precluded. DCOl:439236.1 — 2 —Id. at 7-8 (citations omitted).3 Assuming arguendo that this privilege extends to foreign governments litigating in federal courts, The Gambia has failed to assert a formal claim of privilege lodged by the head of the department with control over the matter. S Landry v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 204 F.3d 1125, 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (collecting cases holding that claim of state and military secrets privilege requires assertion at the highest level of government) (citations omitted). “
   
  The plaintiff’s motion also argued that The Gambia also fails to identify how relevant evidence in this case somehow concerns The Gambia’s national security. “For these reasons alone, The Gambia’s Motion should be denied. Further, EAW is at a loss as to what relevant “state secret” evidence The Gambia seeks to exclude and is therefore ill-equipped to respond to The Gambia’s vague argument. This is particularly troubling because the contract at issue required EAW to provide public relations, government affairs, and trade and economic services to The Gambia. Given The Gambia’s vague and overly broad request to exclude “diplomatic information” and “state secrets,” it is entirely possible that The Gambia will argue that all evidence showing EAW’s performance contains “state secrets” and “diplomatic information” and thus should be excluded from trial.4 Such a blanket exclusion would effectively preclude EAW from proving its performance under the contract.”
  “The Gambia’s cited authorities are inapposite and dicta. In Kessler, the documents at issue “were privileged by statute and by treaty,” not by the federal common law “state secrets” privilege. 121 F. at 439. The Gambia has failed to identify any controlling statute or treaty which would make The Gambia’s “diplomatic information” absolutely privileged. In Boeing, the reports at issue did “not contain[] state or military secrets” and the court merely stated in dicta that such information may be privileged. 280 F.2d at 660-61.
  ‘ EAW’s work for The Gambia in no way involved The Gambia’s military affairs and thus any discussion of military secrets is irrelevant.”

  The plaintiff maintains that the Bribery Attempts And Corruption Are Relevant, Probative Evidence That Should Be Admissible At Trial.
  “The Gambia seeks to exclude evidence of bribery and corruption on the grounds that it is hearsay and prejudicial. As an initial matter, The Gambia’s argument that the probative value of such evidence is “substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice” is meritless. Motion at 4. Graft and corruption are rampant in The Gambia, and many would agree that the payment of bribes to government officials or private individuals is the only way to conduct business there. See, Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2005 at 6 (ranking The Gambia the 103rd least corrupt country with a 2.7 perception of corruption score on a 10 point scale) (attached as Exhibit 2).” 
  The name of Gambia’s prominent business man and close associate of Gambia’s President Amadou Samba also featured prominently in the plaintiff’s motion. “However, EAW did not play ball and suffered the consequences. See, Aycoth Tr, at 97:15-99: 16 (explaining how Mr. Aycoth’s reflisalto deal with notorious businessman Amadou Samba resulted in the GamFuels fuel depot and the SeaBoard flour mill projects being usurped from EAW) (Ex. 1). In addition, companies that Mr. Aycoth repeatedly complained to President Jammeh about Amadou Samba’s interference with the Gamsfuel friel depot and Seaboard flour mill projects, created and developed by EAW, However, President Jammeh’s failure to control or stop Mr. Samba, his close business associate, led to the failure of these two important projects in 2001 and 2002. Dcol:439236.1 — 4 —EAW introduced to The Gambia were unwilling to pay bribes in order to conduct business, again hindering EAW’s ability to perform.6 Evidence at trial showing that
 EAW’s performance was hampered by bribery attempts is therefore highly relevant and probative. The Gambia asserts that EAW should not be permitted to admit evidence of bribery “to prove that this somehow caused [it] to be unable to fhlfill [its] duties under the contract at issue.” Motion at 47 In other words, The Gambia seeks to exclude relevant, probative evidence simply because it is harmful to The Gambia’s case. The Gambia fails to articulate how such evidence is prejudicial in this case or how it is not relevant and probative to EAW’s claims. To the contrary, such evidence is highly relevant and probative of EAW’s performance under the contract at issue and should be admitted.”said the motion.
  The plaintiff also argues that “Further, the hearsay exclusionary rule does not apply to this evidence. First, depending on the context of the bribery attempts, such evidence may be offered at trial as a party admission under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Second, even assuming such evidence of bribery attempts are hearsay, they may be admissible 1) to show the declarant’s state of mind (such as an intent or motive to interfere with EAW’s performance) under Fed. R. Evid. 803(3); or 2) as public records 
  6 For example, one company, Intercel, which was brought to The Gambia by EAW to pursue a GSM mobile communications project, was asked to contribute $400,000 to President Jammeh’s reelection campaign in order to move the project forward. Intercel refused and the deal quickly fell apart. 
Inexplicably, The Gambia places blame on EAW for not informing The Gambia in this litigation that EAW had “reported the alleged solicitation bribes to the President of The Gambia or that [it] ever notified the President that the alleged solicitations were hampering [its] ability to perform.” Id. at 4.”
  Certainly the motion went on “The Gambia has had ample opportunity to discover that EAW did in fact report bribery attempts to The Gambia’s President Jammeh, Ambassador Bojang, and former Foreign Minister Sedat Jobe, and to the U.S. Ambassador to The Gambia, Jackson McDonald, State Department and White House officials, members of Congress, and the Department of Justice’s Foreign Agents Registration Unit. cc, Aycoth Tr. at 95:1-20; 180:15-181:22 (Ex. 1). Regardless, any failure on behalf of The Gambia to inquire into this topic is no basis to find such evidence unduly prejudicial. DCOI:439236.1 — 5 —under Fed. R. Evid. 803(8). Third, such evidence may be admissible as statements against interest under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3). Fourth, such evidence may be used at trial for impeachment purposes. Thus, in addition to being baseless, The Gambia’s Motion to exclude evidence of bribery attempts is premature. Because this evidence is relevant and probative, and the applicability of the
 hearsay exclusionary rule will depend on the context the statement is offered at trial, The Gambia’s Motion should be denied.”
  The President’s Shopping Sprees according to the plaintiff’s motion “Are Relevant, Probative And Should Be Admissible At Trial. In seeking to exclude “alleged” shopping sprees of President Jammeh, The Gambia again attempts to use the rules of evidence to exclude evidence that is harmful -- not prejudicial --to its case. The shopping sprees are far from “alleged” and are relevant to show that The Gambia, specifically President Jammeh, frustrated EAW’s performance by, among other things, choosing to go shopping in lieu of attending meetings that EAW had arranged during The Gambia’s May 2002 official visit to the United Nations. This and other repeated requests for EAW to procure various items resulted in additional work for EAW.”
  The plaintiff also maintains that “First, it is outrageous for The Gambia to suggest that these shopping sprees did not occur. To the contrary, The Gambia has admitted that many of them did occur. See, Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Admissions Nos. 33-I56 (admitting to nearly $300,000 worth of goods EAW purchased on behalf of President Jammeh during his May 2002 visit to New York City) (relevant portions attached as Exhibit 3). In addition, EAW possesses (and produced during discovery) copies of receipts from President Iammeh’s exorbitant shopping sprees. Second, evidence of the shopping sprees is relevant to show how The Gambia failed to properly utilize the trade, public relations and economic development opportunities EAW13(201:439236.1 — 6 —presented to it.” 
  According to the motion “For example, during the May 2002 official visit to the United Nations, instead of attending congressional and media meetings arranged by EAW, President Jammeh cancelled those meetings and indulged himself shopping, deeming it appropriate to use EAW as his personal shopper. This was typical. Between June 2000 and May 2002, EAW was ordered to procure over $1 million worth of goods on behalf of President Jammeh, with the money usually being wired directly to EAW from banks in The Gambia and Taiwan. These procurement efforts by EAW simply added to the work that EAW was performing for The Gambia. Accordingly, evidence of such shopping sprees is relevant, probative and should be admissible at trial.
D. All Relevant Documents Possessed By EAW Were Seasonably Produced Under Rule 26(e) And Thus Are Admissible.”
  The Gambia the motion went on “ seeks to exclude highly relevant and probative evidence that was produced after the written discovery deadline of September 5, 2005.8 The Gambia’s argument is baseless and should be rejected outright. EAW’s February 13, 2006 supplemental production contained a mere 13 pages of documents and two videotapes that EAW found while packing up its files before moving its offices on January 31, 2006. About one-half of these items (identified by Bates numbers EAWS007 through EAW-SOlO and EAW-S012 through EAW-S013, along with the two videotapes) were misfiled and were not found during EAW’s previous good faith attempts to locate responsive documents.” 
  “As provided for under Rule 26(e), EAW seasonably produced these items after they were discovered. The remaining documents (identified by Bates numbers EAW8 Inexplicably, The Gambia also seeks to exclude EAW’s June 20, 2004 supplemental production, which was made nearly 15 months before the written discovery deadline of September 5, 2005. See Motion at 7. There is no basis to exclude these items.”

  The motion added that “it is noteworthy that The Gambia concedes that one videotape produced on February 13, 2006, was previously produced on June 20, 2004.DCUI :439236.1 — 7 —5001 through EAW-S006 and EAW-SOOll) were not responsive to The Gambia’s outstanding discovery requests but were produced, subject to previously raised objections, in response to discovery requests issued by The Gambia on November 28, 2005, after the written discovery deadline. 
  Prior to filing its Motion, The Gambia never once questioned this supplemental production or inquired as to why these items had not been produced previously.”

  Despite this, said the plaintiff’s motion” The Gambia now seeks to exclude these items because EAW failed to provide a reason why these items were not disclosed previously and their belated disclosure was “not harmless.” See Motion at 8-9 (citing Coles v. Perry, 217 F.R.D. 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2003)). Unlike the non-movant in Coles, EAW was substantially justified producing these items after the September 5, 2005 written discovery deadline because it either 1) did not locate the items until after the deadline (during January 2006) despite its prior good faith efforts; or 2) the items were only responsive to The Gambia’s discovery requests issued on November 28, 2005, after the deadline.”
  In addition, The Gambia fails to show how their purportedly late disclosure was “not harmless.” None of the produced items raised new issues, disclosed new facts or revealed new witnesses.’° They simply provided more evidence that EAW performed under the contract. For example, the videotapes are of The Gambia’s 36th and 37th IndependenceAnniversary celebrations held at Washington, D.C’s Willard Hotel in 2001 and 2002, respectively. These videos show Mr. Aycoth working diligently welcoming guests and provide evidence of EAW’s intimate involvement with these events (a fact which The Gambia has improperly denied). rhile such evidence is clearly harmful to the substance of The Gambia’s case, that is obviously no reason to exclude it. The fact is, the belated disclosure did not prejudice The Gambia’s 10 Arguably, the documents responsive to The Gambia’s post-deadline discovery requests disclosed new facts.”
  “However, such documents were not previously requested by The Gambia and they relate only to The Gambia’s counterclaim and affirmative defense of fraud, not to EAW’s case-in-chief.DCO1:439236.I — 8 — discovery efforts or pretrial preparation in any way because The Gambia has long been aware of EAW’s allegations regarding these events. More importantly, The Gambia was contemporaneously provided multiple copies of these videotapes when they were originally made by EAW. The real question here is why The Gambia denied that EAW had involvement in facilitating these meetings. That is no doubt why The Gambia wants this evidence excluded. Accordingly, The Gambia’s Motion should be denied.” the motion maintains.

  CONCLUSION

  The plaintiff’s motion went on to add that based on the “For the foregoing reasons, The Gambia’s Motion should denied. At the very least, the Motion should be deferred until such time as the categories of evidence at issue are introduced at trial, so the Court can assess the context in which such evidence is offered.”

  

    
Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 (Archive on Tuesday, April 25, 2006)
Posted by PANDERRYMBAI  Contributed by PANDERRYMBAI
    Return
        Rating:           [input] 1   [input] 2   [input] 3   [input] 4   [input] 5    Comments:      Save  
---------------------------------
          Current Rating:  5.00                        Rating:   5    
             

      Copyright 2006 (c) Freedom Newspaper, LLC.   :  Powered By PointClick  :  Terms Of Use  :  Privacy Statement [input]   [input]   [input] 
		
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤