Roger Stone's Attorneys Scrambled After Gag Order Scolding
Defense attorney Grant Smith warned in an email, “The mere publication of the new portions of the book could land Roger in jail for contempt of the judge's order."
March 12, 2019 at 08:35 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Roger Stone's defense attorneys scrambled in the days after they decided a new “problematic” introduction to the former Trump adviser's book could land him in jail for potentially violating a gag order in his criminal case.
Stone was in legal hot water before his attorneys notified U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson that their client would be re-releasing his 2017 book. The release includes a fresh introduction criticizing special counsel Robert Mueller III, whose office brought the criminal charges against Stone.
Email exchanges included in court papers filed Monday night detailing a frenzied defense effort to get information from publishers on when the book was sent to stores, when it would be publicly released and how it fit into the broader picture after Jackson issued the order prohibiting their client from speaking publicly about his case.
“The mere publication of the new portions of the book could land Roger in jail for contempt of the judge's order. We are trying to establish data points and provide legal advice,” Grant Smith, one of Stone's attorneys, told a publisher in a Feb. 26 email. “I can not give you more information without violating the attorney-client relationship at the moment.”
“I need this immediately. This is not a some made up emergency,” the Fort Lauderdale attorney added.
In a Feb. 21 email exchange among members of Stone's legal team, Fort Lauderdale attorney Bruce Rogow deemed a potion of the introduction “problematic” and floated the idea of asking the publisher to black out the pages.
Stone is represented by Smith of StrategySmith, Rogow and Tara Campion or Rogow's firm, Robert Buschel of Buschel & Gibbons in Fort Lauderdale and L. Peter Farkas of Halloran Farkas + Kittila in Washington.
The emails revealing how Stone's book sent his attorneys into a mad dash are part of a defense filing after Jackson ordered them to detail their client's efforts to comply with the gag order she issued Feb. 21.
Stone's lawyers notified the Washington judge earlier this month about the “imminent” re-release of Stone's book with the new introduction, which calls special counsel Robert Mueller III “crooked.” Stone's attorneys asked the court to “clarify” that the book's re-release would not violate the order because the introduction was written before the order was issued.
Jackson last week denied that motion and scolding Stone and his legal team for not immediately notifying her about the book, which was already on sale and the introduction was accessible online, Jackson ordered Stone's attorneys to explain the discrepancy and produce records on the re-issued book.
In their latest court filing, Stone's attorneys apologized for the “confusing representation about publication.” They said the new introduction was sent to publishers in January for a February release.
They told Jackson they did not intend to mislead her by not flagging the book earlier. They said they only read the revised introduction after Stone's gag order hearing, specifically while they waiting to catch a plane back to Florida.
Stone earlier got into trouble with the court after posting a photo on Instagram showing Jackson's head next to what appeared to be crosshairs. That resulted in Jackson issuing the gag order that barred Stone from publicly discussing the case.
Stone has pleaded not guilty to charges that he lied to congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, obstructed justice and tampered with a witness. A status conference is scheduled for Thursday.
|Read more:
Judge Scolds Roger Stone's Defense Team Over 'Unexplained Inconsistencies'
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250