Judge Scolds Roger Stone's Defense Team Over 'Unexplained Inconsistencies'
Judge Amy Berman Jackson scolded Stone and his legal team for their delay in notifying the court that the former Trump adviser planned to re-publish and sell a book with a new introduction critical of the special counsel.
March 05, 2019 at 03:09 PM
5 minute read
Nearly a week after being scolded from the bench, Roger Stone and his attorneys are again on the receiving end of a federal judge's wrath, this time for the re-publication of a book they failed to disclose to the court.
In an order issued Tuesday, Judge Amy Berman Jackson scolded Stone and his legal team for their delay in notifying the court that the former adviser to President Donald Trump planned to re-publish and sell a book with a new introduction critical of the special counsel, despite a gag order that prohibits him from making any public statements about the investigation.
Jackson declined a request from Stone's attorneys for a clarification of the gag order she issued Feb. 21, and set a March 11 deadline for them to provide details on “unexplained inconsistencies” in their filings. Those details include questions about when the book became publicly available, when it was shipped to the printer, plus information on any communication Stone had with the publisher after the gag order was issued, and details on the content of any social media posts or public statements about the book. The order would also apply to any deleted social media posts.
“[T]here is no question that the order prohibited and continues to prohibit the defendant from making any public statements, using any medium, concerning the investigation,” Jackson wrote Tuesday. “It does not matter when the defendant may have first formulated the opinions expressed, or when he first put them into words: he may no longer share his views on these particular subjects with the world.”
Jackson first issued an order Friday directing Stone's legal team to file a submission detailing when his book, “The Myth of Russian Collusion: The Inside Story of How Donald Trump REALLY Won,” will be released, and to explain why it was not brought to the court's attention during prior hearings or filings. The order notes that during a Feb. 21 hearing regarding a gag order, Stone's attorneys said: “[H]e should not be talking about this court. He should not be talking about the special prosecutor.”
Jackson also criticized Stone's legal team for inconsistencies in its filings to the court. A footnote in the order said the fact that a new introduction was sent to the publisher in January and scheduled for release in February “was not simply omitted from the defendant's February 8 pleading; it was entirely inconsistent with the assurances that were included in the pleading.”
Stone is represented by Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based attorneys Bruce Rogow and Grant Smith of StrategySmith, and Robert Buschel of Buschel & Gibbons. He also has a Washington, D.C.-based attorney, L. Peter Farkas of Halloran Farkas + Kittila.
Jackson added that Stone may have waived any right to complain his free speech rights are being restricted since his counsel specifically proposed the order bar speech about the prosecution.
Robert Mueller's team, which is investigating Stone's role in the Russia election interference probe, said in a court filing Monday that a preview of the book with the new intro is already available online, and that Stone shared an image on Instagram over the weekend titled “Who framed Roger Stone?”
Stone is fighting charges that he lied to congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, obstructed justice and tampered with a witness. Those charges were brought by prosecutors working for special counsel Robert Mueller III and the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., Jessie Liu. Their offices are jointly handling Stone's case.
The latest filings come after Stone was recently upbraided by Jackson for using Instagram to post a photo that featured a crosshair next to an image of her head.
Jackson decided not to revoke Stone's $250,000 bond during a Feb. 21 hearing and instead expanded her gag order to bar Stone from publicly speaking about the investigation, the case or any of the participants. Stone was also prohibited from participating in interviews, press conferences or releases.
Prior to that order, Stone was just prohibited from speaking to the media near the courthouse.
Jackson said it was apparent Stone's legal team was behind an apology submitted to the court in the wake of the Instagram post, given Stone continued to defend it in press interviews, even after the post was deleted.
“So, thank you,” Jackson said, “but the apology rings quite hollow.”
Read the order
Read more:
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 AllSplit 4th Circuit Ruling Is a Win for Covington & Burling in US Army Base Attack Litigation
3 minute readA Conversation with NLJ Lifetime Achievement Award Winner Jeff Smith
11 minute readBiden's Nominee Secures U.S. Senate Confirmation for Phila. Federal Judgeship
3 minute read'Export Violations'?: RTX Settles Civil Charges With $200M Consent Agreement
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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