'Urgent,' 'Problematic': Roger Stone's Attorneys Scrambled After Gag Order Scolding
Email exchanges included in court papers filed Monday evening detail the frenzied effort by Stone's attorneys to get information from publishers on when the book, with a new intro critical of the special counsel, was sent to stores.
March 12, 2019 at 08:35 AM
4 minute read
Roger Stone's attorneys were left scrambling in the days after they decided the new “problematic” introduction for the former Trump adviser's book could land him in jail for potentially violating his gag order.
Stone has been in legal hot water since his attorneys notified Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that their client would be re-releasing his 2017 book. The release includes a new introduction that criticizes special counsel Robert Mueller III, who brought the criminal charges against Stone.
Email exchanges included in court papers filed Monday night detail the frenzied effort by Stone's attorneys 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 of when Jackson issued an 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,” Smith wrote.
In an earlier Feb. 21 email exchange among members of Stone's legal team, one of his attorneys Bruce Rogow deemed a potion of the book's new introduction “problematic,” and floated the idea of asking the publisher to black out the pages.
Stone is represented by Fort Lauderdale-based attorneys Grant Smith of StrategySmith; Robert Buschel of Buschel & Gibbons; and Bruce Rogow and Tara Campion. He's also retained a Washington, D.C.-based attorney, L. Peter Farkas of Halloran Farkas + Kittila.
The emails, revealing how Stone's book sent his attorneys into a mad dash, are included in a court submission that Stone's attorneys filed late Monday after Jackson ordered them last week to detail Stone's efforts to comply with a gag order she issued on Feb. 21.
Stone's lawyers notified the Washington, D.C., judge earlier this month about the “imminent” re-release of Stone's book and 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 did not violate the order, because the introduction was written before the order was issued.
Jackson last week denied that motion, instead scolding Stone and his legal team for not immediately notifying the court about the book. Noting that the book was already on sale and that the introduction was already accessible online, Jackson ordered Stone's attorneys to explain the discrepancy and to produce records related to the book's re-release.
In their Monday evening filing, Stone's attorneys apologized for the “confusing representation about publication.” They clarified that the new introduction for Stone's book was sent to publishers in January and scheduled for a February release.
They told the 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 took place—specifically, while they were waiting to catch a plane back to Florida.
Stone earlier got into trouble with the court after he posted a photo on Instagram appearing to show Jackson's head next to what appeared to be a gun's crosshair. That resulted in Jackson issuing the gag order that barred Stone from publicly discussing the case.
A status conference is scheduled for March 14.
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.
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 AllTrump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTexas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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