Grenada's Deputy Prime Minister, Gregory Bowen has made a last minute move in a U.S court to prevent imprisoned con-man, Eric Resteiner from producing a video-tape allegedly depicting a substantial bribe payment to his boss in St. George's, Prime Minister Dr. Keith Mitchell.
American oil investor Jack Grynberg was given permission by female judge, Denise Cote to subpoena Resteiner to hand over the tape for possible use in another bribery case involving Bowen.
GRENADA TODAY was able to obtain documentary evidence in which a top law firm hired to represent Bowen approached the judge on the issue and also, asked Resteiner not to co-operate with the proceedings.
".... Defendant (Gregory) Bowen requests that the Court withdraw the authority it granted to plaintiffs to subpoena Mr. Resteiner.....", said attorney-at-law, Jeh Charles Johnson acting on behalf of the Grenada Number Two man.
I told Mr. Resteiner....that as a member of the bar, I felt a responsibility to advise him ....that he had a constitutional right not to answer questions. Mr. Resteiner thanked me for that advice, and invoked the Fifth Amendment", he added in the letter.
Following is the full text of the letter that Minister Bowen advised his lawyer to despatch to the U.S judge on the Briefcase Tape:
The Honorable Denise L. Cote
United States District Court
500 Pearl Street, Room 1040
New York, N.Y. 10007
April 24, 2007
Re: RSM Production Corp et al v. Fridman et al,.
No. 06 Civ. 11512 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.)
Dear Judge Cote:
I write with an emergency application that your Honor withdraw immediately the authority that you granted to plaintiffs on March 14, 2007 to subpoena non-party witness Eric Resteiner.
The basis for this application is the misconduct of plaintiffs' attorneys in connection with this subpoena, which I just learned of this afternoon.
On March 12, 2007, plaintiffs' attorney (Dan Abrams) wrote the Court and requested permission to subpoena Eric Resteiner in this case. Mr. Abrams requested that authority because no rule 16(f) conference had occurred yet in this case.
Eric Resteiner is a criminal defendant in the case United States V. Eric E. Resteiner, Crim, No 04-10082-NG (D. Mass).
On or about February 8, 2006, Mr. Resteiner pled guilty to multiple counts of wire fraud. He is due to be sentenced on April 26, 2007. Mr. Resteiner is currently incarcerated at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
Mr. Resteiner is represented by counsel in this criminal case, John A. Amabile. As represented to the Court in his March 12 letter, Mr. Abrams said he wanted to subpoena Mr. Resteiner because Mr. Abrams had become aware of a videotape that purports to show Mr. Resteiner giving a cash bribe to the Prime Minister of Grenada.
Before I had an opportunity to respond (indeed, my firm had been retained only 10 days before), the Court granted the application to issue the subpoena.
On its face, the subpoena that Mr. Abrams then served was not for testimony.
On April 9, I was served with a second subpoena. This one sought Mr. Resteiner's testimony at the Plymouth County Correctional facility on April 24.
I did not object to this subpoena because I determined that it was fairly within the scope of the authority that Your Honor granted on March 14.
This afternoon (April 24) at 1:00 p.m, I attended Mr. Resteiner's deposition at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility. Plaintiffs were represented by local counsel Edward Sharkansky. Mr. Abrams did not attend but I know, through email correspondence with him, that he was aware of this deposition.
On arriving at the deposition I was stunned to learn two things:
First, there is a motion to compel returnable tomorrow (April 25) at 3:00 p.m. before Judge Rya W. Zobel in federal court in Boston, to compel Mr. Resteiner to produce the videotape to plaintiffs.
Second, and even more stunning, Mr. Sharkansky admitted to me prior to the start of the deposition that Mr. Resteiner's criminal defense attorney (Mr. Amabile) was not aware of this deposition.
Mr. Sharkansky took the position that he intended to ask questions about the videotape only and did not intend to ask questions about Mr. Resteiner's criminal case.
I informed Mr. Sharkansky and the witness, Mr. Resteiner that if Mr. Resteiner answered any questions of substance, I was entitled to cross examine him about a wide variety of subjects, including the circumstances of his pending criminal case.
(Prior to the deposition today, I tried to call Mr. Amabile's office twice and he did not return my calls)
I told Mr. Resteiner that I did not represent him, but that as a member of the bar, I felt a responsibility to advise him that he had a right to have an attorney present for this deposition and that he had a constitutional right not to answer questions. Mr. Resteiner thanked me for that advice, and invoked the Fifth Amendment.
The failure of plaintiffs' attorneys to advise Mr. Resteiner's counsel (Mr. Amabile) of the fact that they were convening a deposition to take testimony from his client is particularly troubling given that they appear to have been in active discussion with Mr. Amabile about the motion to compel returnable tomorrow in court, and that Mr. Amabile planned on attending that hearing.
This failure is also troubling because, in his letter to Your Honor, Mr. Abrams advised you that he was in discussions with Mr. Amabile about the subpoena - implying that he had a dialogue with Mr. Amabile and certainly would advise him if and when Mr. Abrams desired to take testimony from Mr. Amabile's client.
Given this misconduct by plaintiffs' attorneys, defendant Bowen requests that the Court withdraw the authority it granted to plaintiffs to subpoena Mr. Resteiner in advance of a Rule 16(f) conference.
This would necessarily mean that plaintiffs are precluded from proceeding with the motion to compel that is returnable at 3:00 p.m. tomorrow (April 25) in federal court in Boston.
I am available for an emergency conference call with the parties should the Court desire this.
Cc: Daniel J. Abrams, Esq. (By fax and email
Robert H. Pees, Esq. (By fax and email)
Myles Bartley, Esq. ( by fax and email)
This application is without waiver of defendant Bowen's position that he is immune from suit and that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him, and that a motion to dismiss should be granted on these grounds and on others.
Bcc: Honorable Gregory Bowen (by fax)
Layaliza K. Soloveichik, Esq.
Philander Huynh. Esq
Anouck C. Giovanola, Esq.
