Doughty Street’s Amal Alamuddin, John Jones and Wayne Jordash & ALL Their Libyan Clients

 

Doughty Street Chambers‘ members Amal Alamuddin, John Jones and Wayne Jordash represent three DIFFERENT Libyan clients on EITHER side of the SAME Libyan case at the ICC.   That is ALL the case’s participants… Everyone.Amal Alamuddin Doughty Street Chambers

Simultaneously, DSC’s Amal Alamuddin represents Abdulla Senussi,  DSC’s John Jones represents Saif Gaddafi while on the opposing side DSC’s Wayne Jordash represents Libya.   As a result, DSC lawyers have filed briefs as part of greater teams to both retain Saif Gaddafi & Abdulla Senussi in Libya AND to move them to the ICC John R.W.D Jones QC Doughty Street Chambers in the Netherlands.

Wayne Jordash QC Doughty Street ChambersDSC Images: Alamuddin, Jones & Jordash.

 

MATRIX CHAMBERS AND DOUGHTY STREET CHAMBERS

This chart demonstrates that Matrix Chambers & Doughty Street Chambers simultaneously represent BOTH sides of Libya’s ICC case: Libya and Saif Gaddafi and/or Abdulla Senussi. The Libyan people are represented by Ahmed El-Gehani in ALL cases with Matrix Team 1 with Philippe Sands, Payam Akhavan & Michelle Butler and Matrix/Doughty Street Team 2 with James Crawford, Wayne Jordash and Michelle Butler. HERE

This is page 2 of the May 8th ICC document which demonstrates that Matrix Chambers & Doughty Street Chambers simultaneously represent BOTH sides of Libya’s ICC case: Libya and Saif Gaddafi and/or Abdulla Senussi.  HERE

Sound familiar?  Matrix Chambers’ members provided two teams that represented BOTH sides of the same issue facing Libya at the ICC.   Matrix Chambers was hired by the Libyan Government’s Litigation Office to represent them at the ICC. As a result, Matrix lawyers IN TWO TEAMS coupled with Doughty Street lawyers have filed briefs before the ICC to both retain Abdulla Senussi and Saif Gaddafi on Libyan soil and to move them to the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands.

Matrix Chambers Members and their Libyan Clients

Matrix Chambers Members from the firm’s site and which demonstrates ALL the Libyan-affiliated cases and  ALL their Libyan Clients HERE

SEE our PDF: Matrix Chambers Members  This ICC Document and Matrix Chambers’ site demonstrates the interlaced world of London human rights lawyers, their law firms and their clients, in this case, Libya.

See Amal Alamuddin, John Jones and Wayne Jordash in the document to the right.

 

 

Doughty Street Chambers on Twitter

Doughty Street Chambers Twitter– Unabashed about being on ‘both sides’

This tweet from Doughty Street Chambers came after the 24 July 2013 ICC final ruling on Abdullah Senussi. The ruling reaffirmed the October 2013 decision in which the ICC Judges APPROVED of the Libyan justice system by saying that Libya IS WILLING and ABLE to provide a FAIR trial.

Doughty Street on both sides: case v. Al-Senussi inadmissible in ICC. Wayne Jordash QC for Libya;   Amal Alamuddin for Al-S…

The following is currently located on the Doughty Street account, @DoughtyStPublic HERE

DoughtyStPublic on Twitter Doughty St on both sides case v. Al Senussi inadmissible in ICC...' http t.co nxuy1xph0B

DoughtyStPublic on Twitter.  Doughty Street Chambers: 25 July 2014 tweet with 27 July 2014 comment by DSC Academic.   ‘Doughty St on both sides case v. Al Senussi inadmissible in ICC. Wayne Jordash QC for Libya; Amal Alamuddin for Al-S…’  http t.co nxuy1xph0B  HERE

In other words, Ms. Alamuddin lost and Mr. Jordash won.   However, from the tweet at the bottom, DO we get a glimpse of The Doughty Street Chambers’ mindset?  Notice the tweet with the exclamation mark.  Not apparent but it was written by DSC Academic, Kevin Jon Heller, now removed.  As he is a DSC employee & it was sent to the DSC tweet & on the official DSC account, is he reflecting a position of the firm?  You decide but with an exclamation mark Mr. Heller stated, “That is one way to ensure that DSC wins!”

For Doughty Street’s Mr. Heller, representing ‘both sides’, ‘that’s one way to ensure the DSC wins!’ 

 

Geoffrey Robertson QC Doughty Street Chambers

 

 

Doughty Street Chambers: Members’ articles discussing Saif Gaddafi’s legal options PRIOR to representing him.   DSC Image: Robertson

Into the human rights mix, we include the links to a series of three articles about Libya, Muammar and Saif Gaddafi written by their Doughty Street founding partner, Geoffrey Robertson.  The excerpt from Geoffrey Robertson’s article, Why Libya Must Send Saif Gaddafi to the Hague details the skeleton argument for how he sees that “Saif has the making of an arguable defense.”  “He was, after all, a member of Libya’s legitimate government and thus entitled to urge and use force…”   It was published shortly after Saif was captured.  We note that Doughty Street Chamber’s John R.W.D. Jones is Saif’s ICC lawyer…  AND the Government of Libya has chosen within this environment a lawyer to represent THEIR rights, Wayne Jordash.  HEREHERE, and HERE.

This is an exact visual except from The Daily Beast article of Doughty Street Chambers founding partner, Geoffrey Robertson. Members of his firm simultaneously represent Saif Gaddafi, Abdulla Senussi and the government of LIBYA.

This is an exact visual excerpt from The Daily Beast article of Doughty Street Chambers founding partner, Geoffrey Robertson. Members of his firm simultaneously represent Saif Gaddafi, Abdulla Senussi and the government of LIBYA. HERE

An excerpt from Doughty Street founding Partner Geoffrey Robertson's article. He outlines how he see that '...Saif has the makings of an arguable defense.'

An excerpt from Doughty Street founding Partner Geoffrey Robertson’s article. He outlines how he see that ‘…Saif has the makings of an arguable defense.’ HERE

 

 

 

 

 

Aside from Founding Partner Geoffrey Robertson’s publicly offering the argument for Saif’s defense, this is Amal Alamuddin’s February 2012 contribution.

Her article is heavily slanted towards the ICC’s jurisdiction by being conveniently dismissive of Libya’s right to retain and try Saif in Libya.  Inaccurately, she argued that as the process has already begun, Libya’s ONLY option is to surrender Saif to the ICC.   Ms. Alamuddin DID mention that Libya has a legitimate option to end the ICC through the diplomatic channels, but only in her conclusion.  Ms. Alamuddin went on to DISMISS Libya’s diplomatic right of Article 16 within a footnote.   SEE our PDF: Amal Alamuddin’s article about Saif and ICC

This is Amal Alamuddin's February 2012 article which dismisses Libya's Legitimate Legal Right to cancel the ICC proceedings through the UN Security Council under Article 16 of the Rome Statute. She is presently part of the legal team representing Abdulla Senussi.

This is Amal Alamuddin’s February 2012 article which dismisses Libya’s Legitimate Legal Right to cancel the ICC proceedings through the UN Security Council under Article 16 of the Rome Statute. She is presently part of the legal team representing Abdulla Senussi while John Jones represent Saif Gaddafi and Wayne Jordash represents Libya.

Actually, in direct contrast to Ms. Alamuddin’s assessment, a former legal adviser to the ICC prosecutor weighed in a few months earlier. An international human rights lawyer himself, Dr. Payam Akhavan said that the International Criminal Court proceedings COULD BE CANCELLED through diplomatic channels.   That is through the United Nations’ Security Council.  Our Copy of Interview 3:27.  SEE Dr. Akhavan’s quote in our other article.

We note that this simple, diplomatic option dismissed within Ms. Alamuddin’s footnote would END the international dimension of Saif Gaddafi’s celebrity case by sending to the diplomats, BEFORE the human rights lawyers got involved, BEFORE their ICC petitions started to flow, and BEFORE their per-hourly-legal-fees start to amass.

 

Why defend Abdulla Senussi?  Chris Stephen from The Guardian writes:

‘With the Senussi case active, Alamuddin will not be drawn on why she is defending a man many think deserves all he gets. One clue comes from fellow Doughty Street lawyer John Jones QC, who is defending Saif al-Islam: “Justice needs defence lawyers. The system only works if there’s robust advocacy on both sides.”

‘Robust advocacy’  is exactly what is happening as one law firm represent ALL participants in the case.  As all these barristers and their corresponding staff operate within the same physical proximity,  does the issue of a breach of confidentiality even raise an eyebrow?   It did for us.   For our understanding we did a short background of the UK Barrister System with respect to this issue.  Review of UK Barrister System

Set aside that it may be legal in the UK,  is it ethical?   The ethical freedom permitted to UK barristers is not ethical, legal or acceptable in much of the world, and most notably for their Libyan clientele, it is not legal in Libya.   Considering what seems to be their Management Committee’s choice to represent ALL these Libyan clients, one could speculate that the pursuit of money, fame and potential book deals NOT human rights was Doughty Street Chambers’ motivation.   It seems that Matrix Chambers and Doughty Street Chambers have blurred the lines of a conflict of interest in order to accept ALL their Libyan clients.

As evidence we offer this video that can attest to Matrix Chamber’s decision to represent within different cases BOTH Libyan victims of torture and THEIR Libyan torturer.  This Tripoli TV video made on the 25th of January 2009,  documents Matrix Client Abdulla Senussi intimidating and berating Matrix Client Sami al-Saadi and Matrix Client Abdel Hakim Belhadj by threatening ‘to have their throats slit’.      Abdulla Senussi’s actions in this video are a violation of European Convention of Human Rights and the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 which Matrix Chambers, a human rights law firm, are well aware of the implication of his actions.   HereHere and Here.  It is a violation of the essential rights protected by the Human Rights Act in Article 3:  The Right not to be subjected to torture, inhuman treatment or degrading treatment or punishment. 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZTmffFypYQ   

Barrister fees spiral up as the economy trundles down Alex Aldridge Law theguardian.com

As Ms. Alamuddin declined to offer a reason for her decision to defend Abdulla Senussi, we must dig deeper.

In a 12/2011 The Guardian article entitled Barrister fees spiral ever up as the economy trundles ever down.   The subhead is Life is rosy for the commercial bar with average revenue per barrister at £500,000…  This article starts:

As Britain lurches towards a double-dip recession, not everyone is struggling. Commercial barristers aren’t the sort to broadcast their success – indeed, their discretion is such that they can get rather annoyed with journalists who ask them to put a figure on it – but it’s no secret that they have been doing rather well of late.

The article proceeds: ‘ Figures published by The Lawyer magazine show barristers at 11 separateThe Lawyer's Top30 2011 sets of chambers generating average annual revenue in excess of £500,000…’   We included the chart mentioned.  The Lawyer Magazine’s chart shows the top 30 firms in 2011 and the statistics including turnover, revenue per barrister in each of the 30 firms.  We consulted The Lawyer Magazine recently to find the current top 30.  After a little calculation, we discovered that of the 30, 5 were exclusively human rights firms or had human rights departments:  Blackstone ChambersNo5 Chambers,  One Crown Office Row, 4-5 Grays Inn Square and Matrix Chamber.  There seems to be serious money in the legal aspect of human rights.

The article noted: Matrix Chamber was ranked 25 of the 30. The Bar Top 30 The Lawyer

Leading human rights set Matrix Chambers is now in its 13th year and has grown threefold in that time. What started out as a 23-barrister set now boasts 23 QCs and 50 juniors.

Matrix Chambers Overview The LawyerWe have to wonder how much of this prosperity is due to ALL the Libyan cases represented by Matrix Chambers.  The two teams (team 1: Philippe Sands, Michelle Butler) and (team 2: Professor James Crawford, Michelle Butler twice) representing the Government of Libya.  Ben Emmerson representing Abdulla Senussi and Richard HermerAlison Macdonald, Alex Bailin, and Mark Summers providing ‘advise’ on the al-Saadi/Belhadj rendition case against members of government of former Prime Minister Tony Blair.  As for Doughty Street, as of publishing we are unable to provide any statistics.

 

Abdulla Senussi, Muammar Gaddafi's spy chief and brother-in-law. Amal Alamuddin and Ben Emmerson are his ICC lawyers.

Abdulla Senussi, Muammar Gaddafi’s spy chief and brother-in-law. Amal Alamuddin and Ben Emmerson are his ICC lawyers.

An update from the Authors:  Interested in financials of Doughty Street Chambers?  On 1st July 2014, we released a critique focusing on how the three Doughty Street lawyers, Amal Alamuddin, John Jones and Wayne Jordash are financially compensated for their Libyan clients.   Our article.

Ms. Alamuddin compensation is from a private fund of an unnamed source‘.  It could be controversial as UN Security Council Resolution 1970 may be involved. We will not know until the source is named.  To find our issues with Ms. Alamuddin’s financials, go to our article and scroll half way down until the same picture of her client, Abdullah Senussi.    Mr. Jones receives compensation from the ICC as it was “exceptionally decided to assume the costs of Mr Gaddafi’s legal representation on a provisional basis..”  An exceptional decision which is the result of an ICC legal precedent.  Mr. Jordash’s compensation is part of the legions of London lawyers mostly in Matrix and Doughty Street Chambers that have made the legal expenses of the Libyan government run into millions.”   The  article is  John Jones, Amal Alamuddin & Libya: A Financial Cache of Libya’s ICC Case.

ICC rejects Libya’s challenge Doughty Street Chambers

ICC rejects Libya’s challenge Doughty Street Chambers. See JOHN JONES representing Saif and WAYNE JORDASH representing Libya.

 

John Jones & Wayne Jordash

When we noticed this callous Doughty Street announcement  of the final ICC judgment on Saif, and considering the threat of UN sanctions looming over Libya, we felt the need to re-emphasize the scandal of the TWO law firms hired to represent the best interests of the Libyan People.   Unfortunately for Libya,  it seems both Matrix Chambers’ and Doughty Street Chambers’ Management Committees chose to allow other lawyers within their respective firms to represent the opposing side while simultaneously representing Libya.  Was this in the best interest of the Libyan People?

Therefore, we re-submit page 2 of this ICC document image to acknowledge that members of Doughty Street Chambers, Amal Alamuddin,  John R.W.D. Jones and Wayne Jordash simultaneously represent Saif Gaddafi, Abdulla Senussi and the Government of Libya. Members of Matrix Chambers, James Crawford, Michelle Butler and Ben Emmerson simultaneously represent the Government of Libya and Abdulla Senussi.  While the Libyan people are represented Ahmed El-Gehani.   HERE

This chart demonstrates that Matrix Chambers & Doughty Street Chambers simultaneously represent BOTH sides of Libya’s ICC case: Libya and Saif Gaddafi and/or Abdulla Senussi. The Libyan people are represented by Ahmed El-Gehani in ALL cases with Matrix Team 1 with Philippe Sands, Payam Akhavan & Michelle Butler and Matrix/Doughty Street Team 2 with James Crawford, Wayne Jordash and Michelle Butler. HERE

This is from page two of a May 8th ICC document which demonstrates that Matrix Chambers & Doughty Street Chambers simultaneously represent BOTH sides of Libya’s ICC case: Libya (STATES) and Saif Gaddafi and/or Abdulla Senussi.  Our chart does not reflect Matrix Team 1 with Philippe Sands, Payam Akhavan & Michelle Butler but  Matrix/Doughty Street Team 2 with James Crawford, Wayne Jordash and Michelle Butler. HERE

Parts of this op/ed article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Interested in Libya’s ICC legal issues?   Please consult our other articlesthe lawyers and law firms that represent them.

John Jones, Amal Alamuddin & Libya: A Financial Cache of Libya’s ICC Case.

George Clooney’s Friends-Amal Alamuddin, Samantha Power and R2P: Implications for Libya

Doughty Streets’ Amal Alamuddin, John Jones, and Wayne Jordash and ALL Their Libyan Clients

The ICC, Abdulla Senussi and the Elusive Truth

Amal Alamuddin: Dismissing Libya’s Legitimate Legal Right Since 2012.

 Matrix Chambers’ Conflict of Interest with Their Clients: Libya & Abdulla Senussi

An Open Letter to Abdel Hakim Belhadj and the Libyan People

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: