Snippet of the dossier as it ran in Veja. Big fat bribes in Swiss bank accounts in the name of Brazilian bigwigs. This work of postmodern conceptual art is attributed to Frank Holder — a hitherto unknown alter ego of Fernando Pessoa.
Stealth marketing harms, I argue, by degrading public discourse and undermining the public’s trust in mediated communication. Doubt that an editor has an authentic voice leads to an overgeneralization of distrust as audiences come to believe that mediated speech is inauthentic or untrue even when it is not. The law of bribery as well as public discourse theory helps to show how such distrust corrupts the kind of communicative public sphere hat a democracy needs. —See “Stealth Marketing and Editorial Integrity”
The question before the committee is the lawsuit brought by Kroll against Frank Holder — see
- Dantas’ Inferno: Holder Drills a Hole in Kroll?
- Was Holder A Mole? Kroll: “We Frankly Do Not Know”
- Dantas’ Inferno: “Citi Conspiratorially Subverted and Ambushed Me With Leaks”
Holder is the alleged author of the “Tupi Clearstream II” dossier — or as locals have dubbed the case, the “Caymans Dossier II.”
Do a search on Dantas’ Inferno for previous notes on the case. On coverage of the issue by Brazilian newsmagazines, see also
- “Rumors, Brazilian Journalism and Other Unsubstantiated Hearsay”: More Notes on Dantas’ Inferno
- Veja (Brazil): Behind the Scenes of an “Exemplary” Investigative Report
- The Persecution of Daniel Dantas: An Italian Opera in (?) Acts
- Brazil: Reviewing IstoÉ’s “The Spy Who Bugged Me”
- Brazil: Attuch’s Book of Revelations
I thought it would be interesting to note the latest development in Kroll’s claims against its formerly employee.
Mr. Amorim’s Deep Throat correspondent does not look very carefully at the devil in the details of the case.
From the plaintiff’s “Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Petition for Leave to Amend the Complaint” in Kroll, Inc. and Kroll Associates, Inc. v. Frank Holder (SDNY 06 Civ. 04657 (RJH))
Kroll now claims that Holder’s current employeer, Ferrell Law, P.A., whose investigations arm he has been hired to lead — and which is also representing him in the case — employed him on behalf of Brasil Telecom at the same time he had a consulting contract with Kroll to handle its work for Brasil Telecom.
By doing so, Kroll claims, he involved Kroll in a conflict of interest, which he had a contractual duty to report.
If I understand this correctly — IANAFL — Kroll wants Ferrell removed as Holder’s attorney and seated in the dock alongside Holder.
Which would, among other things, presumably remove the attorney-client privilege and force Ferrell and Holder to disclose material facts about their relationship.
Holder disputes this.
He says he resigned from Kroll because Kroll had betrayed a client’s confidence by leaking one of his investigations to an adversary of the client.
He says he agreed to sign a consulting contract with Kroll only after Kroll assured him this alleged misconduct would not happen again.
I think we can reliably infer that the investigation “leaked to adversaries” in question had to do the Brasil Telecom matter. Dantas offers the same theory in his defense in the civil suit with Citi:
Now, Kroll’s Web site does list Citigroup as a client on its Web site, citing an unrelated matter in Argentina as a “client success story.”
But who knows?
We can only await further lawyerly “belief and information.”
And the judge will be the judge, of course.
In the meantime, however, the claim does bring in another player to strut and fret his hour upon the stage.
What is this Ferrell firm’s relationship to the case?
What’s its name?
Who’s its daddy?
Fire up your Martindale account, somebody.
598 Madison Avenue — I know a really nice bistro near there. Or there used to be, I think.
Miami offices at
201 South Biscayne Boulevard 34th Floor Miami Center Miami, FL
PR Newswire, November 14, 2006:
Ferrell Law’s Milton M. Ferrell, Jr. and John H. Lahey have been named to Worth magazine’s second annual list of the nation’s Top 100 Attorneys. Ferrell is listed for litigation and wealth practice, and Lahey for trusts, tax and wealth management.
Milton M. Ferrell Sr., the firm’s founder, died of cancer while defending Anthony Accetturo, “the 49-year-old reputed leader of the Luchese crime family in New Jersey.”
Rudolph, Robert C. The Boys from New Jersey: How the Mob Beat the Feds. New York: William Morrow and Company Inc., 1992.
Somebody should go ask them for their side of the story.
Have they ever been known to fly down to Rio with Don Ameche to dance with devil in the pale moonlight, accompanied by the Banda da Lua?
The issue of “work performed for Brasil Telecom” gets so confusing, it seems, because Brasil Telecom was undergoing a sort of Jekyll and Hyde identity crisis at the time.
Dantas argued that “Brasil Telecom, c’est moi.”
The other investors with seats on the board argued that Brasil Telecom was the sum of its part(ner)s.
And have charged Dantas with using Brasil Telecom assets to benefit his personal interests.
Such as hiring lawyers and investigators with Brasil Telecom funds, rather than Opportunity funds, to investigate and sue other board members.
Anyway, the question of the day: What dealings did Holder have with Ferrell, if any? What dealings did Ferrell have with Brasil Telecom, if any?
And if it had dealings with Brasil Telecom, with which Brasil Telecom did it have dealings?
Brasil Telecom c’est moi?
Or the Soviet Socialist Republic of Brasil Telecom?
“To each board member according to the number of shares it has the right to vote?”
And speaking of conflicts of interest, here is an interesting side development, which I will try to write up a note on: The Editora Abril issues a new institutional code of conduct which, among other things, formally requires employees to notify management and get approval before working for outside parties.