Amal Alamuddin and her work

LizzyNY wrote:PAN - thanks for clearing that up for me. I didn't pay that much attention to the other people at the wedding and didn't know who Jennifer Robinson was. Now I do.

Lizzy, I remember her on the boat with Bill.  Such a pretty girl.  And in a couple of pics taken at the ceremony and when George and Amal were dancing she seemed really emotional.  Think she and Amal are really close.

Lukewarm pretty much sums it up. From my perspective one issue is that they seriously have not extended themselves to fix this - because they really don't care and are only going through the motions. The second issue is that Canada has forfeited much of its international reputation and clout over the past decade as our government consistently takes positions which are at odds with our own history and with the views of the international community on a host of issues from human rights to the environment. Our stature in the international community has suffered. So a phone call from our PM just doesn't do what it used to do. 

I admit to taking some delight in reading Amal Clooney's letter (s) ? taking them on with respect to their lack of commitment to the Fahmy case. Having said this - shaming these folks is pretty ineffective. They don't care. Probably see it as a badge of honour. Our election will be held on October 19 - and there are many of us for whom this can't come soon enough

......and of course their Foreign Secretary resigned in the middle of it all. Not sure who picked up his baton, but it can't have helped.

And don't forget al Sisi used to be head of Egypt's army, so you could argue that it started out as a military set up (sort of). And it would appear that this is the better option to the Muslim Brotherhood who formerly ran the country and have links to ISIS.

My own opinion based on limited knowledge is that the Al jazeera journalists are pawns in a bigger political picture. Interesting that their trial and verdict was altered in substance and b) the timings changed to avoid a legal decision maybe while John Kerry was on an official visit last week and/or to influence any postponed elections in the country. There are also massive differences between Egypt and Qatar, where al Jazeera is based and financed.........

Amal is best placed to know all about this (see her IBAHR work on the Egyptian judiciary)

PAN I think Sissi and his military government are trying to make an example of these journalists who dare criticize or, in their mind, harm the national interests of Egypt.  A warning to other journalists within Egypt or outside media.

Donnamarie wrote:

Alisonfan wrote:Today Daily Mail Amal getting torn to bits andpieces bY 99.9% of comments much anger For name Clooney.this hurt me as George fan upset for him.

Yes most gossip media site comments are typically angry.  Most of those comments are posted to elicit strong reaction.  It's mostly inflammatory rhetoric.  I do not in any way believe they represent general public opinion.

Best advice is not to read them.

They DO represent feelings is all ppl more so than 800 comments and many more to replies All not liking how Amal carry her world.Many say she can refuse case because of conflict inteRest Bec of Uncle and General.but she not refuse it.This big mistake to make when carry you Clooney name.for money many say.ppl now have very Different view of George Bec of Amal.this Egypt case make me saD for George and his name he work so hard for.No excuses!

I actually think it might be helpful if some of those who have opinions read the small print, tho, because Ben Emmerson QC explains the situation very clearly. 

They are aware that the Libyan courts are illegal and should have referred these two cases to the ICC, because it may be that the accused are guilty but it sets a precedent to accuse many more who may be innocent and who wouldn't get a fair trial

People who don't like George will find something to bitch about, his wife has a job to do and is doing it. If her working on this case were a problem her bosses would not have given her the case. I don't believe her bosses or Amal herself would risk their reputations by  working on a case with conflict of interest.  George is proud of his wife and the work she does .

I assume that if there was a real conflict of interest because of Amal's family ties her chambers would have been aware of it before they assigned her to the case. Maybe those ties are helpful for behind-the-scenes negotiations. I don't know.

I do know that Alisonfan is right when she says there are a lot of posters on other sites who do not like Amal. Not all of them are jealous trolls who think George should have married them instead, and not all of them are bullies or bigots.
 Unfortunately, I think some of this ill will does carry over to George and is added to by all the people who never liked him in the first place. Ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist won't make it go away.

I don't think George cares he married Amal and knew what her job was from the beginning. I myself find it odd to blame George or find fault with him for whatever cases his wife represents, that to me makes no sense. There is simply no logic or reason when it comes to some people.

Those posters are mostly people who like to draw attention to themselves by the things they say.  And the number of posts is such an incredible small sample of the real population.  And as you say Lizzy many of the posters probably weren't fans of George in the first place.

George isn't going to lead his life according to what people think of him.  He's his own man.  He has found a women he truly loves and he and Amal will live their lives the way they want to.  Damn the naysayers.

Lizzy,
do you think it was different if he had married another woman?
I think those people would find negative things to say about any other woman. I read comments here about Elisabetta, Stacy and Sarah which really weren't nice at all. The difference to Amal is that he married her, she really seems to be a very bright woman (I don't mean that his ex's aren't, but if they are clever etc. they never showed it - or never got the chance to show it). And I think George changed a lot. During the interviews for Tomorrowland he talked so much about his personal life, and to me he seems more relaxed and happier than before.

I also agree with you that the negative feelings for Amal might carry over to George but what can they do? As I said before I sometimes wish Amal would do a private interview to show people how she is as a person - but would that change anything?
Unfortunately I don't think so.

I think Amal draws some negativity because her job is by it's nature political and everyone has an opinion about that sort of thing.  Often there are people on the other side of issues she is involved in who vehemently disagree with her clients.   She may not draw the same type of negativity as the previous girlfriends (criticisms there were about their intelligence, morals, using George for their careers, etc.)

Yep, and the other thing to remember about this particular case is that Saif was not in court, but is being held by the Zintan militia who will not release him...........

Here's a Guardian article from a year ago explaininging things alot better than I ever could!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Excellent article from the Guardian - I had not read that before. Thank you. The issue is neatly summarized by the quote from John Jones:

 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."

But ICC ruled that the trial could be held in Libya.

Silje wrote:But ICC ruled that the trial could be held in Libya.

I believe the Libyan government convinced the ICC that the the two accused would get a fair trial in Libya.  Not sure why the ICC believed the Libyan government but it went ahead and allowed the trial to take place there.  And unfortunately from the reports there was no semblance of a fair and just trial carried out.

This is my recollection.  Maybe PAN or someone else remembers the details better than I do.

Silje, I just read The Guardian article, the link provided by PAN above. That explains a lot and answers your question about the ICC.

Silje wrote:But ICC ruled that the trial could be held in Libya.

The ICC is what we have. But it is a far from perfect institution in a far from perfect world. Unfortunately the ICC has largely failed to fulfill its original mandate. This ruling is just another example of this.

They also failed to bring  war crime charges against Sudan's President Omar Al-Bashir.

Silje wrote:But ICC ruled that the trial could be held in Libya.

 This was not a question, it was a statement. ICC ruled that the trial could be held in Libya. 

ICC seems pretty toothless and the only indictments have been against Africans. So I  guess that means only Africans commit warcrimes?!

And of course The US hasn't  ratified the treaty neither has Russia or China. I wonder why?! (That question was retorical and  ironical).

Here is another article which says that neither the British nor the American government wanted Senussi tried in the Hague because he knew too much about Libya's dirty dealings with the US and the UK. Also talks about the convient hanging of Saddam. 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

More plus 3.5 thousand shares ppl who post on to FB or twiter and more.And in even more 3470! Ppl voted on the top comment.you cannot say this no Defect George's career and respect ppl had for him.Artcle still live still she get coMoments.

Some say she "got" the case for chamber.bec of uncle. And will pay chamber a lot of money for many year.

Doughty Street Chambers statement issued today to correct some false reporting


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It is sad that now respectable papers that should know better now print lies. They don't even check their source   and there are people who believe everything that is written and take it to be fact.

party animal - not! wrote:Doughty Street Chambers statement issued today to correct some false reporting


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Good find pan....thank you.

I hope that many people have lost faith in the "free press" after the Murdoch
phone hacking revelations.
It seems that anyone can invent anything and write anything 
these days and get away with it.

Alisonfan wrote:More plus 3.5 thousand shares ppl who post on to FB or twiter and more.And in even more 3470! Ppl voted on the top comment.you cannot say this no Defect George's career and respect ppl had for him.Artcle still live still she get coMoments.

I'd be interested to know where you've got these statistics from Alisonfan ?

I doubt whether anonymous comments about Amal Clooney  
would harm George's career.

Silje, I have no doubt that the Independent writes from well- informed stories and I'm sure they're probably guided by the 'second source' edict on matters as senistive as this, but the point here is that lawyers like Amal Clooney do what is legally right for their clients.

I'm sure that she, and many others, despair about the lack of teeth the ICC has. None more so than her husband I suspect. It's unfortunate that much of it stems from the United Nations who helped set it up in the first place

annemarie wrote:It is sad that now respectable papers that should know better now print lies. They don't even check their source   and there are people who believe everything that is written and take it to be fact.

So true Annemarie.  Disappointingly The Washington Post (my home paper) was included in that false reporting.  Sloppy journalism.  Some of the blame attributable to all the budget cutbacks of our traditional news media.  Not enough staff to check stories out properly before going to press.  But some of it is just plain laziness.

I am a bit surprised Doughty didn't come out weeks ago and refute this story.

Thanks PAN for the story and keeping us on top of what's really going on .... not just heresay.  Always appreciate your perspective too!

Hi, Dommarie.

I think it is far far better for Doughty Street to have facts to deliver, rather than 'upping the Amal-hype' by putting out two stories - one of denial (which would probably create more questions like 'Oh,okay. So when's it out then?), and then have to issue another statement on their brief now.......

I'm curious to know what this brief actually advises the Greek government to do. Didn't the earlier stories say that Doughty Street advised the Greeks to sue for the Marbles, but the Greek government decided not to go that route? If they drop the matter, doesn't that mean they no longer employ Doughty Street?

LizzyNY wrote:I'm curious to know what this brief actually advises the Greek government to do. Didn't the earlier stories say that Doughty Street advised the Greeks to sue for the Marbles, but the Greek government decided not to go that route? If they drop the matter, doesn't that mean they no longer employ Doughty Street?

I don't think that the current situation regarding Doughty Street 
and the Greek government should be in the public domain.
After all....client confidentuality rules.

LizzyNY wrote:I'm curious to know what this brief actually advises the Greek government to do. Didn't the earlier stories say that Doughty Street advised the Greeks to sue for the Marbles, but the Greek government decided not to go that route? If they drop the matter, doesn't that mean they no longer employ Doughty Street?

I would think the opinion would address all of the merits (and weaknesses) of their case, the legal options available to Greece and their likelihood of success.  And yes, some of those options (if Greece chooses them)  may mean that the job of the chambers is finished.

Well, given that the Greek Government were Doughty Street's clients, it's entirely up to them when or whether they decide to publish what the legal advice is

Swedish charges to be dropped against Assange

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

party animal - not! wrote:Swedish charges to be dropped against Assange

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

 
Only the sexual assault charges is dropped, statute of limitation is 5 years.

But the rape charges stills stands, another 5 years left before they have to be dropped.

This is a clever way to avoid justice.

So, am I right in thinking that he still can't leave the embassy without being arrested? He must be going stir crazy hiding away there for so long.

Yep, my thoughts exactly Lizzy, and there is concern about lack of Vitamin D etc.

Didn't know all the details, Silje, but not sure it's been helped by the Swedish Prosecutor being reluctant to come to the UK and deal with the matter here.....

party animal - not! wrote:Yep, my thoughts exactly Lizzy, and there is concern about lack of Vitamin D etc.

Didn't know all the details, Silje, but not sure it's been helped by the Swedish Prosecutor being reluctant to come to the UK and deal with the matter here.....

 
Finally the Swedish Prosecutor wants to go London but now the Ecuadorian Embassy wont let them in. The Swedes and the Ecuadorians are blaiming each other for whose fault that is. But the Sweds wants to question him in London now. But I think the Ecuadorians want guarantees before they let them inside the Embassy.

Merged threads

The decision on the Armenian case

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Right. So this means he's won the right to deny it was a genocide.

So another case in the offing?

Definitive statement from Doughty Street chambers tonight which is very positive

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Statement by Geoffrey Robertson QC and Amal Clooney on today’s European Court of Human Rights Decision in the case of Perincek v Switzerland
15.10.15 |
Amal Clooney, Geoffrey Robertson QC
                              
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Thanks for that link PAN. I had read the ruling and found some difficulty making sense of it besides understanding the right to free speech, so it was very useful to read the Doughty Street chambers statement. It is very positive which is great.

PAN, a very positive statement. And I'm guilty myself of assuming this was a defeat for Doughty Street and Armenia. The statement above certainly clarifies more succinctly what the European Court's decision means.

No excuse for The Telegraph tho. These news organizations need to do their homework if they are going to "weigh in" on court decisions and their implications.

Donnamarie, couldn't say it better and totally agree!

An explanation from the lady herself


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Amal is a very intelligent and well spoken  woman. 

t looks like they may have moved into the house or is this the guest house in CaliI. Checked some photos I have saved that is the guest house In Cali.

annemarie wrote:Amal is a very intelligent and well spoken  woman. 

It looks like they may have moved into the house or is this the guest house in Cali.

Definitely California.