Subject:

Attorney Client Communication/Work Product confidential and privileged

Attorney Client Communication/Work Product confidential and privileged Dear All Good morning. Gabriel and I had lunch here today and reviewed both the plans for this week as well as the 6/15/17 decision by the Constitutional Court relating to Article 246, et al, of the Criminal Code (the provision which controls the 'Abuse of Power' provision and its legal elements). Gabriel will return to Bucharest today and meet with our team there tomorrow. The plan is to study the facts and circumstances of this case and create a factual 'white paper' which sets forth both the relevant exculpatory evidence, as well as the lack of credible evidence here to support a conviction. In this regard transcripts, witness statements and documentary evidence will be studied and analyzed. This 'White Paper' will be the basis for presenting our case/request for relief to the relevant Romanian authorities--as well as to third parties and banks--which have started to pressure Gabriel and his businesses as a result of the recent conviction. We will need the legal opinions of Prof Mico and Andreia on the 6/15/16 opinion by the Constitutional Court, but I believe that the decision should directly and positively impact our case. The judges found that the main element of the criminal statute (Abuse of Office) upon which our conviction is based is vague and therefore creates "unpredictability," "imprecision" and "lack of clarity" for potential defendants (Par. 54). For example, the judges noted that prosecutors have construed the statutory phrase "inefficiently" (the statutory provision proscribes a public 'clerk' not to "inefficiently fulfill") in a manner "which is known only by the case prosecutor"(Par 14). In sum, the judges found that the sole and discretionary interpretation of this material element does not provide a defendant with fair notice, or require an intent (or conduct) to "breach a law." The judges seem to conclude by ruling that the "shall inefficiently fulfill" element of the statute must be interpreted to mean that the defendant must actually be "breaking [a] law" with some objective conduct (eg., "prefiguring any benefit for himself or for any other individual in exchange of his abuse or inefficient conduct" (Par. 13), and thus the judges seem to "reconfigure" a material element of the 'Abuse of Power' offense (Par. 76). So if the 6/15/16 decision holds that the 'Abuse of Power' criminal offense now requires the public prosecutor to "expressly stipulate the element as related to which such inefficiency is being analyzed" (Par. 57), there needs to be proof of a particular criminal act or "breach of the law" by the defendant. In that case, our criminal conviction should be vacated and the matter either dismissed, or sent back to the lower court to be re-analyzed in light of the Constitutional Court's 6/15/16 decision---and the current charges then dismissed. However, rather than relying exclusively on the decision, we will also implement an overarching strategy which we discussed at lunch and will further analyze when we meet this week. Specifically, we will evaluate the timing of meeting with the relevant Romanian authorities and perhaps try to do so this week. Timing here is of the essence as we don't know how quickly the authorities will react to the court's decision. Also, the adverse impact of the conviction on Gabriel's businesses, credit and reputation is very serious. I look forward to joining you this week in Bucharest. Safe travels and best regards, Louie Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>conversation-id</key> <integer>40405</integer> <key>date-last-viewed</key> <integer>0</integer> <key>date-received</key> <integer>1468159766</integer> <key>flags</key> <integer>8590195713</integer> <key>remote-id</key> <string>239811</string> </dict> </plist>