Gustavo Martinez Works with a New Law Firm as JWT Execs Defend His Version of Miami Story

In the most recent advancement in the drip, drip story of now-former JWT international CEO Gustavo Martinez, the offender has actually named a new law firm to safeguard him as various executives testify on his behalf regarding the information of the 2015 Miami conference involving the (now main) rape joke.

Files submitted yesterday in New York federal court mark the very first look of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, which is now main counsel for the defendant.

Four individuals proclaimed their status as Martinez s new attorneys which suggests that the back and forth will continue without any end in sight.


It s a rather anticipated advancement. The firm of Davis & Gilbert, LLP has been representing the cumulative parties called in the fit Martinez, J. Walter Thompson and WPP since it was initially submitted on March 10, and Martinez is no more a JWT staff member after stepping down. (Davis & Gilbert has actually represented different WPP parties in the past, and the 2 entities have a longstanding relationship.).

As formerly reported, JWT maintained the firm Proskauer Rose LLP to conduct an independent investigation into Johnson s allegations previously this month. That announcement came 2 days before Martinez resigned, so it s unclear whether the firm continues to deal with the case at this time.

So the case now basically move on two separate fronts, with one team representing JWT/WPP/Martinez as one collectively responsible celebration and one defending Martinez as a lone accused.

As we found out yesterday, 4 JWT officers testified relating to the Miami event at which Martinez joked about being raped in order to lighten the tension. The complete memorandums filed in support of WPP s movement for a protective order concerning the DVD consist of some colorful details about the pool party that caused that exchange.

From sworn statement by Charlotte Ibarra, who is currently manager of occasions at JWT New York:.

Upon our go back to the hotel, we immediately saw several police cars with lights flashing. We recognized that the authorities were there to deal with a crowd of individuals that were gathered outside the hotel to participate in a pool celebration that was going on in the club at the hotel.

The people on line were behaving in an unruly and disorderly manner. It appeared that many were already really drunk. Many people were wearing incredibly exposing clothing and some remained in swimwears.

Lots of people complained to me that they thought the atmosphere at the hotel was dreadful.

Condoms were drifting in the pool, which was unusually dirty. The windows in between the pool deck and the conference room had butt cheek imprints which needed to be washed away.

A minimum of among the elevators that services this room was broken by the party guests the evening before, causing a real issue in terms of getting 60 individuals to the high floor on which the conference took place. This preceded JWT Portugal CEO Susana de Carvalho s confusion over whether her travel luggage had been taken from her room after individuals had remained in her room taking her baggage and her personal products from the restroom. (It had been misplaced by hotel staff.).

That led Martinez to joke about Carvalho having a troubled night when her room had been very checked out.

Relating to Martinez s subsequent joke about being raped in the elevator by people who had attended the party the night before, Carvalho testifies: I was not at all offended by anything he said.

From Keni Thacker, JWT s senior occasion innovation specialist:.

I am African American and I took duty as Executive Producer of Differenter [the occasion in question] because diversity is a concern I feel enthusiastic about. The remarks Gustavo made throughout the Miami conference had nothing to do with race and I did not feel at the time of the conference or now that there was anything racist about them.

Gustavo s examine your luggage comment throughout the meeting was made in reference to a real incident that had actually taken place and to ease the stress amongst the meeting guests who had actually had a hard time dealing with the hotel. Thacker later on mentions that Martinez s remarks about odd characters on the hotel elevators were not associated with race; rather, they alluded to the half-undressed people who had actually been at the party and in the elevator. He then protects Martinez in general terms:.

If I had thought that there was anything racist in exactly what Gustavo stated at the meeting, I would have been the first one to speak with him about it or to grumble. I have actually never seen him relieve any individual disrespectfully regardless of race. In separate declarations, Carvalho and JWT New York CEO Lynn Power also defended Martinez. From Power:.

Given the context of the highly unusual events combined with Gustavo s do not have of command of the English language and the fact that he was making a joke about himself, we did not discover the comments he made offensive. Power then repeated the relieving the stress phrase, including the qualifier we would not have selected the same words he did.

Each individual likewise explained his/her awareness that these would be public statements, arguing that they did so in order to safeguard other JWT employees who do not want their images in journalism and also do not wish to be gotten in touch with by press reporters.

The filings indicate that hotel staff apologized and repaid JWT for an undisclosed amount due to the state of the swimming pool deck where they held the meeting in concern and the status of the elevators. Management informed Carvalho that an unknown variety of salespeople were disciplined for permitting a celebration of this nature to happen at the hotel.

We would note that these statements issue only one of the lots of events consisted of in the initial match. Anticipate more news to come, even if WPP eventually chooses to settle with Johnson.

Read More

The buildings throughout Westminster governed by Sharia law including Admiralty House, as soon as home to members of the Royal Family and Sea Lords

A historical building that utilized to house members of the Royal Family and Sea Lords is now governed by Sharia law, MailOnline can reveal.

Admiralty House is one of 2 more public structures that are exposed today to operate under Islamic law following the discoveries that federal government properties were quietly moved to finance an Islamic bond plan in 2014.

In addition to 2 Department of Health buildings and the Department of International Development property on Whitehall, the bond scheme also covers Admiralty House and an unknown building at 4-26 Webber Street in Southwark, south London.


It takes the overall variety of government structures that were moved to fund the 200million Islamic finance scheme to five.

Under the terms of the lease, the sale of alcohol is among the activities banned on the properties because they need to comply with Sharia law. George Osborne revealed the move in June 2014 as part of an effort to make the UK a worldwide hub for Islamic finance. Critics stated the plan would lose money and could weaken Britain’s financial and legal systems by imposing Sharia law onto federal government facilities. Due to the Islamic bond plan referred to as Sukuk the ownership of the leases on the five government buildings have actually been switched from British taxpayers to wealthy Middle Eastern business people and banks. The cash raised will be repayable from 2019. Instead of interest, bond-buyers will earn rental income from the Government offices because interest payments are prohibited in Sharia law. The Treasury agreed to make the Sukuk completely compliant with the code of Islamic law to make sure financiers were not put off purchasing the scheme, meaning each of the structures used to finance the items have to date the terms of Sharia law, consisting of the ban on alcohol. It indicates Admiralty House – which neglects Whitehall and Horse Guards Parade – and other public buildings under the scheme run under the code of Sharia law. Opened in 1788, the eight-story building is now utilized as federal government workplaces however was once the home of courtiers and members of the Royal family.

It was later on the official house for the First Lord of the Admiralty, that included Sea Lords, Chancellors of the Exchequor and other members of the nobility. More just recently it was the grace-and-flavour home for the former Defence Secretary Liam Fox and the ex-deputy prime minister John Prescott. Lord Prescott’s affair with his secretary, Tracey Temple, is believed to have started in his Admiralty House office and apartment or condo in 2002. Ukip MP Douglas Carswell said news of the latest structures to be revealed as operating under the Islamic bond plan is proof that the Government ‘kept the fact about the number of public buildings the Treasury has actually put into the hands of Islamic investors’. Ukip’s Parliamentary representative Suzanne Evans told MailOnline: ‘When he released his sharia finance plan, the Prime Minister stated he would welcome ‘the participation of industry in establishing this initiative’. ‘He made no reference of the reality financing would be in fact be raised manuallying over the leases of publicly-owned, federal government structures. He’s been less than transparent and the public will rightly be angered by this.’. Discoveries that federal government buildings were being governed by Sharia law first emerged in January, when it was exposed that MPs might be required to stop drinking alcohol if they are momentarily rehoused in the Department of Health while the Palace of Westminster undergoes vital repair services. The structure – at 79 Whitehall opposite the Cenotaph – is among the structures that have actually been transferred to the Islamic bond plan. A Treasury source informed MailOnline that 2 other structures under the scheme are Wellington House in Lambeth – a second Department of Health site – and 22-26 Whitehall, the home of the Department of International Development. Verifying that alcohol is one of the prohibited activities in the buildings under the Sukuk bond scheme, a Whitehall authorities told The Times newspaper: ‘It’s true. If MPs wish to use Richmond House they ‘d better quit any hopes it will consist of a bar.’. A spokesman for the joint committee on the Palace of Westminster, which is managing the refurbishment of Parliament, stated the committee is ‘aware that Richmond House is under a bond’. Tory MP Andrew Bridgen stated he was outraged to discover that parts of Whitehall was being ruled by Islamic law. ‘I do find it unbelievable federal government structures are governed by Sharia law,’ he informed MailOnline. ‘I do not see the bars as being an essential part of Parliament but it’s the concept that matters. ‘Most of our constituents will be definitely astonished that the concept could ever have been authorised.’. News that relocating to the Department of Health facilities would bar MPs from consuming alcohol was the most recent in a series of stumbling blocks come across by Parliamentary authorities as they look for a brand-new home while a 4billion worth of repair services is performed on the structure, which is riddled with asbestos, leaking ceilings and rodents and was described as a ‘death trap’ by one near the refurbishment strategies. The Palace of Westminster has lots of bars and restaurants, where MPs, peers, personnel and other passholders can take pleasure in pints for as little as 2.90. The most inexpensive and quickest alternative for refurbishing the Palace of Westminster would require MPs to briefly move out of the building for as much as six years. A specially-made chamber built in the courtyard of the Department of Health just 100 lawns down the roadway from the Palace of Westminster is the favored option among MPs. Continuing to be close to the palace would be the most hassle-free alternative for government ministers, who would continue to work in Whitehall departments and need to be held accountable to Parliament. Moving MPs to a courtyard in the Department of Health is popular with some MPs because it might quickly be integrated into the present Parliamentary estate.

Read More

The law is clear on same-sex adoption. Magistrates need to respect it

I was sworn in as a magistrate in 1993 and remember with excellent clarity the words I spoke: I will do best to all manner of individuals after the laws and uses of this realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will. Being a magistrate is not a job, it is a public service. It is unpaid, although you can claim a small amount for your lunch if you provide receipts.

I retired from the bench in 2002 realising that I did not have the sufficient time to provide to the tasks I had to perform. Magistrates are lay, they are not trained legal representatives, but there is a reasonable amount of magisterial training to complete and it is as essential as it is time consuming. Although the clerk of the court is always present to direct the magistrates on points of law, it depends on the ordinary magistrates to decide on innocence or guilt, to take into account any mitigating or annoying features of a case and to sentence accordingly.


It was not my responsibility as a magistrate to bring my personal opinions into the retiring room. I was there to see that justice was done to the very best of my ability, however it was not my task to decide what the law ought to be.

Richard Page, a Christian magistrate, is preparing to take legal action after he was sacked over remarks he made on television versus same-sex adoption. He was reprimanded in 2014 after he was found to have actually been affected in an adoption case by his religious beliefs.

The lord chancellor Michael Gove and the lord chief justice Lord Thomas chose that Page had actually brought the judiciary into disrepute and would have triggered a sensible individual to conclude that he was prejudiced against single sex adopters. Remembering what Page has said in public this appears a quite reasonable presumption making.

The Adoption and Children Act of 2002, brought into force 3 years later, offered same-sex couples the right to embrace a kid. This is the law. Page sat on the Kent Central family panel although he disagreed with the law. Now, disagreeing with the law, in itself, is not an issue. Bringing those views into the courthouse most certainly is.

I think that lots of drugs that are presently unlawful ought to be legalised. I have believed this for a long period of time. I would like drug abuse to be treated as a medical problem rather than a legal one, a move that would take thousands out of the criminal justice system. When I was a magistrate, however, I was really careful not to express this view in public and it never ever affected my duties on the bench, which were to deliver justice as the existing law stands. Feel free to visit

Page declares that he is being discriminated against for his religious beliefs. He is not. He is free to reveal his faith, but he is not free to discriminate in court versus people because of their sexuality. The Church of England, our developed church, victimizes gays and lesbians, however the law does not. f you want to know more about this you should contact manslaughter defense lawyer.

In 2013, the Christian owners of a bed and breakfast fairly rightly lost their supreme court fight for the right to turn away a gay couple. The B&B was a business, and simply because the business was in their home it did not give them the right to break the law. Page has a best right to his Christian views, however where those views vary from the law then his concern in the courthouse is to the law, not to his personal convictions. If he feels not able to perform his responsibilities because of his conscience then he must have resigned years back. Page needs to remember his oath, without worry or favour, love or ill will.

Read More