MK Lukman: Prologue (PIERCING EYES)

Added: (Thu Apr 16 2009)

Pressbox (Press Release) - Summary:

Unbeknownst to “PJ”, a credibly ambitious, criminal profile was ingeniously imputed to him by some of the most powerful, clandestine agencies in the United States, and abroad. Charges of economic espionage, and the like, perpetuated his notoriety.


Background information:

PIERCING EYES (A Novel of Romance, Suspense & Drama). ISBN: 978-0-9602660-2-9. Library of Congress Control Number: 2009902296. Copyright 2009 by Mphahlele K Lukman; all rights reserved. Hardcover-edition: $29.95 (USA); $35.65 (Canada); ~$59.90 (Barbados). Page-length: 675. The novel (an internationally suspenseful, compelling, romantic thriller) comprises 35 chapters, 5 parts, a preface, preamble, prologue, and an epilogue. Publisher: Avrem Enterprises Group, Inc. Availability: summer 2009. E-mail: avrem_group@yahoo.com

Prologue

The evidence, albeit circumstantial, was rapidly mounting against “PJ”. By then, it was no secret that a potentially fierce, legal battle was brewing—capturing the imagination of Americans, and society—at large. The pros and cons of the case, even its fate, were indelibly etched against the fabric of their consciousness; prompting some internationally renowned, legal scholars—such as Sir Peter Leacock, Sir David Berkshire, and Dr Vivian Marshall—to deem it “… a potential landmark case.”

In the coming weeks, attorneys for the plaintiff—the US government—would use all legal means at their disposal to vigorously defend their client as they presented their side of the facts before the Honourable Patrice Morgan-Jones (SJD), Chief Judge, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Most of the conservative media—including Fox News, CNBC, and Bloomberg—were lopsidedly supportive of the government’s view of the case. It was as if “PJ” were given a new identity by the United States Marshall’s Witness Security Protection Programme in that he had virtually become a new—if not, a coming—man.

Thus, in light of his notoriety, stemming from charges that included economic (e.g.: industrial) espionage, he could find it miserably difficult—even with the astuteness of his ‘dream-team’: Murphy, Rudner, Schmidt, Aberdeen & Fulton, LLC; reputed to have had unparalleled success in defence of individuals who were accused of committing crimes; ranging from tax and securities-fraud to intellectual property and international law violations—to justify his reputation for honour, integrity, and ethics! And, accordingly, would be aptly viewed as a ‘white-collar criminal’; deserving the ‘highest, possible punishment … under the law’.

That was partly the view of certain, highly respected individuals that formed an unwaveringly prejudice—or, for that matter, pious—position of rightness; giving a bias to the court-of-public-opinion, and reflecting the changing climate of the beliefs of large numbers of people.

Even Face-book, You-tube, Twitter and, of course, the celebrated Google would ultimately be consumed with the case; thereby broadening its appeal, and rendering its trial lawyers—especially “PJ’s” legal team!—cult-like status; culminating in, for many of them, lucrative book-deals; offered by some of the world’s most prestigious publishing-houses. That was the sort of far-reaching interest that the case generated worldwide; much to the chagrin of those individuals—deeply involved in the case—who cherished their privacy.

Sir Peter Leacock: Regius Professor of International Human Rights Law at the University of Oxford, (UK); Sir David Berkshire: Emeritus Professor of Intellectual Property Law at the University of Edinburgh, (UK); and Dr Vivian Marshall: the Lawrence Steinberg Professor of Business Law at Stanford University, (USA) were, each, initially sought for their internationally respected expertise; pertinent to the case. Promising, however, to appear for interview were Sir Peter and Dr Marshall who, at the time of the BBC’s request, had no pressing engagements. And Ian Cooke—the senior news-presenter of the BBC World News programme; partly broadcasted from Washington, DC via the BBC-America network—vigorously ensured their availability, with a view to elucidation of the US Government v Colin (“PJ”) Walcott.

Dr Marshall—who was nationally recognised for her expertise in corporate governance and securities litigation—had served as an expert-witness in criminal cases for the United States Securities & Exchange Commission (USSEC). The agency—which normally supervised the exchange of securities, with a view to protection of investors against malpractice (e.g.: insider-dealing)—had successfully brought numerous suits against companies, and individuals; deemed to have committed crimes, ranging from accounting-fraud, provision of false information, and other securities-law-related violations.

“Dr Marshall, welcome to the programme!” Said Cooke; greeting her with his legendarily infectious enthusiasm.

“Thanks for having me.” Her moderately soft-spoken words, expressed through pertly lips.

“I take that each of you is already familiar with the case?” Cooke asked.

“Who isn’t?” Sir Peter retorted with a smile. “The media are, all, saturated with it. Aren’t they?”

“Indeed!” Cooke exclaimed; quickly shuffling through some BBC news-related papers—lying atop the news-desk—in whose right column he had scribbled some queries; hoping to ask professor Marshall and Sir Peter during their interview.

It was quite evident that the no-nonsense journalist, in Cooke, wanted to know the precise facts; not evasive, diplomatic doublespeak! He had always had a reputation for being a tough interviewer; posing challenging questions to his guests, and getting, in return, the type of answers he desired without pulling punches; particularly in the instance of interviewing a renowned, legal scholar who happened to be a woman. The gender, even in such a context, made no difference to him. Only the individual’s expertise! So, in effect, he could be perceived as beating someone up, including a woman, for that matter. It was his style!

“And Ian—” Dr Marshall interjected; “it’s become sort of an international soap-opera.”

“But one with potentially deadly serious consequences, if I may add?” Cooke warned.

Glancing down at his papers, coalescing them into perfect sequence, Cooke raised his head, eyes somewhat focused at Dr Marshall, in an attempt to establish some basic, background information on each of his guests.

“Dr Marshall, you’ve … ahh … authored two important textbooks on corporate governance and securities litigation; very informative works, indeed!” Cooke apprised.

Acknowledging the compliment, she modestly nodded her appreciation with a smile.

“And, Sir Peter;” Cooke said, turning slightly towards him. “Welcome to the BBC World News programme!”

“Thanks. It’s my pleasure.” Sir Peter responded.

“Your specialism is international human rights law—correct?” Cooke ascertained.

“Yes!” Sir Peter replied.

“And—for our viewers who may not know—you’ve authored three highly acclaimed textbooks; elegantly compiled into a three-volume-set, dealing with the subject-matter! Haven’t you?” Cooke asked—sounding appraisive—like a lawyer, cross-examining a witness.

“I have, indeed!” Sir Peter confirmed; his bluish-grey eyes, following every move of Cooke’s peculiarly fastidious persona; verging on OCD!

“First, let’s discursively examine the charges—(1) insider dealing, (2) money-laundering, (3) tax-evasion and, (4), theft-and-sale of federally sensitive trade-secrets to foreign governments—shall we?” Proposed Cooke; emphatically counting off each of them—on four digits of his left hand—using his right index-finger.

“Dr Marshall, let’s start with you. Shall we?” Cooke said; casting a momentary glance at her.
Dr Marshall—sitting beside Sir Peter and understandably across from Cooke—nodded obligingly.

“In the matter of the forthcoming case—US Government v Colin (“PJ”) Walcott—have you a sense of perspective about it?” Cooke asked pointedly.

“The government’s case—” offered Dr Marshall, her eyes expressing a measure of aplomb; “lacks sufficient weight to enable the jury to unanimously establish a verdict of guilt or innocence.”

“Really! So, you can actually see that far ahead, in respect of the facts case, of the without being specific?” Cooke queried; sensing her inadvertent reluctance to be more desirably precise.

“Ahh … yes!” She said grimly; lightly tapping the soft tips of her fingers against the smooth, dark, glass-like, horny surface of the news-desk.

“That’s interesting, but—” Cooke trailed off.

“I certainly don’t want to say anything, in particular, that may affect its outcome, other than the fact that the more I look into it, the more flawed it becomes.” Said Dr Marshall; the tone of her voice—sounding uncharacteristically solemn.

“If I may press a little further at this point … ahh … what makes you draw this conclusion?” He asked almost reservedly.

Dr Marshall gasped; perhaps owing to her astonishment of the haste with which the government brought the case to court, in light of its subtly woven impracticality.

“The underlying motivation is politically and emotionally based;” said Dr Marshall matter-of-factly. “It’s nothing but sexual politics!”

Sir Peter Leacocke—a rotund, stoutish-looking and, in all probability, stout-hearted, rubicund-faced, celebrated scholar who had written extensively on international human rights law; sitting just an arm’s length from Cooke and Marshall; quietly reacting to the tone of their conversation—smiled, and nodded approvingly. Sir Peter casually leant back in the news-desk-armchair—emitting a barely audible gasp—as if he were particularly affected by some aspect of the discussion.

Eager to cast some light, of his own, on the root of such an incriminating mess that included power, greed, insensitivity, malfeasance, infidelity, and the like—insidiously scarring the image and reputation of public servants as well as those of prominent, corporate individuals—Sir Peter began to question the veracity of the charges, brought against “PJ”.

“Sir Peter, what’s your take on it?” Cooke asked.

“If such an overall inference—albeit a subtly ominous prognostication in content—turns out to be true,” replied Sir Peter; leaning slightly onto the news-desk, with his arms partly folded in front of him; “then the jury would have no other choice but to come to a deadlock.”

“And, seemingly, it wouldn’t end there!” Dr Marshall interjected.

Yet, somewhere in the world—in his seeming, corporate haven of Alimnosam in the Wall Street district; or his sixth-floor pied-ŕ-terre in Greenwich Village; or, better still, his favourite Ballys-like haunt: Chesterfields in Cherry Hill, where he could aerobically sweat away his deep-seated, stress-ridden emotions; even amidst the ongoing, media-driven flurry of interest and excitement; brought on by the case and its participants—“PJ” indefinitely remained an angry-seeming man!

Sir Peter, incidentally, was a guest-expert on the same news-programme, several weeks earlier, dealing with a somewhat similar matter; involving a British-born, Harrow and Cambridge-educated politician, and prominent member of the House of Commons. The anonymous MP—member of parliament—had frequently shared his marriage-bed with his exotic-looking, secret lover, named Anjali: an East Indian woman of British, French, and Nigerian heritage who had worked as an associate-consultant in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in London. She was the wife of a London-based, French ambassador to the United Kingdom; himself, a product of mixed—British and East Indian—heritage. Their six-year marriage, which was already shaky, hit the rocks soon afterwards.

"Fascinating! What parallels!" Cooke must have thought; given the fact that he, like many others in the media, was already conversant with the sordid details of “PJ’s” recent womanising-predicament; virtually escalating in one hell of an internationally intriguing web of manipulation, deception, extravagance, and retribution.

The secret love-affair of the MP and his paramour resulted in—what a noted columnist for The Sunday Times characterised as—an ‘acrimonious, diplomatic spat’, whilst the British Parliament was in session; late, one week-day afternoon. The MP’s distinguished, parliamentary colleagues had a field-day; obviously at his expense! And his anonymity—decidedly paramount; especially in light of the fear of family-related reprisals, or political fallout—was none the better for it!

In “PJ’s” case, ‘gag-orders’ were sternly issued by Judge Morgan-Jones against all individuals who were personally involved in the case; emphasising that it was vitally important that the American media, in particular, should exercise reasonable restraint in their presentation of the facts, surrounding the case—both pros and cons—so as not to irresponsibly influence its direction, or jeopardise its integrity, ‘in anyway, whatsoever’.

“But, Sir Peter, I … ahhh … must put you on the spot here.” Cooke said; albeit with some reservedness. “Based upon all that you know of the case, given the breadth of your expertise, what’s its fate like … as precisely as you can … without jeopardising it?”

“I’m not one to make predictions, per se;” said Sir Peter; “but … ahhh … overall, “it definitely has some markings that will enable it to be deemed a landmark case.”

“And an important, legal precedent—for such cases in the future—I imagine.” Cooke said.

It was not all bad, however! Much to “PJ’s” surprise, his circle of influential friends—included the likes of Alimnosam’s chairman: Stanton Friedman; Saudi Arabia’s oil-magnate: Prince Abdul-Rahman Tariq Ali; Gladstone Braithwaite: CEO of “the House”; and even the Japanese prime minister: the Honourable Takeo Nishimura, with whom “PJ” had had an audience, in behalf of Alimnosam, six months earlier—offered a rallying cry, with a view to his innocence.

Le Monde, a leading French newspaper, extensively reported on the suit against “PJ”; sparking a tidal wave of interest, sympathy, and moral support; especially from some of his former, academic associates—who fondly remembered him, back in the day, during their years, in attendance—at Harvard, Columbia, and the Sciences Po; many of whom had since made France their permanent home.

“He just couldn’t have done such things!” Protested an anonymous, distinguished alumna —now living in Paris—whom “PJ” had briefly dated during their attendance at Columbia, and the Sciences Po. “He was unbelievably caring, and sweet, and nice, and very laid-back. Nothing quite like what they made him out to be in the press, and other media!” She continued.

“Yo-up! Something’s gotta be wrong … somewhere!” Said another alumna; shaking her head in seeming, utter disbelief. “It’s quite unlike him … definitely out of character … to’ve done such things.”

“Sounds to me like one helluva frame-up!” Said a Parisian married-woman; herself, a trader at the Palais de la Bourse—Paris Stock Exchange—and a close friend as well. When asked, by a reporter of the Le Monde, whether she would like to give her name, she emphatically replied: “no!” It rather was obvious that she had much preferred the security of anonymity.

And, of course, Sir Peter Leacock, and Dr Vivian Marshall who—albeit not particularly sympathetic towards him—highlighted mounting, circumstantial evidence, associated with the government’s case; but cautioned “PJ”, much like his legal team, to refrain from publicly commenting on related facts. Besides, they were somewhat optimistic of a reasonably satisfactory outcome; seemingly “… in his favour.”

The BBC World News programme was winding down, and Cooke’s interviewing-segment had reached its conclusion.

“We must rap it up there.” He stated; following the last responses from both Dr Marshall and Sir Peter. “Thanks very much, indeed, for coming in!”

“My pleasure.” Sir Peter said.

“Nice to be with you, Ian!” Remarked Dr Marshall.