Saturday, May 3, 2008
Attorneys for Jamie Olis filed a Reponse to Government's Answer and Motion for Summary Judgment, and Motion for Reconsideration of Olis' Motion for Discovery. Perhaps the most fascinating argument pertains to the payment of attorney fees. What role did the Thompson Memo have in depriving Olis of Dynegy money to present his defense? One paragraph from the brief states:
"The government also urges that trial counsel’s awareness of the existence of the Thompson Memorandum put Olis on notice of the constitutional violation. Gov’t Answer at 12-14. That suggestion misses the mark for two reasons. First, Olis’ counsel, . . . , did not understand that the Thompson Memorandum would by itself prevent Dynegy from fulfilling its contractual obligations to Olis. On the contrary, [he] believed that Dynegy decided to put funds in escrow in order to circumvent the implications of the Thompson Memorandum by putting the funds out of the company’s reach. Kelley Decl. (Docket # 318) Ex. D at 65:23-66:12. Second, Olis does not contend that the Thompson Memorandum alone violated his constitutional rights. Rather, it was the actions of the USAO, which improperly used the Thompson Memorandum to put pressure on Dynegy, that constituted the violation."