Manafort found guilty on eight counts in fraud trial

[SueEllenRules!]

Manafort found guilty on eight counts in fraud trial
The judge in the bank- and tax-fraud case declared a mistrial on the remaining 10 counts.

Paul Manafort was found guilty Tuesday on eight counts in his tax- and bank-fraud trial in Alexandria, Virginia, but the judge declared a mistrial on the remaining 10 counts after jurors said they could not reach a verdict on those charges.

The conviction of President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman is the first secured at trial by special counsel Robert Mueller’s team. Manafort is also expected to stand trial next month on a separate set of federal charges in Washington, D.C.

In a note sent just after 4 p.m. on their fourth day of deliberations, jurors told U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III they had a verdict on eight of the counts but couldn’t agree on the remaining counts.

Five of the guilty verdicts were for filing false tax documents, and the other three involved foreign bank account registration and bank fraud.

Earlier in the day, the jurors had signaled to Ellis III the deadlock on the 10 counts and asked for help on what to do in this situation. Reading from a standard instruction for jurors, Ellis essentially encouraged the group to keep trying.

The wording of the jury's earlier note created some confusion over how many counts were holding up the jury. Manafort is facing 18 total counts in the first trial to occur as part of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The full note, as read by the judge, said: "Your honor, if we can not come to a consensus on a single count, how should we fill [in] the jury verdict form for that count? What does it mean for the final verdict? We will need another form, please."

It was not entirely clear whether the jury’s reference to a “single count” was intended to signify that they were in disagreement on only one count, or whether they were asking about the procedure for any count where they might be deadlocked.

Addressing the court before the jury was led in, Ellis said such questions were not unusual in a jury trial. The judge added that he could ask the jury where it was overall in its discussions but was not inclined to do so now.

"I'm not going to ask them where they stand at this point," the judge said.

After the jury passed its questions to Ellis, the judge convened a brief court session with lawyers for both sides, prompting Manafort's defense to ask that the jury be given a verdict form with boxes to indicate the possibility of a hung jury on each count, in addition to guilty or not guilty.

"I do think it appropriate to give them a third option," said Manafort defense attorney Kevin Downing. "The third option should be, 'hung,' as to each count. They should not be misled to think hung as to each count is not appropriate."

"The government would object to that," Mueller prosecutor Greg Andres said.

Ellis sided with the prosecution. The judge also noted that he could inquire about any deadlocks at a later stage.

Ellis then brought jurors in and read them an instruction approved by a federal appeals court in 1970 in a bribery case from West Virginia. He spoke in a neutral tone and made little if any eye contact with the jury.

"If you fail to agree on a verdict, the case is left open and undecided. Like all cases, it must be disposed of sometime," the judge said. He added that no jury will be found that is "more conscientious, more impartial or more competent to decide it."

The direction coupled the call for consensus with a caution not to override any juror's views.

"No juror is expected to yield a conscientious conviction he or she may have," the judge said. He did not respond directly to the request for a new verdict form.

Despite the impatience of some in the media and public for a verdict in the high-profile case, Ellis said the jury should feel no time pressure.

"You may be as leisurely in your deliberations as the occasion may require," the judge said.

Jurors were in the courtroom for about eight minutes as the judge addresses their questions. Some jurors seemed to nod along at different parts of the instruction, but it was difficult to determine to what they were reacting.

In the room where it happened

The jurors’ note, their second since beginning deliberations last Thursday, set off a mad dash into the building for the dozens of reporters camped outside the courthouse.

It also created a scene inside Ellis’ ninth-floor courtroom when several reporters attempted to leave as soon as the judge indicted the jurors’ note had to do with a question and not a verdict. After at least one journalist made it out the doors, Ellis instructed U.S. Marshall deputies to block the doors and keep everyone inside.

“I doubt that a few seconds is going to make a difference,” Ellis said.

After discussing how to handle the jurors’ question with attorneys, Ellis opted for a brief recess to let them consider his plans — and allowed reporters to leave the room to file their stories.

Manafort's lawyers huddled with their client, forming a semi-circle around him as they discussed the import of the note.

Back at it

An unsmiling jury settled in for its fourth day of deliberations at Manafort trial Tuesday, making a perfunctory appearance in the courtroom before retiring to a nearby space filled with the nearly 400 exhibits introduced case against Trump's campaign chairman.

Manafort entered the Alexandria, Virginia, courtroom in the company of federal marshals shortly before 9:30 a.m., sharply dressed in a gray suit, light blue shirt and blue-pattern tie, but with his hair a bit tousled.

Jurors extended their deliberations Monday past 6 p.m., but quit for the night without announcing any verdicts.

The lead prosecutor on Mueller's team, Greg Andres, was on hand Tuesday after his absence Monday morning drew the notice of Ellis, the judge overseeing the case.

Before the court session began, Andres— whose facial expressions in court often seem pained — shared a rare laugh with Downing, one of Manafort's lawyers.

The jury was in court Tuesday for less than five minutes. As jurors filed in, most took seats towards the judge's end of the jury box, consolidating themselves as they did for the first time Monday. However, on Tuesday, one juror left a seat vacant between him and his nearest colleague.

A clerk took the roll and Ellis made his usual inquiry about whether jurors had avoided any discussion or investigation of the case overnight. All indicated they had. The judge omitted his typical statement that the jury could deliberate for as little or as long as it liked, but simply the group off to resume their deliberations.

There has been no substantive message from jurors since their first day of deliberation, when they sent four questions to the judge, most of which he rebuffed.

Manafort's wife Kathleen was in court again Tuesday morning. The veteran political consultant blew a kiss to his wife as he entered and seemed to pay her a compliment as he was escorted out.

Several of Paul Manafort's attorneys did not immediately depart the courthouse after the morning session. Instead, they went to a holding cell on the building's first floor to meet their client for about 20 minutes before heading to a hotel across the street to await a verdict.

After the brief court session, prosecutors dropped by the courthouse's small second-floor cafe for coffee, before slipping through a nearby door that leads to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Manafort found guilty on eight counts in fraud trial - POLITICO https://apple.news/AxYxPCdqNQsGfPmDZAa0ARw

 

[SueEllenRules!]

Lone holdout on Manafort jury blocked conviction on all counts, juror says

A juror in the trial of Paul Manafort said Wednesday all but one of the jurors wanted to convict President Trump’s former campaign chairman on every charge he faced — though she criticized special counsel prosecutors as seeming “bored” throughout the trial and said she believed their true motive was to “get the dirt on Trump.”

The juror, who spoke on the record to Fox News and gave her name as Paula Duncan, said jurors “again and again” laid out for the lone holdout the evidence that persuaded them Manafort was guilty. But the holdout, a female, said she harbored reasonable doubt, Duncan said.

“The evidence was overwhelming,” Duncan said, pointing to prosecutors’ extensive paper trail. “I did not want Paul Manafort to be guilty, but he was, and no one’s above the law.”

Jurors ultimately convicted Manafort of eight of the 18 charges he faced for bank fraud, tax fraud and failing to file reports of his foreign bank accounts, and could not reach a consensus on the remaining 10. Prosecutors had accused Manafort of failing to pay taxes on roughly $15 million he earned working for a pro-Russia candidate in Ukraine, and of trying to defraud banks to obtain loans when his money from the candidate ran out.

Duncan, who identified herself as a supporter of Trump, is the first juror to speak publicly about the trial and the jury’s deliberations.

She said the jury’s deliberations were tense. One juror, she said, would side with the majority at first, and claim the day to have felt “pressured” and want to change her vote.

“There were even tears,” Duncan said. She said jurors ultimately found consensus on eight counts, but could not move the holdout off her position.

“We all tried to convince her to look at the paper trail, we laid it out in front of her, again and again, and she still said that she had a reasonable doubt, and that’s the way the jury worked,” Duncan said. “We didn’t want it to be hung, so we tried for an extended period of time to convince her, but in the end, she held out.”

Duncan, though, was not laudatory of the special counsel’s prosecutors who handled the case, and some of her comments might give prosecutors pause as they weigh cases against other Trump associates.

While Duncan said it was “pretty easy to connect the dots” after prosecutors’ presentation, she described the special counsel team as seeming “a little bored” during the proceedings.

“I saw them napping during the trial,” Duncan said, singling out in particular prosecutors Brandon Van Grack and Greg Andres. “So it kind of sent a message of ‘We’re bored with this,’ and I’m thinking, ‘Well, if you’re bored, then why are we here?’”

Duncan, though, also said she was underwhelmed by Manafort’s defense and seemed to acknowledge, in response to a question, that Manafort’s decision not to testify influenced her decision. The judge in the case had told jurors they were not supposed to hold that against Manafort.

“We’re supposed to assume he’s innocent and therefore he does not need to defend himself, and the judge made that very clear, that there is no requirement for him to do so. However, just based on what I saw, what I heard, I think I would have liked to have heard a little more from the defense,” she said. “They gave a very easygoing atmosphere to the whole thing, they objected to very little, and appeared agreeable throughout it all.”

A spokesman for the special counsel’s office and a spokesman for Manafort did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

Duncan said some jurors had a problem accepting the testimony of Manafort business partner Rick Gates — who also worked on the Trump campaign and was considered the special counsel’s star witness. That could be particularly worrisome for the special counsel’s office if it hopes to use Gates to speak to other Trump-related wrongdoing at a different trial, such as the one Manafort is facing in the District next month.

“We agreed to throw out his testimony and look at the paperwork,” Duncan said of Gates.

Duncan also said the case was politicized. Prosecutors “tried to make the case about the Russian collusion right from the beginning, and of course the judge shut them down on that,” she said. “We did waste a bit of time with that shenanigans.”

That comment might be taking into account information that was public but not presented to jurors. A judge had barred both sides from broaching that topic of Russian collusion before the trial began.

Duncan noted accurately, though, that the evidence included references to Trump, particularly when it came to Manafort’s dealings with a bank chairman who wanted a job in the administration.

Asked if she agreed with a judge’s assessment before the trial that the special counsel hoped to use Manafort to seek information on Trump, Duncan responded, “Exact, spot on.”

“I think that they used Manafort to try to get the dirt on Trump, or hoping that he would flip on Trump,” she said.

Lone holdout on Manafort jury blocked conviction on all counts, juror says - The Washington Post https://apple.news/AlCqPMQc-RxS0fNVTisfyqg

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Well, I'm glad she outed herself.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

Manafort juror Paula Duncan: Manafort is guilty, but Mueller probe is a witch hunt
Paula Duncan tells NBC News the evidence against Paul Manafort was overwhelming, but she still wants Robert Mueller to wrap up his investigation.

Paula Duncan wearing a "MAGA" hat. She initially appeared on Fox News to discuss her service on the Manafort jury in Alexandria, Virginia.

WASHINGTON — Paula Duncan didn't wear her red "Make American Great Again" hat when she arrived in court to serve on Paul Manafort's jury.

She kept it in her car, she tells NBC News.

But Duncan, an ardent supporter of President Trump, came to the Manafort trial thinking that Robert Mueller's Russia investigation is a witch hunt that is maligning a good president and dividing America.

She still thinks so.

But she also had no doubt that Paul Manafort, once Donald Trump's campaign chairman, was guilty. She would have convicted him on all counts, she said, but she and 11 other jurors were stymied by a lone holdout.

And no, she doesn't believe that person, a woman, was a Trump supporter.

"I wanted Paul Manafort to be innocent, but he wasn't," Duncan told NBC News.

Duncan, a homemaker who lives in Leesburg, Virginia, said she believes Manafort was a "pawn," in Mueller's Russia probe, an investigation about which she has serious doubts.

She's not even sure Russia interfered in the election.

"I as a voter, when I went out to check my boxes I didn't see any Russian holding a gun to my head, so how could Russia have affected the campaign results," said Duncan, who first spoke to Fox News.

However, she said, the government presented compelling evidence that Manafort, who was Trump's campaign chairman, evaded taxes and defrauded banks.

"In the end I did what we needed to be done," she said. "I did the right thing."

During jury selection, she kept her political leanings to herself, she said.

"I didn't believe politics had any place in that courtroom, so I was somewhat vague in my answers. I knew I could be fair and impartial."

Most of the other jurors in Alexandria, Virginia "were probably not of my political leanings," she said.

That includes the lone holdout, about whom Duncan did not want to say much. Duncan was fairly certain, though, that the two didn't see politics the same way.

Most of the jurors agreed by the second day that Manafort was guilty on all counts she said, but there were two skeptics. One came around. But the female holdout refused, despite days of argument by the other jurors.

The jury ended up convicting Manafort of eight counts and deadlocking on 10, which were declared to be in mistrial. The government can retry Manafort on those charges, but given that he faces 10 years in prison, there may not be a reason to do so.

"It was so frustrating," Duncan said. "She just couldn't explain to us why she had reasonable doubt. We could provide her with the information but she wouldn't change her votes."

Duncan said the woman could not explain, for example, why she voted to convict on one count of failing to report a foreign bank account, but not on the other three, which were very similar.

"I think it was about her right to do that," Duncan said. "In the end it may have been more about her determination" to buck the others.

Duncan said none of the jurors put much stock in Rick Gates, who flipped and testified against Manafort. But there was so much other evidence that Manafort's guilt was obvious, she added.

Duncan said she did not hold it against Trump that he allowed a man who was committing crimes to help run his campaign.

"He was running Donald Trump's campaign in my opinion because he was brilliant as a political strategist," Duncan said, noting that even the government's witnesses said as much.

Trump could not have been expected to vet Manafort's finances, she added.

The former juror said she had great affection for the judge in the case. T.S. Ellis. He came under criticism for appearing to favor the defense, but she didn't see it that way.

"I think a lot of his interruptions were what parents would call 'teachable moments,'" she said.

Duncan says she supports Trump's call for Mueller to wrap up his investigation.

"America chose," she said. "The other half of America that lost doesn't want to accept those of us who won. I didn't vote for Obama but I had to accept him as my president. We're getting derailed by this whole special counsel thing — let the man do his job. "

Trump, she said, "is doing a great job."

The jurors' names remain sealed because the judge worried for their safety.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna903201

 

[Frank Underwood]

Duncan, a homemaker who lives in Leesburg, Virginia, said she believes Manafort was a "pawn," in Mueller's Russia probe, an investigation about which she has serious doubts.

She's not even sure Russia interfered in the election.

"I as a voter, when I went out to check my boxes I didn't see any Russian holding a gun to my head, so how could Russia have affected the campaign results," said Duncan, who first spoke to Fox News.

She's obviously missing the point about election interference. What Russia is accused of is indirectly influencing the election by releasing the DNC and Podesta emails, as well as creating anti-Hillary memes on Facebook. Nobody held a gun to the heads of Hillary voters in the Democratic primaries either, but the DNC still influenced the election in her favor.

However, she said, the government presented compelling evidence that Manafort, who was Trump's campaign chairman, evaded taxes and defrauded banks.

"In the end I did what we needed to be done," she said. "I did the right thing."

I strongly disagree with her politically, but I'm glad she was able to put partisanship aside in the case of Manafort.

Duncan said she did not hold it against Trump that he allowed a man who was committing crimes to help run his campaign.

"He was running Donald Trump's campaign in my opinion because he was brilliant as a political strategist," Duncan said, noting that even the government's witnesses said as much.

Trump could not have been expected to vet Manafort's finances, she added.

The fact that so many criminals work for Trump goes far beyond vetting.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

Lone holdout juror actually made it more likely that Manafort will go to jail even if Trump pardons him

Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort leaves the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse with his wife, Kathleen Manafort, after an arraignment hearing as a protester holds up a sign on March 8 in Alexandria, Virginia.

On Thursday, the Washington Post reported that President Donald Trump had recently discussed with his lawyers the prospect of issuing a pardon for Paul Manafort. The former Trump campaign chairman, who was convicted earlier this week on charges of bank fraud and tax fraud, remains under scrutiny by special counsel Robert Mueller for his work on the 2016 campaign and his connections to Russia. In considering a pardon, Trump could be seeking to pre-empt a cooperation deal with another former top lieutenant after Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign-related offenses this week and promised through an attorney to cooperate with the Mueller probe. A pardon would backfire, though, because Manafort would still face numerous state charges and his federal convictions this week would now be admissible in some of those states. Moreover, Trump would only be strengthening the criminal obstruction and the impeachment cases against him.

Last November, I explained how Mueller’s team seemed to be strategizing a way to outmaneuver Trump’s pardons when they initially brought charges against Manafort. Prosecutors appeared to be holding back some charges for states to bring, just in case Trump pardoned Manafort. Presidential pardons only address federal crimes, which means Manafort could face state charges for the same acts.

Federal double jeopardy law would not be an issue here. The doctrine of dual sovereignty allows the federal and state governments to prosecute the same crimes. The problem is that many states broaden double jeopardy protections to prevent the bringing of state charges after a federal prosecution. I’ve explained in Slate that New York and Pennsylvania have such a rule. It turns out that Virginia and California do, too. But because of some likely combination of prosecutorial skill and luck, Manafort still faces prosecutions in those states, plus perhaps Illinois and others.

Let’s first focus on just the crimes for which Manafort has already been tried. This week, he was convicted of five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to report a foreign bank account. In New York and Virginia, where he held residences, double jeopardy laws prevent him from being charged for the exact same crimes. But state tax fraud is a distinct crime, one that he almost certainly also committed. When one fraudulently hides income from the federal government, one has to hide that same income fraudulently in state tax returns in order to avoid incriminating inconsistencies.

Virginia’s double jeopardy statute bars secondary state prosecutions for committing “the same act” in “violation of both a state and a federal statute.” Filing a state tax return, though, is a separate act from filing a federal return. So filing an unlawful state tax return in Virginia would be separate, prosecutable act from Manafort’s federal filing, one that cannot be pardoned by Trump. The Virginia tax law further covers fraud, and a Virginia return that replicated his federal one would contain the same fraudulent material as his federal return.

Further devastating for Manafort’s pardon hopes, according to Virginia rules of evidence, past convictions can be admissible: “Such evidence is admissible if it tends to prove any relevant fact pertaining to the offense charged, such as where it is relevant to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, accident, or if they are part of a common scheme or plan.” So in a Virginia trial against Manafort for tax fraud, these many federal convictions would be admissible and devastating.

Manafort also faces New York state tax fraud liability with no double jeopardy protection. New York has a double jeopardy law, but it won’t help Manafort in another tax case. Leona Helmsley, the hotel magnate known as the “Queen of Mean,” had benefited from the double jeopardy rule to escape state tax prosecution. In 2011, New York fixed the rule to allow state tax fraud prosecutions to follow a federal prosecution. Now Manafort could face New York tax fraud charges, even after a federal pardon.

Manafort was also tried on bank fraud relating to New York and California banks. Both states have double jeopardy statutes that seem to create a potential pardon protection. But there was a hung jury on the conspiracy bank fraud charge for the California bank. California’s double jeopardy law states, “No person can be subjected to a second prosecution for a public offense for which he has once been prosecuted and convicted or acquitted.” That obviously excludes mistrials. So California could prosecute the separate act of conspiracy bank fraud because Manafort has never been prosecuted and convicted or acquitted of that charge.

There was also a hung jury on the four bank fraud charges for his dealings with the Federal Savings Bank in Illinois. The state’s double jeopardy law also allows a second state prosecution after a mistrial. It is ironic that the one holdout juror who caused a mistrial on some charges opened up Manafort to state retrials.

If Trump pardons Manafort on the charges from this month’s federal case alone, then he would still face prosecution in three very blue states (New York, Illinois, and California) and one increasingly blue-ish state (Virginia). Those are four jury pools that would potentially be altogether worse for Manafort. If, in this month’s trial, Manafort could only persuade one juror out of 12 on about half of these charges, his chances would seem pretty low at running the table in four more trials in Manhattan, Los Angeles, Chicago, and northern Virginia. And we haven’t even discussed the charges in the second federal trial next month and whatever additional state criminal liability Manafort might face that has not been charged at the federal level. And Mueller still might be strategically holding off on other charges.

It’s also unlikely that a Trump pardon would at least get Manafort out of jail temporarily while awaiting state trials. Judge Amy Berman Jackson in D.C. took Manafort’s alleged witness tampering so seriously that she revoked his bail. One of those state judges would probably deny bail, too, even if Manafort is pardoned for this alleged tampering. And that would put Manafort in state jail, not “Club Fed.” That’s another reason Manafort might not want a federal pardon: He might prefer federal prison over any state prison.

It’s also important to note that the Supreme Court has taken up a case called Gamble v.
United States in which it could rule on double jeopardy and federal-state dual sovereignty for next term. This case could directly impact the Trump investigation if Manafort is pardoned. There are many reasons the Senate should delay confirming Judge Brett Kavanaugh. But there is no way Kavanaugh should be confirmed while he may be the deciding vote on a case directly impacting double jeopardy law and the Trump investigation.

Ultimately, a Trump pardon wouldn’t benefit Manafort in any concrete sense, but it would build a stronger case for impeachment and removal. Such a pardon would only add proof of Trump’s obstruction, providing additional evidence of criminal corrupt intent. Finally, the same principle of state sovereignty to prosecute would apply to any crimes Trump himself may have committed. If Trump is foolish enough to try to pardon himself, there will be no holding back the state prosecutor.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...rdons-him-thanks-to-a-lone-holdout-juror.html

 

[SueEllenRules!]

Manafort juror says pardoning him would be a ‘grave mistake' for Trump — whom she supports

Juror 0302 had a long drive to the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., for the Paul Manafort trial, and any glimpse in the rearview mirror could have caught her eye to the red hat on the back seat, emblazoned with the phrase “Make America Great Again."

The juror, Paula Duncan, told Fox News she supports President Trump, including that daily reminder on her 45-mile commute from Leesburg, Va. But that fondness has not extended to Manafort, the president’s former campaign manager convicted Tuesday on eight counts federal crimes, with the remaining ten counts declared a mistrial.

Duncan wants to see the full arc of justice applied to the president’s 2016 campaign chairman, she said Friday, and warned against action that would deny it.

“I feel it would be grave mistake for President Trump to pardon Paul Manafort,” she told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Friday night. “Justice was done, the evidence was there, and that’s where it should stop."

Duncan voiced similar warnings in a separate interview. Pardoning Manafort without him serving a jail sentence “would look like President Trump was saying it’s okay that you broke the law,” she told Reuters. “It’s not okay to break the law.”

Without a pardon, Manafort could be imprisoned between seven to 10 years. He also faces additional charges in a separate trial in federal court next month in the District of Columbia.

Duncan’s caution comes amid speculation that Trump may extend a pardon to Manafort, who was convicted on a range of charges for bank fraud, tax fraud and not filing reports of his foreign bank accounts in federal court in Alexandria. Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani has said the president has raised the prospect of pardoning Manafort in June during a discussion about other potential pardons.

Giuliani said Trump’s attorneys advised the president against pardoning anyone linked to the investigation into Russian interference of the 2016 election, at least until special counsel Robert S. Mueller III finishes his probe. Giuliani said Trump agreed, The Post reported.

Duncan said she was dismayed about the origins of the charges against Manafort — and of the Mueller investigation itself. That probe is a “witch hunt,” she told Fox News, echoing a favored Trump phrase.

While Manafort’s crimes in the Alexandria trial stemmed from his personal finances and were not related to alleged foreign election interference, the charges originated from Mueller’s investigation into Trump’s inner circle, as the special counsel looks for any possible collusion between the campaign and the Russians. The charges Manafort faces in D.C. do stem from work he did for a Ukrainian politician favored by the Kremlin.

Duncan’s support for Trump has drawn her intense criticism, she told Cooper on CNN, and raised an idea for a new catchphrase.

“When peaceful Americans’ views are silenced from fear, then America is certainly not a great country. So maybe what we need are caps that say, ‘Make America kind again,’” Duncan said.

Cooper asked if the president should wear something like that.

“I challenge President Trump to wear a hat that says make America kind again, because I think once we’re kind, then we will be great,” she said. “Tolerance is important.”

She is in luck.

An Etsy store sells such hats. Duncan could buy two: One for Trump, and another for her back seat collection.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/08/25/manafort-juror-says-pardoning-him-would-be-grave-mistake-trump-whom-she-supports/

 

[SueEllenRules!]

Paul Manafort's Daughter Files To Legally Change Her Name
Jessica Manafort filed to legally change her name Friday "to separate" herself from negative public perceptions.

The daughter of newly convicted felon Paul Manafort filed to legally change her name Friday "to separate" herself from her father.

Jessica Manafort, 36, filed to change her surname in Manhattan Supreme Court late Friday to "Jessica Bond," multiple reports showed Saturday. The independent filmmaker said she filed for the name change "to separate myself and my work from a public perception that has nothing to do with the person that I am."

The daughter of President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman filed the petition for an individual adult change of name on August 31 just weeks after Paul Manafort was convicted on eight out of eighteen charges of tax and banking fraud.

"I would like my new name to be Jessica Anne Bond, in place of my present name," she stated, according to the legal filing. Her mother Kathleen's maiden name is Bond, which Jessica Manafort told the New York Post "more closely suits [her] profession," she wrote in court papers.

Jessica's latest film "Rosy" came out in July and her name as director is listed as "Jess Bond."

Last month, Manafort-turned-Bond told the Los Angeles Times she is a "passionate liberal and a registered Democrat and [the legal proceeding] has been tough for me. Although I am 'the daughter of,' I am very much my own person and hopefully people can realize that."

The Manhattan Supreme Court judge has not yet signed off on Jessica's petition for a change of name and she's currently listed as living in the same New York apartment which her father used to put up $10 million of bail as he awaited trial.

Paul Manafort's Daughter Files To Legally Change Her Name - Newsweek https://apple.news/Apfmu8f4zQw-UTUeBqYesFA