Due process violation or not, I was observing a fact independent of due process: "unless his work with lawyers in a jail facility has the same legal, office, and communication resources and all material is readily available then his lawyers have a good point (i.e.) Given the nature of his alleged wrong-doing,
he ought to be given some periodic outside access in the custody of his attorneys."
What "should be done" by the judge remains is a different question from "must be done" by due process. Meanwhile, due process requires (obviously) that the judge follow the law that mandates procedure, evidentiary considerations, and a specific purpose to revoking bond - not just 'da judge' wants to punish someone.
After looking at the Manafort request more closely I am increasingly convinced that the judge grossly errored in her ruling, intentionally and with prejudice. In summary:
1. The District Court Failed To Assess the Strength of the Evidence Against Mr. Manafort as Required by Statute
2. The Evidence Against Mr. Manafort on Witness Tampering Is Very Weak
3. The District Court's Conclusion that Manafort is Unlikely to Abide by the Conditions of Release Rests on Multiple Errors.
For example, one needn't be a legal eagle to read the law on witness tampering, or review record of the the actual incident(s), to find the assumption of witness tampering to be, at best, very dubious and at worst clearly a frame-up job out of a prosecutor imagination and a vindictive pretext for a Judge "getting Manafort".
"Indeed, the evidence of Mr. Manafort’s alleged obstruction was so thin as to border on non-existent". (Appeal Brief) An extract in summary:
1. Manafort’s alleged communications were extremely limited. They took place only with a person who was not and still is not known to be a witness in the case. Indeed, that
person was not even identified in the indictment pending against Mr. Manafort at the time the government filed the bail-revocation motion. And the full extent of the alleged communications consisted of one phone call lasting less than 85 seconds, three phone calls not answered; and three brief unanswered text messages, (“‘This is paul.’”); id.
2. The contents of the 85 second call was not provided (a proffer by the one person called successfully) at the revocation hearing, Manafort thus had no opportunity to submit rebuttal evidence, rendering consideration of the call’s alleged contents improper. Moreover, the statements the government represented Mr. Manafort made to the single individual were nonsubstantive: Mr. Manafort merely identified himself and stated that he wanted to talk to the guy about the Hapsburg Group to provide an update and give him a “heads-up.”
3. None of those contacts come anywhere close to an “attempt to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person.” 18 U.S.C. §1512(b)(1); Neither Mr. Manafort nor an intermediate asked this person, or anyone else, to do anything; no allusion to potential questions, false statements etc. Manafort made only one accurate statement of fact, that he "worked in Europe". The alleged communications provide the flimsiest of evidence of alleged obstruction.
"Independently, the alleged evidence of obstruction is so thin that it cannot reasonably support the determination that no set of conditions could ensure Mr. Manafort’s appearance and the safety of the community. Whatever else might be said of the solitary phrase he communicated, it is not witness tampering. "
<snipped to comply with 5000 characters>
Manafort is beginning to look like the first of Mueller's political prisoners - sad.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Manafort-Brief.pdf
