June 28, 2024
Donald Trump's team is seeking to subpoena the real estate lawyer who advised judge Erdogan, er, Engoran on the value of Mar-A-Lago. And they seek to recuse the crazed judge for his bias.
FTA:
He said he did not mention the former president by name.
A court spokesperson has denied that anything improper occurred.
"No ex parte conversation concerning this matter occurred between Justice Engoron and Mr. Bailey or any other person,” court spokesperson Al Baker said at the time.
"The decision Justice Engoron issued Feb. 16 was his alone, was deeply considered, and was wholly uninfluenced by this individual.”
Mr. Bailey was not involved in former President Trump’s case and had been quoted by multiple media as an expert voice throughout the trial.
He said he had told the judge that the fraud statute used in the high-profile case was not meant to shut down a company, especially when there were no clear victims.
Prior to the trial, Justice Engoron had ordered the cancellation of Trump Organization business certificates, a move that the industry regarded as a corporate "death penalty.”
The order—which had not been requested by the state attorneys—was so unusual that lawyers asked how it would be executed, and the judge said he had to think about it.
The Associated Press analyzed 150 cases using the fraud statute and found that no defendant had ever faced penalties as severe as former President Trump and that his case was especially unusual because there were no victims.
An appeals court shortly halted the order, and the judge vacated it when he entered final judgment in February.
Bailey Responds
Attorneys for former President Trump have moved to recuse the judge, arguing that the Bailey interview indicates that Justice Engoron spoke with outside parties about the case.
In doing so, they have also filed a motion to subpoena Mr. Bailey, whose attorney responded with a motion to quash or modify the subpoena.
[...]
The New York attorney general’s office opposes the subpoena entirely, arguing that no hearing has been called.
It argued that the defendants have offered only the Bailey interview as evidence of alleged impropriety, which the court has already denied was an ex parte conversation.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:07 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at June 28, 2024 10:22 PM (lydPE)
Posted by: Company Contact Detail at June 29, 2024 02:06 AM (JhLYJ)
Posted by: Digital India at June 29, 2024 02:09 AM (JhLYJ)
Posted by: Mobile Number Tracker at June 29, 2024 02:12 AM (JhLYJ)
Posted by: Our Jharkhand at June 29, 2024 02:14 AM (JhLYJ)
Posted by: Ind News Updates at June 29, 2024 02:16 AM (JhLYJ)
Posted by: Digitize India at June 29, 2024 02:17 AM (JhLYJ)
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at June 29, 2024 07:39 AM (JyI4e)
37 queries taking 0.8248 seconds, 178 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.