The tables have turned for President Donald Trump and Judge Arthur Engoron.
The left-leaning New York judge was in hot water recently when a renowned real estate attorney, Adam Leitman Bailey, came out and told NBC New York that the judge approached him three weeks before he issued his $454 million verdict on Trump.
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct is now investigating the interaction between Engoron and Bailey.
Of course, Engoron will deny any impropriety, and through a spokesman, the anti-Trump judge expressed that he was “wholly uninfluenced” by Atty. Bailey.
“I actually had the ability to speak to him three weeks ago,” Bailey said during an on-camera interview with NBC New York on February 16, the day the judge issued his decision.
“I saw him in the corner [at the courthouse] and I told my client, ‘I need to go.’ And I walked over and we started talking, I wanted him to know what I think and why. I really want him to get it right.”
Meanwhile, Al Baker, spokesman for the New York State’s Office of Court Admission, wrote: “No ex parte conversation concerning this matter occurred between Justice Engoron and Mr. Bailey or any other person. The decision Justice Engoron issued on February 16 was his alone, was deeply considered, and was wholly uninfluenced by this individual.”
“Ex Parte,” is a term used to describe a conversation between a judge and an outside party in an ongoing case where concerned parties were not in attendance.
According to the real estate lawyer, “He had a lot of questions, you know, about certain cases. We went over it.”
Bailey also detailed how the judge was concerned about how to apply the law to the case and how it would affect New York’s economy.
The court spokesman did not respond when asked for confirmation if Engoron indeed spoke with Bailey.
As per New York State Rules of Judicial Conduct, any judge cannot “initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers concerning a pending or impending proceeding,” with few exceptions.
Atty. Christopher Kise, Trump’s lawyer, said that if Bailey’s statements were true, that would cast doubt on the integrity of the judiciary process.
“The code doesn’t provide an exception for ‘well, this was a small conversation’ or ‘well, it didn’t really impact me’ or ‘well, this wasn’t something that I, the judge, found significant,” Kise said.
“No. The code is very clear.”
Other experts whom NBC New York spoke to also added that the rules not only prevent outside influence but also any appearance of such.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: The Raging Patriot
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://theragingpatriot.org and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.