Justice Arthur Engoron, highly recognized for affixing a record penalty on previous U.S. President Donald Trump in a civil misrepresentation case pursued by New York Chief Law Officer Letitia James, is now under inspection. Accusations have arisen, stating the magistrate had confidential interactions with property attorney Adam Leitman Bailey, this incident transpired merely few weeks prior he sanctioned the significant $454 million charge on the former leader.

The conduct of the judge is now under investigation by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, aiming to discern whether he acknowledged Bailey’s unofficial counsel before issuing the substantial fine. According to a report from a local NBC station, the lawyer confessed that he had elucidated his concerns to the judge, specifically in relation to the use of the fraudulence statute in this scenario.

Bailey argued that using the fraud statute to devastate a mammoth organization didn't align with its original purpose, especially when there were no apparent victims of the said fraud. Bailey cited his worries about the application of the law in this specific instance and projected that the verdict may have dire consequences on New York's financial landscape.

Nevertheless, Justice Engoron, who had earlier dismissed a similar argument proposed by the legal representatives of the former President Trump in court, maintained that Bailey's counsel held no sway over his final decision. This series of events has been widely discussed, shedding light on the complexities of judicial advice and its potential influence on court rulings.

Justice Arthur Engoron, highly recognized for affixing a record penalty on previous U.S. President Donald Trump in a civil misrepresentation case pursued by New York Chief Law Officer Letitia James, is now under inspection. Accusations have arisen, stating the magistrate had confidential interactions with property attorney Adam Leitman Bailey, this incident transpired merely few weeks prior he sanctioned the significant $454 million charge on the former leader.
The conduct of the judge is now under investigation by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, aiming to discern whether he acknowledged Bailey’s unofficial counsel before issuing the substantial fine. According to a report from a local NBC station, the lawyer confessed that he had elucidated his concerns to the judge, specifically in relation to the use of the fraudulence statute in this scenario.
Bailey argued that using the fraud statute to devastate a mammoth organization didn't align with its original purpose, especially when there were no apparent victims of the said fraud. Bailey cited his worries about the application of the law in this specific instance and projected that the verdict may have dire consequences on New York's financial landscape.
Nevertheless, Justice Engoron, who had earlier dismissed a similar argument proposed by the legal representatives of the former President Trump in court, maintained that Bailey's counsel held no sway over his final decision. This series of events has been widely discussed, shedding light on the complexities of judicial advice and its potential influence on court rulings.

Subscribe to Our Show for Real News, All Day Every Day

Subscribe to Our Show for Real News, All Day Every Day

Real News Now Podcast

Real News Now Podcast is a Podcast bringing you the Real News All Day Every Day!

<a href="https://realnewsnow.com/">Real News Now</a> Podcast is a Podcast bringing you the Real News All Day Every Day!

Advertisement