Judge Arthur Engoron is now under investigation after claims surfaced that he received unsolicited advice from a prominent New York City real estate attorney, Adam Leitman Bailey, weeks before ordering former President Donald Trump to pay a hefty $454 million judgment.
This investigation by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct seeks to determine whether Engoron violated judicial conduct rules, NBC New York reported.
In March, Engoron ordered Trump to pay more than a $355 million fine and barred Trump “from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or other legal entity in New York for a period of three years.” Trump was also required to pay interest on the penalties, bringing the total amount to $454 million.
Engoron claimed Trump and each of the defendants “participated in aiding and abetting the conspiracy to commit insurance fraud by their individual acts in falsifying business records and valuations, causing materially fraudulent SFCs to be intentionally submitted to insurance companies.”
Eric Trump and Don Jr. were also ordered to pay $4,013,024 each.
Letitia James sought $370 million in ‘damages’ when there was no victim in this fraud case, and she also sought to ban Trump and his sons from operating any businesses in New York. She accused Trump of inflating his assets and defrauding lenders and insurance companies, despite having no evidence or rationality.
A judge ruled that President Trump can post a $175 million bond to cover Letitia James’ $464 million judgment.
Bailey stated publicly that he spoke with Judge Engoron three weeks before the decision, advising him to “get it right.” Although Engoron has denied any influence from Bailey, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct is reportedly investigating whether Engoron violated judicial conduct rules, according to NBC New York.
“I actually had the ability to speak to him three weeks ago,” Bailey told NBC New York on Feb. 16. “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.”
Bailey maintains that he has no personal connection to any lawsuits involving Trump and is not a fan of the former president. He claims to have advised Engoron that a ruling imposing such a substantial fine could damage New York’s economy. Bailey also mentioned that Engoron “had a lot of questions, you know, about certain cases” during their conversation.
In response, Judge Engoron’s spokesperson, Al Baker, vehemently denied any impropriety, stating that “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, deeply considered, and wholly uninfluenced by this individual.”
The Latin term ex parte means “from one party”. In legal terms, it refers to a legal proceeding that is conducted without the presence or notice of the other party. It can also refer to improper contact between a judge or party and a lawyer.
New York State Rules of Judicial Conduct explicitly prohibit judges from engaging in ex parte communications, except when seeking advice from a disinterested expert.
According to New York law, “If a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision promptly to notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond.”
More from NBC New York:
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct will now consider whether the rules of judicial conduct were violated in this instance, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The commission’s administrator, Robert Tembeckjian, declined to comment, citing a statute on confidentiality.
Christopher Kise, a member of the Trump defense team which has repeatedly criticized Engoron’s handling of the case, said if Bailey’s claims are true, it casts doubt on the integrity of the 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.”
Several experts consulted by NBC New York said the rules are meant not only to prevent outside influence but also any appearance of outside influence.
via thegatewaypundit