Recusal at this point is practically a moot point but for appeal purposes, this just adds to the list of improper actions by Engeron.

aggiehawg said:

---

Recusal at this point is practically a moot point but for appeal purposes, this just adds to the list of improper actions by Engeron.

---

Do I understand this correctly?

If a lawyer walks up to a judge and talks to him briefly about an issue that has already been decided, the judge must recuse himself?

From https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-seeks-recusal-judge-fined-464m-civil-fraud/story?id=111289231

Quote:

---

"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," Bailey told NBC New York, which first reported the story. "I wanted him to know what I think and why ... I really want him to get it right."

Bailey could not immediately be reached for comment. Al Baker, the court's spokesperson said, "We have no further comment on this matter."

In a statement to ABC News, Bailey pushed back on the allegation that his discussion with Engoron about the case was inappropriate or merits the judge's recusal.

According to Bailey, their discussion only concerned Engoron's September 2023 summary judgment order in which the judge determined Trump committed fraud.

---

Is that all it takes to get a judge to recuse himself?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If a lawyer walks up to a judge and talks to him briefly about an issue that has already been decided, the judge must recuse himself?

---

No, you don't have that right. What the judge is required to do is inform the parties of it immediately. He did not do so.

Further, according to the attorney, it was not a brief conversation in passing. It was much longer than that.

---

The decision was apparently the summary judgement order from September 26, 2023. How long would it be before the judge is permitted to discuss that decision with others?

Quote:

---

According to Bailey, their discussion only concerned Engoron's September 2023 summary judgment order in which the judge determined Trump committed fraud.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Once again, you are misinformed.

---

About what?

According to the reports, Bailey said that it was about the 2023 summary judgement order. Or was the discussion from back then or was it near the ruling in May? My impression was that the discussion was relatively recent.

Don't get me wrong, if he was supposed to recuse himself, then he should have done so. I'm just trying to understand the logic about a judge recusing himself for a brief discussion that occurred after the decision.

There was one sentence in the report that doesn't seem to add up. That's the one in which he says something about wanting to make sure the judge does it right. If the discussion was about the summary judgement in September, what does he want the judge to do right?

Video at the LINK

aggiehawg said:

---

Video at the LINK

---

More interesting is the motion by Trump's lawyers.

I have not yet completed the motion, but there is something that stands out. At the bottom of page 6, Bailey was clearly in favor of reduced penalties for Trump:

Quote:

---

Mr. Bailey told NBC New York that he explained to the court "that a fraud statement at issue in the case was not intended to be used to shut down a major company, especially in a case without clear victim" as "such a ruling would hurt New York's economy."

---

It doesn't sound like his talk with the judge did much to influence the judge.

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Video at the LINK

---

More interesting is the motion by Trump's lawyers.

I have not yet completed the motion, but there is something that stands out. At the bottom of page 6, Bailey was clearly in favor of reduced penalties for Trump:

Quote:

---

Mr. Bailey told NBC New York that he explained to the court "that a fraud statement at issue in the case was not intended to be used to shut down a major company, especially in a case without clear victim" as "such a ruling would hurt New York's economy."

---

It doesn't sound like his talk with the judge did much to influence the judge.

---

Your Initial thoughts: it was after the decision and only brief

Provided with this info:
""I know he respects my real estate knowledge," Bailey said. "So I gave it to him. I gave him everything I knew. He had a lot of questions, you know about certain cases. We went over it."

" Sources familiar with the investigation said the probe is examining whether Engoron engaged in an improper conversation about the case with an expert real estate lawyer three weeks before issuing his $454 million penalty ruling."

Your Response:
Just a big pivot to now something else….

Furthermore Bailey is not just some non-vested neutral expert. Bailey has been involved in close to a dozen failed lawsuits against Trump in real estate matters. Bailey is not a fan of Trump, with his past litigations against him hardly not conflicted. For Ergeron to even come close to being compliant to have this ex parte meeting it has to be a non-vested neutral expert, and regardless he still didn't report the meeting to the defense period so he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It doesn't sound like his talk with the judge did much to influence the judge.

---

And that is completely irrelevant as to the judge's improper actions.

---

True.

That was just a remark about the apparent influence of those remarks on the judge. I assume that if someone comes up to the judge and talks about the case, he should probably inform the parties even if the remarks have no influence on him.

I'm curious about what all is included as "ex parte communications". Obviously, they include cases in which one party communicates with the judge about the case without the other party being present.

But how far beyond that, especially from disinterested parties? For example, does it cover just conversations directed to or involving the judge? How about if the judge overhears a conversation while eating lunch?

Making up hypotheticals that have nothing to with the case at bar is a waste of time and just mental masturbation.

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Video at the LINK

---

More interesting is the motion by Trump's lawyers.

I have not yet completed the motion, but there is something that stands out. At the bottom of page 6, Bailey was clearly in favor of reduced penalties for Trump:

Quote:

---

Mr. Bailey told NBC New York that he explained to the court "that a fraud statement at issue in the case was not intended to be used to shut down a major company, especially in a case without clear victim" as "such a ruling would hurt New York's economy."

---

It doesn't sound like his talk with the judge did much to influence the judge.

---

Your Initial thoughts: it was after the decision and only brief

Provided with this info:
""I know he respects my real estate knowledge," Bailey said. "So I gave it to him. I gave him everything I knew. He had a lot of questions, you know about certain cases. We went over it."

" Sources familiar with the investigation said the probe is examining whether Engoron engaged in an improper conversation about the case with an expert real estate lawyer three weeks before issuing his $454 million penalty ruling."

Your Response:
Just a big pivot to now something else….

---

My actual response: I need more information.

What I'm thinking: It sounds like he wanted to have some influence. At the very least, he probably should have notified the parties .

aggiehawg said:

---

Making up hypotheticals that have nothing to with the case at bar is a waste of time and just mental masturbation.

---

In that case, is law school just one big "mental masturbation"?

Foreverconservative said:

---

Furthermore Bailey is not just some non-vested neutral expert. Bailey has been involved in close to a dozen failed lawsuits against Trump in real estate matters. Bailey is not a fan of Trump, with his past litigations against him hardly not conflicted. For Ergeron to even come close to being compliant to have this ex parte meeting it has to be a non-vested neutral expert, and regardless he still didn't report the meeting to the defense period so he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

---

Yet, the motion explicitly talks about Bailey not wanting to see a decision with large penalties.

is it just possible that Bailey'was involved in cases based on legal issues rather than because he hates Trump?

Also, he probably should have reported the meeting to BOTH the PROSECUTION and the DEFENSE.

aggiehawg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Making up hypotheticals that have nothing to with the case at bar is a waste of time and just mental masturbation.

---

In that case, is law school just one big "mental masturbation"?

---

I am not in law school, neither are you. You have have already created your own version of the facts which was completely inaccurate.

Derailing the thread by going off on a hypothetical argument is a waste of time.

---

I have never claimed to have gone to law school. I understand that you did go to law school. Am I wrong?

I do understand that the notion that "we should know absolutely everything without asking questions to understand the matter" is quite popular. I have never understood that notion, though.

eric76 said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

Furthermore Bailey is not just some non-vested neutral expert. Bailey has been involved in close to a dozen failed lawsuits against Trump in real estate matters. Bailey is not a fan of Trump, with his past litigations against him hardly not conflicted. For Ergeron to even come close to being compliant to have this ex parte meeting it has to be a non-vested neutral expert, and regardless he still didn't report the meeting to the defense period so he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

---

Yet, the motion explicitly talks about Bailey not wanting to see a decision with large penalties.

---

Which would have been correct since this was a made up issue by Engoron. The result is that the punitive actions by NYC will drive investors out of the city.

Bailey wouldn't want a large judgment because it impacts real estate investors other than Trump. He would still want Trump to be guilty.

Engoron is a prime example of someone who has never done anything punishing someone who has done a lot. Envy. Hatred. And no doubt greed.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

Furthermore Bailey is not just some non-vested neutral expert. Bailey has been involved in close to a dozen failed lawsuits against Trump in real estate matters. Bailey is not a fan of Trump, with his past litigations against him hardly not conflicted. For Ergeron to even come close to being compliant to have this ex parte meeting it has to be a non-vested neutral expert, and regardless he still didn't report the meeting to the defense period so he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

---

Yet, the motion explicitly talks about Bailey not wanting to see a decision with large penalties.

---

Which would have been correct since this was a made up issue by Engoron. The result is that the punitive actions by NYC will drive investors out of the city.

Bailey wouldn't want a large judgment because it impacts real estate investors other than Trump. He would still want Trump to be guilty.

Engoron is a prime example of someone who has never done anything punishing someone who has done a lot. Envy. Hatred. And no doubt greed.

---

Was there animosity between Bailey and Trump?

Just because Bailey represented another client in a lawsuit with Trump, does that magically make him hate Trump? Can a lawyer not represent clients without getting emotionally riled up for years afterwards?

Also, Engeron was the judge assigned to the case. He was not the prosecutor.

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Making up hypotheticals that have nothing to with the case at bar is a waste of time and just mental masturbation.

---

In that case, is law school just one big "mental masturbation"?

---

Yes.

Well, sort of. Law school is best described as 3 years of a mental and physical orgy.

Birds of a feather

Regarding the question of facts, here are some of the more basic facts:

1) Bailey was talking to a client when he saw the judge.

2) Bailey wanted to discuss an issue with the judge -- that of too big a penalty being bad for the economy of New York.

3) He walked over to the judge and engaged him in conversation.

4) The conversation, according to Bailey, was about the summary judgment from September, 2023.

5) The judge did not appear to be influenced by the conversation, at least in regard to the damages imposed. If he was influenced, then it seems likely that the damages would have been higher.

6) The judge did not divulge the conversation to the prosecution or to the defense.

I still don't see how 2) and 4) fit together if he really wanted to discuss the summary judgment from 2023 in order to influence the penalty in the final verdict.

In general regarding 6), I assume that judges understand the law and their duties under it. Since this judge did not inform the prosecution and the defense of the conversation, he must not have felt any legal need to inform them. It would be interesting to read a full explanation of why he felt that he was not required to inform the parties.

As for whether or not Trump was found guilty, I didn't care. As far as how much the penalties are, I don't care. As far as whether the appeal succeeds, I don't care. I'm perfectly happy to leave that up to the legal system in New York. Whatever they do is up to them and whatever they do is not going to upset me.

The whole case was somewhat bizarre.

eric76 said:

---

Regarding the question of facts, here are some of the more basic facts:

1) Bailey was talking to a client when he saw the judge.

yes

2) Bailey wanted to discuss an issue with the judge -- that of too big a penalty being bad for the economy of New York.

Where is the fact and how is it known?

3) He walked over to the judge and engaged him in conversation.

no, he walked over(fact), they spoke(fact)

4) The conversation, according to Bailey, was about the summary judgment from September, 2023.

again, not an established fact unless there is a recoding. He might provide testimony but that is not necessarily a fact. One persons testimony to a conversation could be quite different from the other parties recollection. To label one or the other as fact would be inaccurate.

5) The judge did not appear to be influenced by the conversation, at least in regard to the damages imposed. If he was influenced, then it seems likely that the damages would have been higher.

How is this known? Your answer implies a subjective interpretation of witnessed events. Were you there?

6) The judge did not divulge the conversation to the prosecution or to the defense.

true

I still don't see how 2) and 4) fit together if he really wanted to discuss the summary judgment from 2023 in order to influence the penalty in the final verdict.

In general regarding 6), I assume that judges understand the law and their duties under it. Since this judge did not inform the prosecution and the defense of the conversation, he must not have felt any legal need to inform them. It would be interesting to read a full explanation of why he felt that he was not required to inform the parties.

As for whether or not Trump was found guilty, I didn't care. As far as how much the penalties are, I don't care. As far as whether the appeal succeeds, I don't care. I'm perfectly happy to leave that up to the legal system in New York. Whatever they do is up to them and whatever they do is not going to upset me.

The whole case was somewhat bizarre.

---

you're really not good at facts

pacecar02 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Regarding the question of facts, here are some of the more basic facts:

1) Bailey was talking to a client when he saw the judge.

yes

---

---

We agree.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

2) Bailey wanted to discuss an issue with the judge -- that of too big a penalty being bad for the economy of New York.

Where is the fact and how is it known?

---

---

Didn't read the news reports or the motion, did you?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

3) He walked over to the judge and engaged him in conversation.

no, he walked over(fact), they spoke(fact)

---

---

Does the fact that we stated the same thing in a slightly different manner mean that we are saying different things?

Just how is what I said wrong?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

4) The conversation, according to Bailey, was about the summary judgment from September, 2023.

again, not an established fact unless there is a recoding. He might provide testimony but that is not necessarily a fact. One persons testimony to a conversation could be quite different from the other parties recollection. To label one or the other as fact would be inaccurate.

---

---

Since there was no recording, are you saying that none of this happened? What we have is what Bailey siad. I thought that was well understood since Engeron has yet to comment on it as far as I know.

Also, please note that I very explicitly said "The conversation, according to Bailey, was ..." I did not say "The comversation was ..."

I guess that the Media and the Trump lawyers might be lying about what Bailey said. That wouldn't be real surprising, would it?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

5) The judge did not appear to be influenced by the conversation, at least in regard to the damages imposed. If he was influenced, then it seems likely that the damages would have been higher.

How is this known? Your answer implies a subjective interpretation of witnessed events. Were you there?

---

---

So he wanted Engeron to refrain from imposing a very large penalty and Engeron imposed a very large penalty is somehow evidence that his comments to the judge were pursuasive?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

6) The judge did not divulge the conversation to the prosecution or to the defense.

true

I still don't see how 2) and 4) fit together if he really wanted to discuss the summary judgment from 2023 in order to influence the penalty in the final verdict.

In general regarding 6), I assume that judges understand the law and their duties under it. Since this judge did not inform the prosecution and the defense of the conversation, he must not have felt any legal need to inform them. It would be interesting to read a full explanation of why he felt that he was not required to inform the parties.

As for whether or not Trump was found guilty, I didn't care. As far as how much the penalties are, I don't care. As far as whether the appeal succeeds, I don't care. I'm perfectly happy to leave that up to the legal system in New York. Whatever they do is up to them and whatever they do is not going to upset me.

The whole case was somewhat bizarre.

---

you're really not good at facts

---

Your so-called "posting style" is bizarre.

"The conversation, according to Bailey, was about the summary judgment from September, 2023."


can you post a link to where he said that?

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

"The conversation, according to Bailey, was about the summary judgment from September, 2023."


can you post a link to where he said that?

---

Already done. Second post from the top of this page. Paragraph 4 in the quote from the news article.

[We're going to temporarily lock this one for a cooling off period. Some of the comments are getting too personal. When we reopen the thread, keep the discussion relevant to the OP topic. Any additional insults and attacks will be rewarded with bans. There's your warning -- Staff]

Well maybe

🚨🚨🚨 Justice Engoron sustains, in part, Trump’s subpoena on attorney Adam Bailey who bragged about informally trying to influence the Court. Developing… https://t.co/tWMhAYeOzc pic.twitter.com/syIDlqPNve

— FoiaFan🇮🇱 (@15poundstogo) July 12, 2024

I imagine the Court would order him to sit for a limited depo with the same scope assuming Trump's team wants one.

UNREAL: NY Attorney General Letitia James vows to continue to go after President Trump for another 4 years

"We did not expect this result...We use the rule of law to fight back." pic.twitter.com/8iVFVPNXOS

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) November 6, 2024

Will OP restart his countdown now?

So weird.

JUST IN: Trump lawyer Mike Davis just told NY AG Letitia James -

"I DARE YOU to try to continue your lawfare against President Trump [...] We're not messing around this time and we will put your fatass in prison for conspiracy against rights."pic.twitter.com/Zhki0IumDi

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 7, 2024