This is just an endless series of rats. . . gnawing at one another, as they try to leap off the burning tangerine hued ship, now sinking, in NY Harbor. It would almost be comical, if the GOP wasn't lining up behind him to try to send him back to the White House (instead of the Big House!) in 2024. Here's the latest, in his dumb show:
. . .Dear Counselors,
As you are undoubtedly aware, in an article in the February 1, 2024 on-line edition of the New York Times, headlined "Trump's Former Finance Chief in Negotiations to Plead Guilty to Perjury," William K. Rashbaum, Jonah E. Bromwich, and Ben Protess write that defendant Alan Weisselberg "is negotiating a deal with Manhattan prosecutors that would require him to plead guilty to perjury."
What's more, he "would have to admit that he lied on the witness stand" in the case pending before me (and during a pre-trial interview plaintiff conducted).
As the presiding magistrate, the trier of fact, and the judge of credibility, I of course want to know whether Mr. Weisselberg is now changing his tune, and whether he is admitting he lied under oath in my courtroom at this trial. Although the Times article focuses on the size of the Trump Tower Penthouse, his testimony on other topics could also be called into question. I also may use this as a basis to invoke falsus in uno.
As the article notes "perjury -- particularly in a high-profile trial -- undermines the broader ends of justice and cannot be ignored."
I do not want to ignore anything in a case of this magnitude. By Wednesday at 5pm, please submit, as officers of the court, a letter to me detailing anything you know about this that would not violate any of your professional ethics or obligations. I would also appreciate knowing how you think I should address this matter, if at all, including the timing of the final decision.Thank you,
Justice Engoron [02.05.2024]. . . .
I would expect Trump's lawyers will profess to be "shocked, simply shocked that there is gambling going on" in their establishment [Ref. "Casa Blanca", above]. Tangerine should expect the higher end of the fraud fines/penalties -- given his only truly favorable witness is an admitted liar, about matters in issue, in that trial. What a malevolent clown show this man's entire adult life has been. Out.
नमस्ते
4 comments:
Louis, I believe this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.....
I'm a huge fan of Mr Bogart esp the movie Key Largo
Flawless!
The understated intelligence of those old movies. . . just. . . lovely!
Great input!
Tish James's team letter is in, and it is a humdinger:
...If there are facts known to any [Trump] defense counsel establishing that Mr. Weisselberg committed perjury, such counsel is obligated to disclose those facts, even if privileged and even if it exposes Mr. Weisselberg to prosecution for perjury. . . .
As described in a formal opinion from the Association of the Bar of the City of New York: Rule 3.3(a)(3) creates a disclosure obligation: “If a lawyer, a lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.” (Emphasis added.) Rule 3.3(c) makes clear that this obligation trumps a lawyer’s duty of confidentiality. Specifically, Rule 3.3(c) states that the remedial obligation in Rule 3.3(a) applies “even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.” To “know” of the falsity of proffered evidence, the lawyer must have “actual knowledge of the fact in question,” but such
knowledge “may be inferred from circumstances.” Rule 1.0(k).
Moreover, unlike in other jurisdictions, Rule 3.3 is the only mandatory exception in New York to the obligation of confidentiality contained in Rule 1.6. As the unique nature of Rule 3.3 suggests, the obligation to take reasonable remedial measures is premised on “the lawyer’s obligation as an officer of the court to prevent the trier of fact from being misled by false evidence.” Rule 3.3, cmt. (emphasis added.) This exception to the lawyers’ obligation of confidentiality, which is one of a lawyer’s bedrock obligations, is intended to protect the integrity of the adjudicative process. . . .
Now we wait for Tangerine's. . . obfuscations -- due into NY court in ten minutes from RIGHT NOW.
Onward.
Update: the Tangerine position. . . Is not worthy of any serious discussion.
And it misstates applicable NY law.
It also tells us the CFO is a “credible” fact witness.
So we won’t link or quote it.
Cheers.
Post a Comment