Congresswoman Elise M. Stefanik Files a Judicial Complaint Against Judge Arthur Engoron For Bias and Judicial Intemperance

 

Congresswoman Elise M. Stefanik's Complaint against New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron:

I just filed an official judicial complaint against Judge Arthur Engoron for his inappropriate bias and judicial intemperance in New York’s disgraceful lawsuit against President Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization.

Americans are sick and tired of the blatant corruption by radical Leftist judges in NY. All New Yorkers must speak out against the dangerous weaponized lawfare against President Trump. Read my full complaint below. November 10, 2023 New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct 61 Broadway, Suite 1200 New York, New York 10006 Re:      Judicial Complaint Against Judge Arthur F. Engoron Supreme Court, New York County Case Name:    New York v. Trump Index No.:       452564/2022 Dear Commission Members: I write today to express my serious concerns about the inappropriate bias and judicial intemperance shown by Judge Arthur F. Engoron in New York’s lawsuit against President Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization. This judge’s bizarre behavior has no place in our judicial system, where Judge Engoron is not honoring the defendant’s rights to due process and a fair trial. These serious concerns are exacerbated by the fact that the defendant is the leading candidate for President of the United States, and it appears the judicial system is being politicized to affect the outcome of the campaign. Simply put, Judge Engoron has displayed a clear judicial bias against the defendant throughout the case, breaking several rules in the New York Code of Judicial Conduct. Last year, Judge Engoron told President Trump’s attorney that the former president is “just a bad guy” who Democrat New York Attorney General Letitia James “should go after as the chief law enforcement officer of the state.”[1] At the start of the trial, Judge Engoron infamously smiled and posed for the cameras.[2] After the defendant won an appellate ruling against Judge Engoron on the appropriate statute of limitations in this case, the judge simply ignored the ruling.[3] Judge Engoron entered summary judgment against the defendant before the trial even began, without witnesses, other evidence, and cross-examination. This, despite the fact there’s disputed material evidence–and there’s no victim of the defendant’s supposed fraud. Indeed, as the trial evidence has made clear, the defendant paid back the sophisticated Wall Street banks, on time, in full, with interest, as agreed.[4] No insurance company paid a penny. And these banks and insurance companies, supposedly defrauded, continue to do business with the defendant. Yet Judge Engoron decreed before trial the defendant somehow committed fraud. Now, the judge is holding a trial–with no jury–to determine how much of Tish James’ requested $250 million in damages–with no victims–he will extract from the defendant. How does this not violate the defendant’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial? And Judge Engoron has made it crystal clear he doesn’t care what the defendant or his attorneys have to say. Indeed, Judge Engoron illegally gagged them. Judge Engoron told the defendant: “We are not here to listen to what you have to say.” He told the defendant’s counsel: “I am not here to hear what he has to say, now sit down!” And Judge Engoron even threatened the defendant’s counsel if he filed a routine motion for a directed verdict: “You better not, Chris!” Judge Engoron and his staff are partisan Democrat donors. As recently as 2018, Judge Engoron donated to the Manhattan Democrats[5]–even though Section 100.5 says that judges “shall refrain” from “making a contribution to a political organization.”[6] Section 100.5 also stipulates that a “judge shall prohibit members of the judge’s staff” from contributing more than $500 “in the aggregate during any calendar year to all political campaigns for political office.”[7] Allison Greenfield has served as Judge Engoron's principal law clerk since 2019.[8] In both 2022 and 2023, Greenfield donated in excess of $500 to political campaigns. In 2022 alone, Greenfield donated “$3,335 in political donations to Democrat candidates and causes.”[9] She’s already given more than $1,000 in 2023 to campaigns.[10] When President Trump’s attorneys notified Judge Engoron, Judge Engoron responded by issuing an illegal gag order against President Trump’s legal team.[11] Judge Engoron has gone on to gag and fine President Trump for merely criticizing Judge Engoron’s law clerk, which is core political speech protected by the First Amendment.[12] If anyone in America must have the constitutional right to speak out against the judge, his staff, the witnesses, or the process, it’s a defendant going through a process he believes is politicized and weaponized against him. To gag a defendant is un-American. It’s an illegal prior restraint on the defendant’s First Amendment rights, which even the progressive ACLU felt compelled to acknowledge after another Democrat judge–D.C. Obama U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan–illegally gagged President Trump.[13] Indeed, three Democrat-appointed judges on the D.C. Circuit have since stayed Judge Chutkan’s illegal gag order.[14] Judge Engoron put his judgment in serious doubt by issuing a summary judgment citing as evidence of fraud that the Trump Organization said Mar-a-Lago is worth between $426 and $612 million.[15] The Associated Press reported that two top Palm Beach-area real estate agents said that the club’s “sale of a billion dollars or more would be possible.”[16] In fact, Judge Engoron ridiculously found Mar-a-Lago was only worth somewhere between $18 and $27.6 million. Any http://Zillow.com search shows that nearly 20 acres of prime real estate in Palm Beach, touching both the Atlantic Ocean and the intracoastal waterway, is worth exponentially more than $18 and $27.6 million. And Judge Engoron had in his hand the sworn deposition of Palm Beach real estate agent Lawrence Moens, who said the Trump Organization’s valuations were “reasonable and below my estimate for the market value of the property each year.”[17] Moens was asked in his sworn deposition about what sort of buyers would purchase Mar-a-Lago, and Moens responded: “I could dream up anyone from Elon Musk to Bill Gates and everyone in between. Kings, emperors, heads of state. But with net worths in the multiple billions.”[18] The judge wrote: “Obviously this Court cannot consider an ‘expert affidavit’ that is based on unexplained and unsubstantiated ‘dream[s].’”[19] Judge Engoron apparently doesn’t understand that expert opinions aren’t “dreams.” And this is yet another example why Judge Engoron demonstrated bad judgment by keeping this case, instead of sending it to the expert judges in the Commercial Division where it belongs.[20] Judge Engoron’s bizarre and biased behavior is making New York’s judicial system a laughingstock. Former Southern District of New York federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who has at times criticized President Trump, recently stated that he views the “whole New York justice system” as “fraudulent.”[21] Section 100.2(A) states: “A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”[22] Judge Engoron has grossly failed to do this. The Commission’s sanctions against Judge Engoron are necessary to bring back credibility to our great state’s legal system. All Americans, including political opponents, must receive due process and equal protection under our U.S. and New York Constitutions. Judge Engoron’s disdain for President Trump and his politics are evident, and the Commission must take corrective action to restore a just process and protect our constitutional rights. Judge Engoron must recuse from this case. This case is so much bigger than President Donald J. Trump. If Judge Engoron can railroad a billionaire New York businessman, a former President of the United States, and the leading presidential candidate, just imagine what he could do to all New Yorkers. Judge Engoron’s lawlessness sends an ominous and illegal warning to New York business owners: If New York judges don’t like your politics, they will destroy your business, the livelihood of your employees, and you personally. This Commission cannot let this continue. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this judicial complaint against Judge Arthur F. Engoron for his inappropriate bias and judicial intemperance in New York v. Trump (452564/2022). Sincerely, Elise M. Stefanik [1] Papenfuss, Mary, “‘He’s Just A Bad Guy’: Judge Slams Claim That Trump Is Unfairly Singled Out In AG Probe,” HuffPost, February 17, 2022, https://huffpost.com/entry/bad-guy-trump-letitia-james-judge-arthur-engoron_n_620ed544e4b0f701fd702d3e… [2] Stanton, Andrew, “Video of Judge Smiling During Trump Trial Goes Viral,” Newsweek, October 2, 2023, https://newsweek.com/video-judge-smiling-during-trump-trial-goes-viral-1831500… [3] “Applying the proper statute of limitations and the appropriate tolling, claims are time barred if they accrued – that is, the transactions were completed – before February 6, 2016 (see Boesky v Levine, 193 AD3d 403, 405 [1st Dept2021]; Rogal v Wechsler, 135 AD2d 384, 385 [1st Dept 1987]). For defendants bound by the tolling agreement, claims are untimely if they accrued before July 13, 2014.” New York v. Trump, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, decided on June 27, 2023, https://nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/calendar/List_Word/2023/06_Jun/27/PDF/People%20of%20NY%20%20v%20%20Trump%20%20(2023-00717).pdf… [4] Larson, Erick and Patricia Hurtado, "Ex-Deutsche Bank risk manager says loans to Trump were reviewed thoroughly," Bloomberg, October 12, 2023, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ex-deutsche-bank-risk-manager-223621727.html… [5] Scher, Brent, “New York Judge Caught Smiling During Trump Trial Is Lifelong Democrat Donor,” The Daily Wire, October 2, 2023, https://dailywire.com/news/new-york-judge-caught-smiling-during-trump-trial-is-lifelong-democrat-donor… [6] “Part 100. Judicial Conduct,” http://NYCOURTS.GOV, accessed November 9, 2023: https://ww2.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefadmin/100.shtml… [7] Ibid. [8] Boyle, Matthew, “Complaint Calls for Trump New York Trial Judge’s Clerk to Be Disbarred for Excessive Political Donations,” Breitbart News, November 2, 2023, https://breitbart.com/politics/2023/11/02/complaint-calls-for-trump-new-york-trial-judges-clerk-to-be-disbarred-for-excessive-political-donations/… [9] Ibid. [10] Ibid. [11] Gilbertson, Nick, “NY Judge Gags Trump Lawyers from Discussing ‘Confidential Communications’ of Activist Court Clerk,” Breitbart News, November 3, 2023, https://breitbart.com/2024-election/2023/11/03/angry-arthur-ny-judge-gags-trump-lawyers-from-discussing-confidential-communications-of-activist-court-clerk/… [12] McCarthy, Andrew, “Trump Earns Himself a Dubious Gag Order,” National Review, October 4, 2023. https://nationalreview.com/2023/10/trump-earns-himself-a-dubious-gag-order/… [13] Gerstein, Josh, “ACLU: Trump’s Gag Order in Federal Case Is Unconstitutional,” Politico, October 25, 2023, https://politico.com/news/2023/10/25/aclu-trump-gag-order-00123541… [14] Legare, Robert, “Appeals Court Pauses Trump Gag Order in 2020 Election Interference Case,” CBS News, November 3, 2023, https://cbsnews.com/news/appeals-court-pauses-trump-gag-order-2020-election-interference-case/… [15] New York v. Trump (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, September 26, 2023) [16] Spencer, Terry, “Is Mar-a-Lago Worth $1 Billion? Trump’s Winter Home Valuations Are at the Core of His Fraud Trial,” Associated Press, October 9, 2023, https://apnews.com/article/trump-maralago-lawsuit-palm-beach-51fea4e520b1901c1c045590b2a7bdc0… [17] New York v. Trump (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, September 26, 2023) [18] Ibid. [19] Ibid. [20] Wester, Jane, “Administrative Judge Rejects Trump's Request to Move New York AG's Fraud Suit to Commercial Division,” New York Law Journal, October 19, 2022, https://law.com/newyorklawjournal/2022/10/19/administrative-judge-rejects-trumps-request-to-move-new-york-ags-fraud-suit-to-commercial-division/… [21] Griffing, Alex, “Fox’s Andy McCarthy Slams Entire New York Justice System As ‘Fraudulent’ Over AG’s Civil Fraud Case Against Trump,” Mediaite, November 6, 2023, https://mediaite.com/tv/foxs-andy-mccarthy-slams-entire-new-york-justice-system-as-fraudulent-over-ags-civil-fraud-case-against-trump/… [22] “Part 100. Judicial Conduct,” http://NYCOURTS.GOV, accessed November 9, 2023: https://ww2.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefadm

in/100.shtml

The National Association of Immigration Judges Files a Federal Lawsuit To Assert The Right To Speak Publicly About Issues and Concerns

A union for U.S. immigration judges asked an appeals panel to revive a lawsuit challenging a Trump-era Justice Department policy that requires judges to get preapproval before publishing writing or speaking at public events. 

Immigration judges take free speech case to Fourth Circuit

RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit heard arguments Tuesday over a Trump-era rule that immigration judges say continues to violate their freedom to speak out about government policies on their own time. 

Immigration judges challenged a policy requiring a sub-agency of the U.S. Justice Department, the Executive Office of Immigration Review, to preapprove judges’ requests to express their opinions on immigration policies and other matters through published writing or speaking at public events in their personal capacities.

The National Association of Immigration Judges, a union representing nearly 500 immigration judges, filed the federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia. Seeking a preliminary injunction to block the policy, the NAIJ asserted that the policy was vague and violated the First Amendment right of immigration judges to speak publicly in their personal capacities about important issues and concerns. 

Senior U.S. District Judge Liam O'Grady, a George W. Bush appointee, denied the union's request for an injunction in August 2020, finding that the court was divested of jurisdiction over the constitutional claims under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. That ruling prompted the NAIJ's appeal to the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit.

“This case is about a sweeping prior restraint on the speech of federal immigration judges. For over two years now, the agency has banned judges from speaking as private citizens about immigration law or policy or about the court system they administer,” said attorney Ramya Krishnan of the Knight First Amendment Institute, who represented NAIJ during oral arguments on Tuesday. 

The policy emerged as many immigration judges attempted to speak out against certain policies created under the Trump administration. 

Unlike federal judges, immigration judges operate under the Justice Department. 

Lawyers for the Justice Department argue the whole case is moot because President Joe Biden replaced the controversial policy with new language last year. 

But Krishnan told the three-judge panel the new policy imposes a prior restraint on speech in exactly the same way as the previous one.

“While it's true the policy purports to eliminate a pre-approval requirement for personal capacity speech unrelated to an employee's official duties, it contains broad exceptions that effectively swallow this rule,” she said.

The attorney specifically referred to language in the new policy that allows the Justice Department to “direct employees.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Toby Jay Heytens, who was recently appointed by Biden, challenged Krishnan’s argument.

“When I hear the words, things like ‘direct employees’ that, to me, covers things like what time my law clerks have to come to work and what they have to wear and what order they should do their assignments in,” Heytens said. “That doesn’t strike me as covering my ability to dictate their ability to speak as private citizens away from their workplace.”

He asked Krishnan to support her view that the agency’s ability to direct employees includes the ability to “prohibit them from doing things on their own time.”

She responded that the ability to direct or supervise employees has been interpreted broadly in case law, meaning the new policy could still be interpreted to apply to personal speech. 

“Because our Fifth Amendment claim essentially boils down to the failure of the policy to meaningfully cabin the discretion of the agency in approving or denying requests by judges to engage in speech, the discretion is unlimited,” Krishnan said. 

“Shouldn’t we simply vacate the [district court] order, send it back and let the case proceed, as the judge wants?” asked U.S. Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee.

While the district court denied the union’s injunction request based on a lack of jurisdiction, Krishnan said, its ruling did not address the actual text of the contested policy.

“The agency is statutorily prohibited from bargaining over the policy’s substance, because the policy involves the exercise of a reserved management right,” Krishnan said. 

Justice Department attorney Jennifer L. Utrecht said a lot has changed over the past year while the appeal was pending.

“The dramatically changed circumstances of this case warrant either a dismissal for mootness or at the very least an affirmance and a remand to the district court,” Utrecht told the panel. 

U.S. Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer, a George H. W. Bush appointee, interjected to add that the case would likely be dismissed if it was remanded to the district court. 

“The district court was only addressing a challenge to the 2020 policy and the circumstances that existed at the time,” the judge noted, clarifying that the Biden-era policy is different. 

The Fourth Circuit judges did not indicate when they would issue a ruling.

Complicating the panel’s decision, the fate of the union itself is pending. 

Amid the Trump administration’s effort to overhaul immigration rules, the Department of Justice asked the Federal Labor Relations Authority in 2019 to decertify the union. The department argued the immigration judges are not permitted to unionize because they are technically considered to be managerial employees. The FLRA sided with the Justice Department, agreeing to dissolve the union. 

On Friday, the FLRA denied the union’s motion to reconsider the order, finding that immigration judges are categorized as managers. 

Union leaders are pushing for the immigration court system to become independent. They contend that the current structure in which immigration judges must answer to the U.S. attorney general—a political figure—could create conflicts of interest in a profession that should function with neutrality. 

Last week, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee’s immigration panel heard testimony over the effort to dislodge immigration court from the purview of the Justice Department. Many Democratic lawmakers expressed hope that a restructuring of the immigration system could help mitigate the backlog of cases that continues to clog the courts.

Follow @@ErikaKate5