Notify me when he’s been removed from the bench. Oh wait, I’ll probably be dead by then. Never mind.
Can anyone explain what this really means for us non-lawyer people?
I mean, if I saw the judge in a supermarket, I might be tempted to yell some "unsolicited advice" at him. Would he end up being investigated because I advised him to go jump in a lake? I know there's more to it.
America’s corrupt justice system on full public display.
So all we have to do to give him a bad time is to give him advice he didn’t solicit from us? I like it, but it doesn’t seem right.
I will admit, I don’t understand how the law works in such situations. Tbe judge received “unsolicited” advice. Okay.Even though the judge did not directly ask for it, someone shared their personal opinion with the judge.
What am I missing that turns this into criminal conduct?
Unsolicited? Big deal. What did he do with it? Is it provable? Doubtful.
I don’t see what’s unethical about talking to an uninterested third party. Maybe I’m missing something.
Interesting. From this attorney’s wikipedia page:
“Trump SoHo New York[14] is a $450 million hotel condominium. In February 2011, several prospective buyers of condominiums in the building, including French soccer star Olivier Dacourt, sued the developers in federal court, claiming that they had been tricked into buying the condos by the “deceptive” sales figures, and that the number of apartments sold at Trump Soho had been “fraudulently misrepresented.” The plaintiffs were represented by Bailey. The suit was settled with plaintiffs recovering 90 per cent of their deposits.[15][16] Several years later, the case was described as “a watershed case in the world of condo litigation ... [C]ondo attorneys said that developers are now far more reluctant to disclose sales information to buyers’ attorneys, for fear of legal repercussions if they turn out to be wrong.”[17]”
T?he guy is a prevert and hack jurist.
He needs to be removed and banned along with his recent decisions vacated.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4236608/posts
“The New York State Rules of Judicial Conduct state that “a judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers.” The rules do allow an exception to “obtain the advice of a disinterested expert,” if a judge gives notice to the parties in the case and gives them the opportunity to respond.”
So Creepy Judge Pedoface is in the news again....
The sworn testimony of a disinterested officer of the court (Bailey) will, even without further evidence, be given a strong presumption of truth.
I believe Bailey’s word could well overcome a contrary statement from a facially self-interested Engoron.
Receiving unsolicited advice? Hardly seems like a big deal to me. I get unsolicited advice all the time. Whether I take it or not is up to me. I don’t think this case is going to amount to anything other than a distraction and it’s probably an attempt to prove that the judge makes his own decisions. He’s going to look better afterwards not worse.
Sounds like the defense was in the dark about this so called expert, and unethical for the judge to utilize him without Trumps lawyers examining him.
Read this elsewhere but have a question. How can you prevent someone from giving you advice? This seems kind of strange. He wasn’t soliciting advice, someone gave it to him? What’s the deal?
So people can’t advise him?