aka "bucks bro, esquire". 
Posted on 02/18/2024 5:45:14 AM PST by devane617
aka "bucks bro, esquire".
And you were there.
I note that there are no longer any denials from you that you are a Democrat political operative on this board.
I am not nor have ever been a Democratic operative on this board or anywhere else. Happy?
Donald Trump on His Tax Rate: ‘It’s None of Your Business’
nytimes.com ^ | 5/13/2016 | Maggie Haberman
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3430264/posts?q=1&;page=101
He was singing the same song then.
I just think of all the time and care you put into creating this persona.
Interesting, but par for your course. Claude would be disappointed to hear about your antics...
More escape hatches than a Bill Clinton "coming clean" statement...
Not sure why I waste my time.
In your eyes, it's not a waste of time.
It's like your own little bonsai tree that you've cultivated for more than two decades.
A work of art - a monument to how "clever" you are.
Well, I am clever. What do you have to offer other than insults?
I see the confusion now. You misread the sentence. The judge could have used a few more commas to make it clear.
Although there is no formal means in the PRA by which a president is to make that categorization, an outgoing president’s decision to exclude what he/she considers to be personal records from presidential records transmitted to the National Archives and Records Administration constitutes a president’s categorization of those records as personal under the PRA.
Try reading it this way and it becomes clear.
Although there is no formal means in the PRA by which a president is to make that categorization, an outgoing president’s decision to exclude what he/she considers to be personal records, from presidential records transmitted to the National Archives and Records Administration, constitutes a president’s categorization of those records as personal under the PRA.There is no itemized list of records that are sent to NARA as you originally read the sentence. The personal records are kept, and the rest of the "non-retained" records are "transmitted" (read: returned) to NARA as "Presidential records."
-PJ
We all know why.
His "brother the lawyer" was never confused about the meaning.
Because he's a lawyer. Obfuscation is the name of the game, along with deliberate obtuseness.
[joesbucks #573] Google, Yahoo, Duck-Duck Go, MSN and Dogpile are your friend. However, when did Trump transmit to the Archives the files he planned to make personal? I’ve searched & searched and just can’t find it.
[joesbucks #579] As you noted yesterday, Judge Cannon has laid the foundation on proceeding. Missing is Trump’s transmission to the Archives as to what was to be personal and presidential.
There appears to be no cure for stupid.
Judge Cannon: An outgoing president’s decision to exclude what he/she considers to be personal records from presidential records transmitted to the National Archives and Records Administration constitutes a president’s categorization of those records as personal under the PRA.
ALL the records categorized as Presidential became the responsibility of the Archivist the instant Trump left office at noon on inauguration day. All the records filed separately as Personal records were forwarded by the government to Trump's residence. What Trump excluded from the records left for the Archivist constitutes a president's categorization of those excluded records as Personal under the Presidential Records Act. Google, Yahoo, Duck-Duck Go, MSN and Dogpile evidently did not teach you reading comprehension.
If you simply read what I posted or watched the short video of attorney Robert Gouveia at #577 you would not be making a fool of yourself prattling on and on about Trump's transmission to the archives. The President does not transmit anything to the Archives.
Also, if you are going to prattle on about the Presidential Records Act, try reading the damn thing.
"(f) (1) Upon the conclusion of a President's term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President. The Archivist shall have an affirmative duty to make such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible consistent with the provisions of this Act."(2) The Archivist shall deposit all such Presidential records in a Presidential archival depository or another archival facility operated by the United States. The Archivist is authorized to designate, after consultation with the former President, a director at each depository or facility, who shall be responsible for the care and preservation of such records.
Once you figure out that as soon as the President leaves office, the Presidential records are the responsibility of the Archivist, you can stop yammering about what President Trump did with them.
Whatever the President files separately is his personal records. The Archivist does not have a say in what the President designates as personal.
[joesbucks #579] Additionally In a prosecution of a former president (1) for allegedly retaining documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), a jury is permitted to examine a record retained by a former president in his/her personal possession at the end of his/her presidency and make a factual finding as to whether the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is personal or presidential using the definitions set forth in the Presidential Records Act.
That is proposed jury instruction one of two. If the current case moves forward, the prosecution must make all of the documents available to the jury for review. It would be a prosecution of a President after he left office for an alleged offense he could only have committed after he left office. A President can be prosecuted for acts committed after he leaves office. Perhaps you believe Presidents acquire lifetime immunity upon inauguration.
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=CJKA2EOIiTRatUAYz6FyeA==
[41]
Michael Cohen
Michael Cohen joined the Trump Organization in 2007 as executive vice president and special counsel to Donald Trump.24 TT 2191, 2195-2197. During his entire tenure at the Trump Organization, Cohen reported directly to Donald Trump. TT 2197.
24 The Court lists Michael Cohen as a “party witness,” as he was a Trump Organization employee at all relevant times. However, the Court is mindful that Mr. Cohen is now adverse to defendants.
[42]
In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty, in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York, to several counts of tax evasion, one count of misrepresentation to a financial institution, two counts of violating campaign finance laws, and one count of misrepresentation to Congress. Cohen cooperated with the government and was sentenced to 36 months of incarceration. TT 2184-2188.
Beginning in 2012, Donald Trump asked Cohen to assist in preparing the SFCs and their supporting valuations. TT 2208-2209, 2213. Specifically, Cohen affirmed: “I was tasked by Mr. Trump to increase the total assets based upon a number that he arbitrarily selected[,] and my responsibility[,] along with Allen Weisselberg predominantly[,] was to reverse engineer25 the various different asset classes, increase those assets in order to achieve the number that Mr. Trump had tasked us.” TT 2210-2211.
The “reverse engineering” conversations took place in meetings amongst Donald Trump, Weisselberg, and Cohen. Cohen testified that Donald Trump would intentionally give indirect instructions (i.e., “He would look at the total assets and he would say, ‘I’m actually not worth four and a half billion dollars. I’m really worth more, like, six.”), which Cohen and Weisselberg understood as a directive to inflate the assets until the desired value was achieved. TT 2215-2287, 2460-2461.26
As part of this reverse engineering scheme, Cohen said they would look at numbers being achieved elsewhere, find the highest price per square foot achieved in New York City, and apply that price per square foot to Trump assets, even though the Trump properties were neither comparable nor similar. TT 2216-2217.
Cohen described the process of arbitrarily adding values to the asset categories on the SFC categories as follows:
I would sit down with Allen [Weisselberg] and we would make the changes. That document would then be photocopied that had all of the changes at which point in time Allen and I would return to Mr. Trump to demonstrate that we achieved or [were] close to the number that he was seeking and I had no use for that document any longer.
25 To reverse engineer, in this context, means to start with the desired result and end with the necessary numbers to achieve that result.
26 Cohen elaborated that Donald Trump “did not specifically state ‘Michael, go inflate the numbers,’” specifically testifying that “Donald Trump speaks like a mob boss and what he does is he tells you what he wants without specifically telling you. So[,] when he said to me ‘I’m worth more than five billion. I’m actually worth maybe six, maybe seven, could be eight,’ we understood what he wanted.” TT 2460-2461.
[43]
TT 2218-2219. Cohen said that each reverse engineering process would take several days, and that Weisselberg relied on McConney to assist him in adding value to the numbers on the supporting data for the SFCs. TT 2220-2221, 2230. Cohen further made clear that Donald Trump had to approve the final numbers before they went to Mazars to be used in the compilations. TT 2220.
Cohen specifically recalled working to reverse engineer the values of Trump Tower, Trump Park Avenue, Trump World Tower United Nations, 100 Central Park South, Seven Springs, and the Miss Universe Pageant. TT 2226-2227, 2340-2341.
Cohen was also a member of the “Team of Four” that was tasked with acquiring insurance on behalf of the Trump Organization. TT 2234-2239; PX 3119. When meeting with insurance representatives or brokers for the purpose of acquiring coverage, Weisselberg would permit the representatives only to view the SFCs at Trump Tower; they were not permitted to make copies or to keep the original. TT 2240. Cohen also described Donald Trump’s participation in the meetings with the insurance representatives, detailing an orchestrated routine wherein Donald Trump would intentionally come into the meetings three quarters of the way through to boast that he is richer than the insurance companies and should consider going self-insured, in an attempt to garner a lower premium from the insurance representatives. TT 2245, 2248-2249; PX 3166.
Michael Cohen was an important witness on behalf of the plaintiff, although hardly the linchpin that defendants have attempted to portray him to be. His testimony was significantly compromised by his having pleaded guilty to perjury and by some seeming contradictions in what he said at trial. However, carefully parsed, he testified that although Donald Trump did not expressly direct him to reverse engineer financial statements, he ordered him to do so indirectly, in his “mob voice.” Although the animosity between the witness and the defendant is palpable, providing Cohen with an incentive to lie, the Court found his testimony credible, based on the relaxed manner in which he testified, the general plausibility of his statements, and, most importantly, the way his testimony was corroborated by other trial evidence. A less-forgiving factfinder might have concluded differently, might not have believed a single word of a convicted perjurer. This factfinder does not believe that pleading guilty to perjury means that you can never tell the truth. Michael Cohen told the truth.
Case 1:18-cr-00602-JMF — Document 108 — Filed 03/20/24 — Page 1 of 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
-v-
MICHAEL COHEN,
Defendant.
18-CR-602 (JMF)
OPINION AND ORDER
JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
Defendant Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to evading income taxes, lying to banks and Congress, and violating campaign finance laws. See ECF No. 23.1 On December 12, 2018, citing this “veritable smorgasbord of fraudulent conduct,” ECF No. 31, at 31, the Honorable William H. Pauley sentenced Cohen principally to thirty-six months’ imprisonment, followed by three years’ supervised release. See ECF No. 29; see also 18-CR-850, ECF No. 16. Since that time, Cohen has applied multiple times for a reduction of his sentence, each time without success. First, in December 2019, Cohen moved for a reduction of his term of imprisonment pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See ECF No. 51. Judge Pauley denied that motion in March 2020. See ECF No. 72. Between July 2022 and May 2023, after the case was reassigned to the undersigned (due to the death of Judge Pauley), Cohen filed three motions for early termination of his term of supervised release (which is due to expire in November of this year). See ECF Nos. 77, 81, 84. The Court denied all three. See ECF Nos. 80, 83, 87. In this Opinion, the Court turns to a fourth motion for early termination of Cohen’s supervised release and the question of whether sanctions are warranted for that motion’s citation to three cases that do not exist.
1 Unless otherwise noted, all record citations are to 18-CR-602 (JMF).
Case 1:18-cr-00602-JMF — Document 108 — Filed 03/20/24 — Page 2 of 13
BACKGROUND
The relevant background begins with the Court’s denial of Cohen’s third motion for early termination. In opposing that motion, the Government alerted the Court to statements that Cohen had made in a then-recent book and on television. Specifically, “Cohen falsely wrote in a book he authored that he ‘did not engage in tax fraud,’ that the tax charges were ‘all 100 percent inaccurate,’ and that he was ‘threatened’ by prosecutors to plead guilty.” ECF No. 86, at 3 (quoting MICHAEL COHEN, REVENGE 54 (2022)). And in an “attempt to distance himself from his guilty plea to making false statements to a financial institution about tax medallion liabilities, Cohen stated on television, ‘first and foremost, there was no fraud in the medallions, I don’t know even what he’s talking about.’” Id. (citation omitted) (quoting ‘Panic’: Trump melting down over imminent ‘arrest’ says star witness Cohen, MSNBC: THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER (Mar. 20, 2023), https://shorturl.at/cvDI8). The Court denied Cohen’s motion “substantially for the reasons set forth in the Government’s letter” and singled out the statements from Cohen’s book and television appearance. ECF No. 87, at 4 (endorsement). These statements, the Court stated, “suggest that a reduction of Defendant’s supervised release term would not serve the purposes [of sentencing] incorporated by reference in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)” — the statute governing termination of supervised release — “including deterrence, rehabilitation, or proportionality.” Id. (citing United States v. Lussier, 104 F.3d 32, 35 (2d Cir. 1997)).
Undeterred, Cohen — through his counsel of record, David M. Schwartz — filed yet another motion seeking early termination of supervised release on November 29, 2023. See ECF No. 88 (“Def.’s Motion”). In his motion, Schwartz argued that there had “been a substantial change in circumstances” since the Court’s most recent denial, namely Cohen’s testimony “for two straight days in the case of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump.” Id. at 1. Schwartz asserted that Cohen had “endured two days of grueling cross examination” and that his testimony had “been widely lauded and publicized.” Id. Cohen’s “willingness to come forward and
Case 1:18-cr-00602-JMF — Document 108 — Filed 03/20/24 — Page 3 of 13
provide truthful accounts of his experiences,” Schwartz argued, “demonstrates an exceptional level of remorse and a commitment to upholding the law that cannot be denied by this Court or the United States Attorney General’s [sic] Office.” Id.
In support of his motion, Schwartz cited and described three “examples” of decisions granting early termination of supervised release that were allegedly affirmed by the Second Circuit. See id. at 2-3 (citing United States v. Figueroa-Florez, 64 F.4th 223 (2d Cir. 2022); United States v. Ortiz (No. 21-3391), 2022 WL 4424741 (2d Cir. Oct. 11, 2022); and United States v. Amato, 2022 WL 1669877 (2d Cir. May 10, 2022)). There was only one problem: The cases do not exist. Although the Government failed to point that fact out in its opposition to Cohen’s motion, see ECF No. 90 (“Gov’t Opp’n”), E. Danya Perry — who entered a notice of appearance on Cohen’s behalf following the Government’s submission, see ECF No. 91 — disclosed in a reply that she had been “unable to verify” the citations in Schwartz’s filing. ECF No. 95 (“Def.’s Reply”), at 3 n.6. On December 12, 2023, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause directing Schwartz to show cause in writing “why he should not be sanctioned pursuant to (1) Rule 11(b)(2) & (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and (3) the inherent power of the Court for citing non-existent cases to the Court.” ECF No. 96, at 2. The Court directed that Schwartz provide “a thorough explanation of how the motion came to cite cases that do not exist and what role, if any, Mr. Cohen played in drafting or reviewing the motion before it was filed.” Id. The Court reserved judgment on the motion itself. See id.
Schwartz (aided by his own counsel) and Cohen (aided by Perry) both responded to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. See ECF Nos. 103-05. With one exception discussed below, they tell the same basic story. In early November 2023, Schwartz sent a draft of what would become
Case 1:18-cr-00602-JMF — Document 108 — Filed 03/20/24 — Page 4 of 13
the November 29, 2023 motion to Cohen. See Schwartz Decl. ¶ 4; Cohen Decl. ¶ 12.2 Cohen asked Perry (who had not yet entered an appearance in this case) to provide feedback on the draft, which she did. Schwartz Decl. ¶¶ 5-7; Cohen Decl. ¶ 12. One comment, which Cohen passed along to Schwartz, was that the motion should cite a few cases granting early termination. Schwartz Decl. ¶ 6; ECF No. 106 (“Schwartz Reply Decl.”), ¶ 9; Cohen Decl. ¶ 13. Schwartz adopted what he understood to be Perry’s suggestions and sent subsequent drafts back to Cohen. See Schwartz Decl. ¶ 8. On November 25, 2023, Cohen then sent three emails to Schwartz with the cases in question and summaries of the cases. See id. ¶ 9; Cohen Decl. ¶ 15. Cohen had obtained the cases and summaries from Google Bard, which he “did not realize . . . was a generative text service that, like Chat-GPT, could show citations and descriptions that looked real but actually were not. Instead, [he had] understood it to be a super-charged search engine . . . .” Cohen Decl. ¶ 20. According to Cohen, he did not “have access to Westlaw or other standard resources for confirming the details of cases” and “trusted Mr. Schwartz and his team to vet [his] suggested additions before incorporating them” into what became the motion. Id.
2 “Schwartz Decl.” refers to Schwartz’s declaration that is part of ECF No. 103 and “Cohen Decl.” refers to Cohen’s declaration that is part of ECF No. 104.
Case 1:18-cr-00602-JMF — Document 108 — Filed 03/20/24 — Page 5 of 13
That trust proved unfounded. Although Cohen’s November 25, 2023 emails made no reference to Perry, Schwartz “believed” that the cases “had been found by Ms. Perry” given the earlier back and forth. Schwartz Decl. ¶ 9; see Schwartz Reply Decl. ¶ 2. “[B]ecause of Ms. Perry’s reputation” as “a renowned and skilled trial lawyer,” Schwartz “did not independently review the cases.” Schwartz Decl. ¶¶ 5, 10. He notes that he “never contemplated that the cases cited were ‘non-existent,’” id. ¶ 13, that their inclusion in his motion was an “honest” and “unfortunate mistake[],” Schwartz Reply Decl. ¶¶ 3, 23, and that he “had no intention to deceive the Court,” id. ¶ 3. The first Schwartz learned of the problem was when the Court issued its Order to Show Cause on December 12, 2023; he then spoke to Perry’s colleague, who informed him that Cohen, not Perry, had been the source of the cases. See Schwartz Decl. ¶ 19; see Schwartz Reply Decl. ¶ 16. Schwartz professes that he “would have researched” the cases had he “believed that Mr. Cohen” was their source. Schwartz Decl. ¶ 20. He acknowledges that he “bear[s] the responsibility for” the “submission” and that “the inaccuracies” in it were “completely unacceptable,” and he “sincerely apologize[s] . . . for not checking [the] cases personally before submitting them.” Id. ¶¶ 21-22; see Schwartz Reply Decl. ¶ 2, 21-22.
As noted, Schwartz’s and Cohen’s recollections differ in one respect. Schwartz recalls that Cohen had, before sending him the cases on November 25, 2023, “communicated to [him] that cases would be provided by Ms. Perry,” Schwartz Decl. ¶ 9; Schwartz Reply Decl. ¶ 12, which was one reason he believed the cases came from Perry. Cohen denies that he said anything of the sort to Schwartz, although he does not dispute Schwartz’s claim that Schwartz mistakenly believed in good faith that the cases had come from Perry. Cohen Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, 14, 17-18. In the Court’s view, this discrepancy is ultimately inconsequential. At most, Cohen told Schwartz on some unspecified date that Perry would later provide “cases”; Schwartz does not suggest, and the record does not show, that Cohen identified Perry as the source of the problematic cases Cohen provided on November 25, 2023. Moreover, even if Cohen did not say anything to Schwartz to suggest that Perry would provide cases, Perry’s comments on the initial draft that Cohen forwarded to Schwartz provided a good faith basis for Schwartz’s belief that Perry was the source. All of that is to say, the Court credits Schwartz’s testimony that he genuinely, but mistakenly, believed that the cases had come from Perry; that he did not independently review the cases based on that belief; that he would have researched the cases had he known that Cohen was the source; and that he did not intend to deceive the Court.
In light of the foregoing submissions, the record is complete and two discrete issues are thus ripe for the Court’s decision: first, whether Cohen’s supervised release term should be
Case 1:18-cr-00602-JMF — Document 108 — Filed 03/20/24 — Page 6 of 13
terminated early; and second, whether sanctions should be imposed in connection with the citation to non-existent cases. The Court will address each issue in turn.
COHEN’S MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE
The first issue can be addressed relatively swiftly. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), a court “may terminate a term of supervised release . . . at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release” if, after revisiting certain factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), “it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice.” In particular, “the Court is required to consider the factors in Section 3553(a) which bear on deterrence, public safety, rehabilitation, proportionality, and consistency.” United States v. Warren, No. 21-CR-753 (LJL), 2024 WL 497690, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2024) (cleaned up); accord United States v. Lussier, 104 F.3d 32, 36 (2d Cir. 1997). Significantly, early termination of supervised release “is not warranted as a matter of course.” United States v. Wheeler, No. 20-CR-492 (GHW), 2023 WL 4561591, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). To the contrary, it is only “occasionally” justified due to “changed circumstances,” such as “exceptionally good behavior by the defendant,” that “render a previously imposed term or condition of release either too harsh or inappropriately tailored to serve the general punishment goals of section 3553(a).” Lussier, 104 F.3d at 36.
In light of the relevant Section 3553(a) factors, Cohen’s latest motion for early termination is denied. Cohen’s principal basis for his renewed motion was his October 2023 testimony in State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. As the Government notes, however, that testimony actually provides “reason to deny his motion, not [to] grant it.” Gov’t Opp’n 2. Specifically, Cohen repeatedly and unambiguously testified at the state court trial that he was not
Case 1:18-cr-00602-JMF — Document 108 — Filed 03/20/24 — Page 7 of 13
guilty of tax evasion and that he had lied under oath to Judge Pauley when he pleaded guilty to those crimes. See Tr. 2188-90, 2317, 2433, 2437.2F3 To cite just a few examples:
Q: Did you lie to Judge Pauley when you said that you were guilty of the counts that you said under oath that you were guilty of? Did you lie to Judge Pauley?
A: Yes.4
* * * *
Q: But you earlier testified today that you omitted, you didn’t evade [taxes], isn’t that right?
A: I did say that.
Q: Right. So you lied when you said that you evaded taxes to a judge under oath; is that correct?
A: Yes.5
* * * *
Q: And in response to those questions [from Judge Pauley], you lied to him; true?
A: That’s true.6
* * * *
Q: So, sir, you lied at the time — you lied more than once in federal court,
correct?
A: Correct.
Q: When the stakes affected you personally, right?
A: Correct.
Q: And you misled a federal judge?
3 “Tr.” refers to the transcript, which can be found at ECF Nos. 88-1 and 88-2.
4 Id. at 2288.
5 Id. at 2289-90.
6 Id. at 2433.
Case 1:18-cr-00602-JMF — Document 108 — Filed 03/20/24 — Page 8 of 13
A: Yes.7
This testimony is more troubling than the statements that Cohen had previously made in his book and on television — statements that the Court had specifically cited in denying Cohen’s third motion for early termination of supervised release, see ECF No. 87, at 4 (endorsement) — because it was given under oath. It gives rise to two possibilities: one, Cohen committed perjury when he pleaded guilty before Judge Pauley or, two, Cohen committed perjury in his October 2023 testimony. Either way, it is perverse to cite the testimony, as Schwartz did, as evidence of Cohen’s “commitment to upholding the law.” Def.’s Motion 1. And either way, it would undermine, rather than serve, the purposes of sentencing incorporated by reference in Section 3583(e), including deterrence, rehabilitation, or proportionality, to terminate Cohen’s supervised release before its natural expiration in November of this year. At a minimum, Cohen’s ongoing and escalating efforts to walk away from his prior acceptance of responsibility for his crimes are manifest evidence of the ongoing need for specific deterrence.8
In her reply on Cohen’s behalf, Perry tries valiantly to paint his testimony in a more positive light. She contends that the Government — which emphasized Cohen’s testimony in its opposition, see Gov’t Opp’n 2-3 — “mischaracteriz[es]” and “selective[ly]” quotes from Cohen’s testimony. Def.’s Reply 1-2. She insists that Cohen’s testimony “actually reflect[s] something very different from what the Government argues,” namely an attempt “to articulate his belief that such conduct should not have been the basis for a criminal prosecution.” Id. at 1. But these efforts to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse fall flat. Cohen’s testimony was not, as
7 Id. at 2437.
8 To be clear, the Court does not rely in any way on the citation to non-existent cases in Cohen’s motion as a basis for denying the motion. Among other things, and as discussed below, the Court agrees that the primary fault for that problem lies with Schwartz.
Case 1:18-cr-00602-JMF — Document 108 — Filed 03/20/24 — Page 9 of 13
Perry contends, a “clumsy” or “poorly worded” attempt to argue that, while he committed the crimes to which he pleaded guilty, the Government abused its prosecutorial discretion in charging those crimes. Id. at 1-2. To the contrary, he unambiguously testified that he “didn’t” commit tax evasion and that he “lied” to Judge Pauley when he said that he had. Tr. 2289-90. Moreover, when given multiple opportunities to retreat from or clarify that testimony later, he stuck to his guns. See id. at 2433, 2437. Perhaps recognizing that the transcript belies her zealous efforts at spin, Perry falls back on an alternative argument: that Cohen’s October 2023 testimony, if true, “would simply mean that Mr. Cohen, like countless other defendants before him and since, felt compelled to agree to a plea deal under severe pressure.” Def.’s Reply 2. Cohen is certainly free to make that claim publicly, but he cannot do so and simultaneously ask the Court to shorten his sentence on the ground that he has demonstrated “an exceptional level of remorse and a commitment to upholding the law.” Def.’s Motion 1.
In short, there was “a substantial change in circumstances” between Cohen’s third failed application and this, his fourth. Id. at 1. But that change — his October 2023 testimony, which was either perjurious or confirms that he committed perjury before this Court — makes plain that Cohen should be required to serve out the remainder of his supervised release term. Accordingly, his motion for early termination of supervised release is DENIED.
WHETHER SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED
[...]
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Cohen’s latest motion for early termination of his supervised release and declines to impose sanctions for the citation in that motion to non-existent cases. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 88.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 20, 2024
New York, New York
__________________________________
JESSE M. FURMAN
United States District Judge
I would not be gullible that I would send anything important to the NRA either. Good explanation of Cannon’s instructions.
Furthermore, at the time Clifford was being represented by Michael Avenatti, who is now in prison for stealing Clifford's book proceeds.
So, Cohen and Avenatti are at the center of Bragg's campaign finance fraud case against Trump? And we're supposed to think that Cohen is credible here and there (where Trump is concerned), but a criminal liar everywhere else?
-PJ
Agree.
But you keep leaving out the notification element. If it’s as you claim, Cannon should dismiss the charges. A dismissal may occur at any time during a criminal case prior to a verdict by a jury or judge. The Judge may dismiss the case for legal or factual reasons, or the prosecutor may realize they just can’t prove the case and dismiss it. Should the prosecutor file charges but a judge determines insufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing, the judge may dismiss the charges. Judges cannot drop charges, but they can dismiss them. So why hasn’t she if it’s so clear cut?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.