by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Dec 18 – A month after Michael Cohen testified in the NY Attorney General's lawsuit against the Trump Organization, Cohen on November 29 asked to have his federal supervised released terminated early - calling his state testimony "well received."
This is in a filing with U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Jesse M. Furman, now on Patreon here.
On December 4, the US Attorney's Office opposed Cohen's request, quoting his state court testimony that he lied to SDNY Judge Pauley. Response letter on Patreon here.
Inner City Press was in NYS Judge Engoran's courtroom when Michael Cohen admitted to having lied to SDNY Judge William Pauley. (The transcript Cohen annexes misspells it "Pauly.')
LATE of December 8 Cohen new counsel replied, that he was a predicate for the NY AG case against Trump. Full letter on Patreon here
Judge Furman noted a footnote therein, that cases in the first submission could not be verified. Inner City Press tweeted out the Order here.
On December 18 - the day after Inner City Press noted that Cohen's lawyer worked at Gotham Government Relations along with the Obama administration official charged with hate crimes for harassing a halal food truck vendor - Judge Furman issued an order from which it appears there have been seal filings: "ORDER as to Michael Cohen: The letter-motion to seal is granted on a temporary basis. Given that the issues implicate Defendant, the Court will give him through E. Danya Perry (who entered a notice of appearance on his behalf after the Government filed its opposition, see ECF No. 91, and then filed a reply, which disclosed that the cases cited in the original motion could not be "verif[ied]," ECF No. 95, at 3 n.6) an opportunity to be heard. In light of the upcoming holidays, Defendant shall file any response by December 28, 2023; Schwartz may, in turn, file a response to any submission by Defendant no later than January 3, 2024. Defendant's response should address (1) the substance of Schwartz's filing; (2) whether Schwartz's disclosures to the Court violate the attorney-client privilege; and (3) relatedly, whether Schwartz's filing and Defendant's response to it should remain under seal or be docketed, either in redacted or unredacted form."
More on Patreon here.
The case is US v. Cohen, 18-cr-602 (Furman)
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
