This is The Professional Misconduct That the Supreme Court Buried. It is the Record of New York DA Alvin Bragg. Part Four

Review

The two earlier Supreme Court newsletters (published on August 7, 2024, and August 13, 2024) established the U.S Supreme Court’s burial of the professional misconduct of New York DA Alvin Bragg. These newsletters are here. 

https://therunnymedereport.substack.com/p/the-supreme-court-buries-professional

https://therunnymedereport.substack.com/p/the-supreme-court-buries-professional-ee1

Then Part One of DA Alvin Bragg (published on August 20, 2024) established his professional background and blue-ribbon credentials in education, training and skill in the field of protecting defendant rights in the prosecution of criminal cases. This newsletter is here.

https://therunnymedereport.substack.com/p/this-is-the-professional-misconduct

Then Part Two of DA Alvin Bragg (published on August 27, 2024) established his professional misconduct from being passive while his lead prosecutor, Mark Pomerantz, published damning comments against Donald Trump to the news media from Pomerantz’s prosecutorial investigation. Those comments amounted to removing Trump’s legal right to be presumed innocent and would prejudice any potential jury against Trump in the event DA Bragg decided to indict him. The link to this newsletter is here.

https://therunnymedereport.substack.com/p/this-is-the-professional-misconduct-098

Further, Part Three of DA Alvin Bragg (published on September 4, 2024) established that DA Bragg broke the rules of professional conduct in allowing Pomerantz to publish incriminating personal opinion allegations against Trump in the New York Times and in his tell-all book against Trump for one simple reason. He knew that the Grievance Committee of the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court (the state bar association), Trial Judge Juan Merchan, and all other judges would have his back. The link to this newsletter is here.

https://therunnymedereport.substack.com/p/this-is-the-professional-misconduct-501

Review of The Applicable Rules

As documented in Part Two of DA Bragg, DA Bragg was obligated to comply with Rules 3.6(a), 3.8(f) and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In short, he was obligated to not materially prejudice the adjudication of the case and not to heighten the condemnation of the accused. Most importantly, under those same rules DA Bragg was required to exercise reasonable care to assure that none of his investigators and assistants did any of this either. Here again are all these Rules of Professional Conduct.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/

What will follow below will show that DA Bragg remained passive as former Lead Prosecutor Pomerantz piled on damning negative extrajudicial publicity against Trump. And as already shown, DA Bragg got the benefit as Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the Stephanie Clifford/Stormy Daniels Hush-Money case on May 30, 2024.

DA Alvin Bragg is the Boss

The following documented facts will show the enormity of the extrajudicial publicity disseminated against Donald Trump. Yet none of it would happen without the oversight of DA Alvin Bragg.

Stacking

Stacking has been defined in the dictionary as arranging a pack of cards dishonestly so as to gain an unfair advantage. Mark Pomerantz stacked guilty inferences of financial record crimes against Donald Trump in his publication in the New York Times on March 23, 2022, saying Trump was guilty of numerous felonies and in his book entitled: “People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account,” published on February 7, 2023. Notably, DA Bragg indicted Trump for financial record crimes on March 30, 2023.

Pomerantz’s stacking, in this context, took the following form. Knowing that a financial records crime against a to be indicted defendant requires criminal intent, Pomerantz made the following statements in the book that inferred Trump’s guilt on falsifying financial statement crimes in the valuation of Trump Properties. Pomerantz did this knowing ahead of time that criminal intent is also required for another crime: the falsification of business records in the Stephanie Clifford/Stormy Daniels Hush-Money case.

1 In reference to an alleged overvaluation of Trump’s properties, Pomerantz wrote the following: “I then gave a quick overview of the evidence establishing Trump’s personal culpability” (See Chapter Seventeen “Friction and Difficulty” on page 208)

2 In reference to the alleged fraudulent valuations of Trump’s golf properties, Pomerantz wrote: “the brazen, pervasive and outlandish evaluations of the properties, I argued, was important proof of Trump’s intent” (See Chapter Eighteen “The Looming End of the Investigation” on page 211)

3 In reference to the support of leaders in the prosecutor’s office that believed that Trump was guilty of falsifying financial statements, Pomerantz wrote “put simply Cy Vance (the preceding DA before DA Bragg), Carey Dunne, and I were correct in believing that there was a strong case to be made against Donald Trump” (See Chapter Twenty-Three “Now What” on page 269)

The combination of these statements — and much more in his book —conclusively established, from Pomerantz’s personal opinion point of view, that Trump was guilty of these falsification of financial statement crimes (in the so-called fraudulent valuation of his properties) with the required intent to commit them. Though it was his personal opinion, the New York prospective jury would not perceive it that way. In their minds, the statements are coming from someone who knows the truth because he is a prosecutor. If he says it, it typically is believed to be true because he is a prosecutor.

Again, from the professional misconduct perspective, the questions that need to be answered by the reader are: did these accusations from a former lead prosecutor during his prosecutorial investigation of “brazen, pervasive and outlandish evaluations of the properties [of Trump)] in being “important proof of Trump’s intent” heighten the condemnation against Trump in the event he were to be indicted on the falsification of business records crimes in the Stephanie Clifford/Stormy Daniels Hush-Money case under Rule 3.8(f) (which is quoted above)? And did these same accusations by a former lead prosecutor about his prosecutorial investigation materially prejudice Trump in the event Trump were to be indicted on that falsification of business records crimes in that Stephanie Clifford/Stormy Daniels Hush-Money case under Rule 3.6(a) (which is quoted above)

If Bragg were to indict Trump on these falsification of financial statement crimes, the message from Pomerantz would be clear. Trump is guilty. And no fair trial could be had due to the contamination of the trial process by his incriminating publishing both in the New York Times on March 23, 2022 and the book on February 7, 2023. But what would happen if Trump was not indicted on this falsification of financial statement crimes, but was instead indicted on another financial records crime such as the falsification of business records crimes in the Stephanie Clifford Hush-Money case?

In that situation, the Pomerantz accusations of Trump’s criminal intent in the falsification of financial crimes would be stacked against Trump for the other alleged crime: the falsifying of business records in the Stephanie Clifford/Stormy Daniels Hush-Money falsification of business records case.

Indeed, on the surface these two cases appear to be different. But from the professional misconduct perspective, they are a continuing transaction to get Trump guilty before the public, in transmissions to the news media.

Criminal law in either of these two cases is all about criminal intent. If Pomerantz could influence the public, by his statements to the media, to believe that Trump is guilty of the falsifying of financial statements case, it is the next logical and compelling step to believe that he would also be guilty of the falsifying of business records in the Stephanie Clifford/Stormy Daniels Hush-Money case if Bragg indeed indicted Trump on it. That is what stacking is all about.

Notably, Trump was not indicted on the falsifying of financial statements, but he was indicted in the falsification of business records in the Stephanie Clifford/Stormy Daniels Hush-Money case on March 30,2023 after Pomerantz’s book was published on February 7, 2023. And as will be shown, the stacking was an important ingredient in ensuring that Trump would be guilty of all 34 counts in that falsification of business record crimes in the Stephanie Clifford/Stormy Daniels Hush-Money case.

The Impact on the Hush-Money Trial Process

The American trial system hinges upon a jury deciding issues of fact and reaching a conclusion of guilt or innocence in the criminal case. However, if before trial, they have been influenced extrajudicially by the prosecutor’s office prejudice and condemnation against the defendant through the news media then it affects the prospective jury who must decide the guilt or innocence of the accused.

This is particularly so when a former lead prosecutor makes purported detailed findings of fact and conclusions which unequivocally assert that this person is guilty both in the financial statements overvaluation of properties, that he was not indicted on, and the Hush-Money case in which he was indicted.

This is why the rules of professional conduct, as noted in rule 3.6(a) and 3.8(f) (and as quoted above) stridently declare that the DA rebuke such statements in order to protect the to be indicted defendant’s right to a fair trial and his legal right to be presumed innocent. And it is why those same rules stridently declare that the prosecutor himself prevent the statements from ever happening. And if that fails he is required to condemn the statements.

The Specifics of the Hush-Money Case

Knowing this judicial and legal context, here are specific damning attributions against Trump that former Lead Prosecutor Pomerantz made about Trump’s so-called guilt in the falsification of business records crimes in the Stephanie Clifford/Stormy Daniels case before DA Bragg actually indicted Trump for this case in his book, “The People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account.

1 In the Hush-Money chapter of his book, Pomerantz characterized the hush-money payment as “a phony invoicing scheme” (See Chapter Three: “The ‘Zombie” Case on page 40)

2 Pomerantz continues: “The hush money facts …seemed really smelly to me” (See Chapter Three: “The ‘Zombie’ Case on page 41)

3 He continues: “When I looked at the facts, along with the false invoices for the monthly ‘retainer’ payments that had been used to reimburse Cohen, the whole situation reeked of deception to me” (See Chapter Three: The ‘Zombie’ Case” on page 42)

4 He then continues by concluding that he hoped that DA Bragg would bring the hush money case against Trump (See Chapter Twenty-Three entitled: “Now What” on pages 271-272)

(However damning these guilty inferences are parenthetically, it cannot be overstated that Pomerantz had already established Trump as a guilty person by influencing the public opinion, in concluding that Trump had the criminal intent to commit the falsification of financial statements in the so-called fraudulent valuation of his properties that Trump was not indicted on. Thus, if he had the intent to commit the first one, it follows from this contamination process that he would be guilty of the falsification of business records in the Stephanie Clifford/Stormy Daniels Hush-Money case too in the minds of any prospective jury)

Former Lead Prosecutor Pomerantz’s previewing of this falsification of business records Hush-Money case on “his” facts and “his” conclusion would pollute any jury’s ultimate findings and conclusions when reaching a verdict against Trump, who was ultimately indicted on these allegations only several weeks after the book was published. For example, “the hush money facts …seemed really smelly to me” are only inferably smelly because Trump is guilty. “The whole situation of “false invoices” amounted to “reeked of deception to me” because Trump is guilty. Further, the hush money payment could only be characterized as a “phony invoicing scheme” because Trump is guilty.

Notably, it wasn’t just that Pomerantz contaminated the falsification of business record hush-money case against Trump but, rather he “hoped” that Trump would be indicted, while knowing that his extrajudicial publicity would influence the jury who would decide Trump’s guilt or innocence. Indeed, Trump was convicted by an extrajudicially influenced jury on May 30, 2024.

However, the damage that this would bring from the extrajudicial publicity could have been avoided if DA Bragg prevented it while Pomerantz was working in his office by first adopting and enforcing disciplinary standards against extrajudicial comments by members of his office. And then, even if that was not done, he could have condemned the New York Times guilt attributions against Trump and the book’s specific allegations so as to limit the impact on the jury at trial.

Yet DA Bragg had nothing to say about any of it even though Rule 3.6(a) and 3.8(f) of the rules of conduct (see above rules of conduct) required that he not allow this contamination of the trial process by former Lead Prosecutor Mark Pomerantz. Not coincidentally DA Bragg got the benefit from not adhering to the rules: the jury then found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records (in the Stephanie Clifford/Stormy Daniels case) as influenced by the statements of Pomerantz about the financial statement fraudulent evaluation of Trump properties alleged crimes and the falsifying of business record crimes (in the Stephanie Clifford/Stormy Daniels case)

There is more to come in assessing DA Bragg’s Professional Conduct.

Editor’s Note: In the previous newsletters, attention was directed to the wrongful extrajudicial publicity committed by former Lead Prosecutor Pomerantz and wrongly allowed by DA Bragg on the basis of one classification of crime: The falsifying of business of records in the Stephanie Clifford/ Stormy Daniels crimes. However, as detailed above there was another major level of wrongful extrajudicial publicity. It was the financial statements crimes involving the valuation of Trump’s properties.