Michael Cohen’s lawyer is in major trouble after mentioning non-existent court proceedings.

Michael Cohen continues to face ongoing difficulties.

In late November, Cohen’s lawyer filed a motion to terminate his supervised release ahead of schedule. This filing marks another development in the ongoing legal battle concerning his involvement in the hush money payments made by Donald Trump to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

Cohen’s lawyer, David M. Schwartz, justifies the move by referring to three District Court decisions.

There’s just one issue – those cases are not genuine.

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman stated in a recent order that there is no evidence to support the existence of these cases. Judge Furman has given Schwartz a deadline until next Tuesday to provide proof of these cases, or face potential sanctions.

When the circuit court that the order refers to was contacted, it was found that there was no record of any of the three decisions, according to Furman, who was appointed by President Barack Obama.

The citation of these cases poses additional challenges for Cohen, causing him more headaches. Earlier this year, the 57-year-old Cohen had contemplated running for Congress in New York’s 12th Congressional District, which is currently represented by Rep. Jerry Nadler.

Schwartz did not respond to a comment request regarding the cases right away. When POLITICO called for comment, Cohen abruptly hung up the phone.

In August 2018, Cohen made a court admission that Trump had instructed him to organize payments to two women. The purpose of these payments was to ensure their silence about their interactions with Trump during his initial presidential campaign.

Cohen experienced a conviction, followed by a shortened prison sentence due to the Covid outbreak. He made a commitment to assist in the downfall of his former boss. Since November 2021, he has been on supervised release, and his legal team is currently striving to terminate it. Schwartz has been serving as Cohen’s spokesperson and counsel since the initial stages of the legal dispute.

Cohen plays a crucial role as one of the key witnesses in the civil case brought by New York Attorney General Tish James against Trump. The case alleges that Trump exaggerated his net worth in order to secure favorable financial deals from banks. Cohen had the opportunity to address the grand jury that ultimately led to the indictment of the former president in relation to this issue.

The dramatic downfall of Michael Cohen, once a prominent figure in Trump’s inner circle, stands out as one of the most remarkable collapses within the orbit of the former president. It is worth noting that many of Trump’s former aides have also faced legal troubles. Cohen, who initially caught Trump’s attention and joined his team in 2006, had previously experienced a failed political career of his own.

During his time working for Trump, he passionately defended the business-executive-turned-president against negative media coverage. Cohen was a staunch advocate, refuting claims of antisemitism, sexual abuse allegations, and other rumors that could tarnish Trump’s reputation. In a memorable incident in 2013, he even sent an angry email to The Onion when they published a satirical article under Trump’s name. Additionally, Cohen played a significant role in generating media attention around Trump’s potential entrance into politics, which eventually materialized when he decided to run for president.

But scandal after scandal weighed him down when Trump entered the White House, including accusations of ties to Russia, eventually leading to his imprisonment. Since then, he has become a formidable adversary of Trump, both inside and outside the courtroom. On Tuesday, he described Trump as “scared” for not testifying the previous day in James’ case against him.

E. Danya Perry, a lawyer who joined Cohen’s legal team after Schwartz, informed the judge once she came across the relevant cases. However, after conducting her own legal analysis, she concluded that Cohen’s request for early termination of his supervised release should still be approved.

According to a statement given to POLITICO, Perry explained that during his research for Mr. Cohen’s motion, he was unable to confirm the case law presented by previous counsel. In order to maintain his ethical duty of honesty to the Court, Perry informed Judge Furman about this matter.

Read More:

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *