Brock Fredin

2163 U.S. Highway 8 Suite 100-4007 Saint Croix Falls, WI 54024 ● Phone: (612) 424-5512 ●
E-Mail: [email protected]

Date: October 3, 2023

BY E-MAIL TO [email protected]

Hon. Arthur F. Engoron

60 Centre Street
Chambers Room 566/418
New York, NY 10007

Re: People v. Trump et al., Index No. 452564/2022 — Intervening Letter Concerning
Ordering Directing Removal of @JudicialProtest Re-tweet and Repeated Ethical
Violations by Principal Law Clerk Allison Greenfield

Justice Engoron:

My name is Brock Fredin and I operate the Twitter account @JudicialProtest. I write with
respect to the blatantly unethical and partisan conduct of Your Honor’s Principal Law Clerk
Allison Greenfield, the Court’s “Gag Order” issued today concerning President Trump’s re-
tweeting of my tweet about Ms. Greenfield and Senator Chuck Schumer taken at a Chelsea Reform
Democrat Club brunch and the overly apparent appearance of impropriety in the above-referenced
matter with respect to Ms. Greenfield’s repeated partisan political and Democrat activities while
employed as a law clerk.

Given that President Trump’s post at-issue today was a re-tweet of my original tweet on
the @JudicialProtest account, the Court’s order directing President Trump to remove it is a direct
attack on my First Amendment rights (as well as President Trump’s), particularly since the Court
asserted on the record that my tweet was a “personal attack” on Ms. Greenfield rather than a post
exposing and criticizing the misconduct of a public official. I am consequently an interested party
and submit this letter as such. To be clear, though, this letter and its contents are not a “personal
attack” on Ms. Greenfield. Rather, this letter contains receipts and raises serious ethical violations
as to her political speech and activities involving the Democrat Party while employed as your law
clerk that undoubtedly create an appearance of impropriety in People v. Trump et al.

The Court’s Gag Order is a clear attempt to paper over the apparent ethical violations by
Ms. Greenfield and Your Honor and redirect animus and negative headlines at President Trump.
Without this letter putting Ms. Greenfield’s misconduct in the record, the Court’s Gag Order of
today will no doubt be the dam that will break causing the issuance of even more Gag Orders in
other cases against President Trump that will unconstitutionally infringe on his First Amendment
rights. I am therefore filing this letter with the Court not just to preserve my First Amendment
rights, but to set forth the facts so that they are publicly part of the record and to ensure that
President Trump and his sons are afforded a fair trial.

Based on the facts below and the clear ethical violations of both Ms. Greenfield and Your
Honor, I am copying the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct, the Attorney Grievance
 Page 2 of 8
Committee for the First Judicial Department, the New York State Commission on Ethics and the
Chief Administrative Judge of the New York Office of Court Administration. It is my hope that
these entities and individuals will investigate and impose appropriate sanctions on Ms. Greenfield
and Your Honor.

I. Undisputed Facts Concerning Ms. Greenfield’s Partisan Speech and Activities while
Employed as a “Principal Law Clerk” for Justice Engoron

There is no dispute based on her own social media that Ms. Greenfield has engaged in
highly partisan speech and activities on behalf of the Democrat Party while employed as a Principal
Law Clerk for Your Honor.

According to Ms. Greenfield’s LinkedIn account, she began working as Justice Engoron’s
Principal Law Clerk in 2019. (See Attachment A.)

In 2022, while employed as a Principal Law Clerk for Your Honor, Ms. Greenfield
apparently ran for a Manhattan Civil Court judgeship as a Democrat. She created and maintained
a website for her campaign. (See Attachment B.) More importantly, Ms. Greenfield also
maintained an Instagram page promoting her campaign with the handle @greenfield4civilcourt,
which she continued to use to engage in partisan speech and activities on behalf of Democrat
candidates and the Democrat Party even after her campaign. (See Attachment C.)

On the @greenfield4civilcourt Instagram page, Ms. Greenfield posted numerous plainly

partisan posts and images concerning Democrats and the Democrat Party. Specifically, the posts
and images include the following:

• Several posts containing endorsements from local Democrat organizations, such as

Village Independent Democrats, the Grand Street Democrats and the Democrat
Judicial Screening Panel (see Attachment C);

• Numerous posts posing with prominent Democrat officials during Democrat-

sponsored events, such as the Chelsea Reform Democrat Club Founder’s brunch.
(See Attachment C.) The officials include Senator Chuck Schumer, Representative
Carolyn Maloney and Representative Jerry Nadler. (See id.) Most important, the
pictures are not just “fan photos” of Ms. Greenfield with these high profile
Democrats as asserted by the media, but were clearly posted in order convey the
perception that they were endorsing her run for Manhattan Civil Court. (See id.);

• Several posts that had nothing to do with her campaign that were clearly partisan
and parroted Democrat talking points. (See Attachment C.) For example, in one
post after the election, Ms. Greenfield posted “Channel Your Rage into
Action…Abortion Is Healthcare.” (See id.);

• Numerous posts containing the hashtags #Democrats, #ManhattanDems,

#ManhattanDemocrats and #VillageIndependentDems (see Attachment C);
 Page 3 of 8
• Posts containing images of Ms. Greenfield “petitioning” on behalf of Democrats
candidates, such as Representative Maloney, New York State Senator Brad
Hoylman-Sigal, New York State Representative Deborah Glick and New York
Civil Court Judge Deronn Bowen (see Attachment C);

• Posts containing images and statements that Ms. Greenfield was canvassing for
@VoteBlueNYC and Democrat Representative Tom Malinowski October 2022
(see Attachment C);

• Several posts where Ms. Greenfield attended and participated in events for Village
Independent Democrats, the Grand Street Democrats, the Chelsea Reform
Democrat Club, the United Democrat Organization and the Downtown Independent
Democrats (see Attachment C);

• Posts advertising for the Democrat primaries in New York (see Attachment C); and

• Posts with advertisements concerning Ms. Greenfield conducting events on behalf

of the 700 Strong Dems while employed as a law clerk (see Attachment C).

Again, all these posts were made by Ms. Greenfield while employed as a Principal Law Clerk for
Justice Engoron. (See Attachment C.) Even more important, many of the posts were made during
the pendency of the instant People v. Trump et al. matter before Your Honor. (See id.) Moreover,
Ms. Greenfield donated to two Democrat candidates during the 2022 election cycle in New York.
(See Attachment D.)

As to this matter, it is apparent that Ms. Greenfield is actively involved in assisting Your
Honor in People v. Trump et al. Ms. Greenfield has not sat at a clerk’s table, but at the bench with
Your Honor for the first two (2) days of trial. (See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mBZNxEQl8o at 1:36 (Day 1); see also
https://nypost.com/2023/10/02/trump-fraud-trial-in-nyc-live-updates-reactions-photos-more/
(Day 2).) Indeed, prior to the trial, the New York Times wrote:

The atmosphere in his courtroom is somewhat unusual. Beyond the levity he

fosters, he discourages member of the public from standing, as is typical, when he
enters. He also gives broad latitude to his principal law clerk, Allison
Greenfield, perhaps because he himself has served in that role. Ms. Greenfield
keeps the trains running on time with a firm hand, in contrast to the judge’s
generally genial demeanor.

(See Attachment E (emphasis added) (available at

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/02/nyregion/arthur-engoron-fraud-trial-trump.html).). Ms.
Greenfield’s command of Your Honor’s courtroom is confirmed by a recording of a virtual
contempt hearing against attorney Robert Wallack in the matter Sage Reality Corp. v. Wallack in
which she can be heard rendering decisions on behalf of Your Honor and barking at counsel that
 Page 4 of 8
she “will not tolerate” excuses from their clients.1 (See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dKaWkz5qys.)

Lastly, Ms. Greenfield set her Instagram containing the partisan Democrat posts to private
last night, after the first day of trial in People v. Trump et al. It is important to note that this was
not Ms. Greenfield’s personal Instagram account. Rather, it was an Instagram account that she
used as a platform for her failed bid to become a Manhattan Civil Court judge. The fact that Ms.
Greenfield set her account to private before the media frenzy around her account today is deeply
troubling and indicative that there is something Ms. Greenfield and Your Honor wish to hide
(which is apparent from the screenshots in Attachment C).

II. Applicable Ethical Rules

New York State has failed to enact or publish formal ethical rules for law clerks. However,
there are two sets of rules that are instructive as to Ms. Greenfield’s apparent misconduct: (i) the
federal law clerk ethics manual entitled “Maintaining the Public Trust, Ethics for Federal Judicial
Law Clerks”; and (ii) the New York State Judicial Cannons set forth in 22 NYCRR 100 et seq.

First, the federal ethics manual explicitly condemns Ms. Greenfield’s partisan Democrat
posts and activities she undertook while employed as a law clerk. Commentary as to Canon 5
explicitly states that:

Political Activities

Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct prohibits law clerks from engaging in both partisan
and nonpartisan political activity. You may not run for office; campaign for others;
publicly endorse or oppose candidates; or contribute funds to political
organizations, candidates, or events. You should not even take passive actions that
might link you with a political issue, such as displaying a political sign or bumper
sticker.

(See https://cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/HR/Forms/Maintaining-the-Public-
Trust_2019-Revised-Fourth-Edition.pdf.) Ms. Greenfield not only violated every provision of

1
Notably, the Sage Realty Corp. v. Wallack contempt hearing was held while Your Honor was
holding Trump in contempt in this matter. The hearing in Sage Realty Corp. v. Wallack is illustrative of
the deep-seated antagonism that Your Honor holds for President Trump. Specifically, in Sage Realty Corp.
v. Wallack, attorney Robert Wallack refused to comply with multiple subpoenas, no-showed depositions,
snubbed his nose at participating in the discovery process and refused to satisfy outstanding judgments
totally nearly $500,000. (See Sage Realty Corp. v. Wallack, Index No. 655579/2020, NYSCEF Nos. 31-
43.) At the virtual hearing, Your Honor showed absolutely no concern over Mr. Wallack’s attorney
misconduct and blatant flaunting of the judicial process and lawful subpoenas. Instead, it rewarded Mr.
Wallack by allowing him to settle the case for pennies of what he owed to his landlord. At the same time,
Your Honor held President Trump and his attorneys to a clearly different standard by holding President
Trump in contempt for his so-called failure to comply with discovery in this case and sanctioning him
$110,000.
 Page 5 of 8
Canon 5, but she did it repeatedly and gratuitously as her Instagram posts illustrate. (See
Attachment C.)

Second, the New York Judicial Canons are instructive on the issue of Ms. Greenfield’s
partisan Democrat posts and activities. Indeed, there is no question that a law clerk is an extension
of his or her judge and that a law clerk must adhere to ethical practices and canons that bind a
judge. Here, Ms. Greenfield’s conduct clearly violates the following Judicial Cannons:

Section 100.2(A): A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at
all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary.

Section 100.4(A): A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s extra-judicial activities
so that they do not: (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act
impartially as a judge …

Section 100.5(A): Neither a sitting judge nor a candidate for public election to
judicial office shall directly or indirectly engage in any political activity …
Prohibited political activity shall include:

***

(b) … being a member of a political organization other than enrollment and

membership in a political party;

(c) engaging in any partisan political activity …

(d) participating in any political campaign for any office or permitting his
or her name to be used in connection with any activity of a political
organization;

(e)publicly endorsing or publicly opposing (other than by running against)

another candidate for public office;

(f) making speeches on behalf of a political organization or another

candidate;

(g) attending political gatherings;

(See 22 NYCRR 100 et seq.) Again, Ms. Greenfield’s behavior violated all of these provisions in
the Judicial Cannons.

It is apparent that Ms. Greenfield engaged in flagrant unethical behavior and attorney
misconduct with respect to her: (i) running for office while employed as a law clerk; (ii)
participating in partisan political activity while employed as a law clerk; (iii) engaging with and
 Page 6 of 8
promoting Democrat organizations and candidates while employed as a law clerk; and and (iv)
engaging in overtly partisan speech while employed as a law clerk.

This misconduct by Ms. Greenfield in engaging in partisan political and Democrat speech
and activities while employed as a law clerk is all the more serious given her position and
involvement in the People v. Trump et al. matter. In this case, President Trump is the leading
candidate for the 2024 Republican nomination for President of the United States and, according to
most polls, the frontrunner for the 2024 Presidential Election. The case was admittedly brought
with political motivations given that the Attorney General Letitia James campaigned as a Democrat
on the platform that she would “get Trump,” “sue Trump” and “be a pain in the ass” for Trump.
(See https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/10/03/letitia-james-prosecute-trump-2018-
comments-running-office-cnntm-vpx.cnn; see also
https://twitter.com/45LVNancy/status/1708844926379991462.) More importantly, the stakes of
this litigation are unprecedented. This Court has unilaterally and without precedent decided to
order the dismantling of a man’s businesses, barred him from conducting business in New York
and directed the dissolution of his vast empire of assets in what will no doubt amount to a multi-
billion-dollar government seizure. (See People v. Trump et al. Summary Judgment Order dated
Sept. 26, 2023.) With these facts in mind, any reasonable person would question whether Trump
can receive an impartial trial before Your Honor with Ms. Greenfield’s involvement in the case
and her admittedly strong Democrat Party ties.

Indeed, how can anyone believe President Trump received a fair trial when Your
Honor’s Principal Law Clerk is campaigning for Senator Schumer, Representative Maloney
and other Democrats while employed as a law clerk and during the pendency of this case?

Even if Ms. Greenfield was not involved in People v. Trump et al., her partisan political
conduct warrants immediate dismissal as a law clerk, investigation by the Commission on Judicial
Conduct and the Attorney Grievance Committee and disciplinary sanctions. This was a serious
lapse in judgment by Ms. Greenfield that continued for nearly two (2) years, which has only
impugned the integrity and impartiality of the Court. However, her involvement in People v.
Trump et al. warrants no less than her immediate recusal from the case, an investigation into
whether her partisan political conduct influenced any decision by the Court, reconsideration of the
September 26, 2023 Summary Judgment Order and, most importantly, a new trial.

Ms. Greenfield’s blatantly partisan activities and speech on behalf of Democrats and the
Democrat Party has created a massive appearance of impropriety and a conflict of interest in this
case warranting remedial action on behalf of President Trump to ensure continued public
confidence in the independence and integrity of the court system. See People v. Adams, 20 N.Y.3d
608, 612 (N.Y. 2013) (“[T]he appearance of impropriety itself is grounds for disqualification as
our case law recognizes, when the appearance is such as to discourage public confidence in our
government and the system of law to which it is dedicated” (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted).); People v. Shinkle, 51 N.Y.2d 417, 420 (N.Y. 1980) (“Defendant, and indeed the public
at large, are entitled to protection against the appearance of impropriety and the risk of prejudice
attendant on abuse of confidence, however slight.”); In re Hof, 478 N.Y.S.2d 591, 596 (2nd Dept.
1984) (“It is an undeniable maxim of the legal profession that an attorney must avoid even the
appearance of impropriety … doubts as to the existence of a conflict of interest are to be resolved
 Page 7 of 8
in favor of disqualification.”). More importantly, it warrants the immediate rescinding of the
Court’s order of today gagging President Trump and ordering the removal of his re-tweet of my
@JudicialProtest tweet originally exposing Ms. Greenfield’s apparent misconduct.

III. Justice Engoron’s Misconduct in Connection with Ms. Greenfield Unethical Behavior

Your Honor is not without fault in this situation. At the very least, Your Honor failed to
adequately supervise Ms. Greenfield while she was engaging in partisan political speech and
activities while employed as a law clerk for Your Honor. It simply cannot be the case that Your
Honor was unaware that Ms. Greenfield was running for office as a partisan Democrat while
employed in your chambers or that she was engaging in other partisan political activities. An
investigation should be commenced into what Your Honor knew and when he knew it as to Ms.
Greenfield’s partisan political speech and activities while employed as a law clerk.

Even more egregious, though, is the fact that Your Honor has attempted to cover-up Ms.
Greenfield’s misconduct. While President Trump’s re-tweet calling Ms. Greenfield the
“girlfriend” of Senator Schumer was inappropriate, it nonetheless revealed serious ethical concerns
and attorney misconduct in this case by Ms. Greenfield. When Your Honor became aware of Ms.
Greenfield’s Instagram account through President Trump’s re-tweet, Your Honor should have
immediately removed her from the People v. Trump et al. case to avoid an appearance of
impropriety and conducted an investigation into whether her unethical partisan conduct influenced
any decision or ruling in the case. Instead, Your Honor ordered President Trump to remove the
re-tweet behind closed doors to avoid further scrutiny of Ms. Greenfield and issued a “gag order”
prohibiting President Trump from further criticizing Ms. Greenfield’s apparent misconduct on
social media. Your Honor’s conduct was not that of a discerning judge concerned about upholding
the integrity, impartiality and public confidence of the court system. Instead, Your Honor’s actions
reek of an attempt to conceal and cover-up both your own and Ms. Greenfield’s egregious ethical
violations and misconduct and to avoid further examination of Ms. Greenfield’s Instagram posts.

IV. Requests for Investigations

As stated above, I am copying the Commission on Judicial Conduct, the Attorney

Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, the New York State Commission on
Ethics and the Chief Administrative Judge of the New York Office of Court Administration on
this letter.

I am requesting that, based on this letter, each of the entities above open an investigation
into Your Honor and Ms. Greenfield to determine whether any ethical or court rules have been
violated and to impose appropriate sanctions. The facts laid out above are incredibly troubling.
They cast a chilling shadow over the People v. Trump et al. matter as well as the New York Unified
Court System and would make any reasonable person question the integrity and impartiality of
Ms. Greenfield, Your Honor and the court system as a whole.

Indeed, this case draws clear parallels to the attorney disciplinary case brought against
President Trump’s former attorney, Rudy Giuliani, in the First Department. In that case, the
“Principal Staff Attorney” Kevin M. Doyle brought the proceeding to strip Mr. Giuliani of his bar
 Page 8 of 8
license without a hearing. See In re Giuliani, 146 N.Y.S.3d 266 (1st Dept. 2021). After the First
Department ordered the interim suspension of Mr. Giuliani law license, it came to light that Mr.
Doyle was an unabashed Trump-hater and engaged in partisan political speech in an article
published in “America: The Jesuit Review.”

Specifically, in the midst of the 2020 campaign, Mr. Doyle publicly called President Trump
a “racist,” a “misogynist” and a ”solipsistic man-boy.” (See Attachment F, Doyle Bar Complaint.)
Notably, some sort of investigation into Mr. Doyle is ongoing as a final decision concerning Mr.
Giuliani’s law license in New York is over two (2) years overdue and the District of Columbia Bar
decided to bring original formal charges against Mr. Giuliani, despite having obtained a reciprocal
disciplinary order suspending him based on the First Department’s decision. (See
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/10/dc-bar-launches-ethics-charges-against-rudy-
giuliani-00038977; see also https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/07/rudy-giulianis-dc-law-license-is-
suspended-.html.) An investigation and sanctions against Ms. Greenfield and Your Honor are
warranted in this case as well given the appalling facts.

V. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, I ask that the Court make this letter a part of the public
record in People v. Trump et al. In ordering the removal of President Trump’s re-tweet of my
original tweet concerning Ms. Greenfield’s misconduct on my @JudicialProtest account, the Court
has infringed on my First Amendment rights. That order should be rescinded. Moreover,
appropriate inquiries should be opened into whether Your Honor and Ms. Greenfield engaged in
any ethical violations or misconduct in connection with her partisan political speech.

Sincerely,

s/ Brock Fredin

Enclosures

cc: All parties and their counsel (via NYSCEF)

Jorge Dopico – Attorney Grievance Committee (via USPS)
Robert Tembeckjian – Commission on Judicial Conduct (via USPS)
Frederick Davie – Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government (via USPS)
Hon. Joseph Zayas – New York Office of Court Administration (via USPS)
ATTACHMENT A
Continue with Google
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT E
Jurist presiding at Trump’s civil trial will serve as
judge and jury.
Justice Arthur F. Engoron, a fan of puns and pop culture, will decide the fate of the former president’s
family business at his civil fraud trial.

By William K. Rashbaum

Oct. 2, 2023

Arthur F. Engoron, who is presiding over Donald J. Trump’s civil fraud trial, is an independent and thoughtful — if
somewhat quirky — jurist who has served for 20 years in New York City Civil and State Supreme Court.

The 74-year-old judge, a former cabby with a shock of white hair and a penchant for cracking jokes from the bench, will
effectively be judge and jury, deciding the fate of Mr. Trump’s New York businesses, which make up a large portion of his
real estate empire.

That’s because the case was brought under a little known but powerful New York state law requiring that the matter be
adjudicated at what is known as a bench trial, meaning that no jury will hear the case. The judge not only applies the law, as
judges do in jury trials, but also decides the facts, a task that a jury would otherwise perform.

And that means that Justice Engoron, a Democrat, will play a far more prominent and consequential role than a judge
would at a jury trial, not just during the proceedings, but in the ultimate outcome — unless he is overturned on appeal.

Last week, before the trial began, Justice Engoron issued a decision that itself could have a devastating impact on Mr.
Trump and his family business. He ruled that the former president had consistently committed fraud by inflating the value
of his assets by billions of dollars. The ruling could strip him of control of some of his flagship New York properties,
including Trump Tower and 40 Wall Street.

Justice Engoron has been overseeing the matter for three years. When the state attorney general, Letitia James, was
conducting her civil investigation into Mr. Trump’s business practices, the judge resolved disputes over evidence. Then, after
she filed the resulting lawsuit a year ago, the judge began hearing arguments and ruled on pretrial litigation.

While Justice Engoron’s demeanor verged on the jovial in the earlier stages — and he still teases the lawyers and allows
himself the occasional comic digression — the proceedings have become increasingly contentious. Last year, he held Mr.
Trump in contempt, fining him $110,000, and later, Mr. Trump unsuccessfully sought to have Justice Engoron taken off the
case. Last week, in a social media post, Mr. Trump called the judge “deranged,” and on Monday, he said he was “rogue” and
should be disbarred.

Now, as a result of threats, court security officers pick him up at his home in the morning and drive him to the courthouse,
officials said. At the end of his workday, the officers drive him home.

Justice Engoron nonetheless seems to maintain his sense of humor. A fan of pop culture references who also revels in puns,
he quoted from the Marx Brothers movie “Duck Soup” in a footnote to underscore his position that some of the defense’s
arguments were essentially designed to tell him to not believe his own eyes.

“As Chico Marx, playing Chicolini, says to Margaret Dumont, playing Mrs. Gloria Teasdale,” the judge wrote, “well, who ya
gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”

Justice Engoron was appointed to the New York City Civil Court in 2003 and was elected — he ran unopposed — to the State
Supreme Court in 2015. Before his time on the bench, he served as a law clerk to a State Supreme Court judge in Manhattan.
The atmosphere in his courtroom is somewhat unusual. Beyond the levity he fosters, he discourages members of the public
from standing, as is typical, when he enters. He also gives broad latitude to his principal law clerk, Allison Greenfield,
perhaps because he himself has served in that role. Ms. Greenfield keeps the trains running on time with a firm hand, in
contrast to the judge’s generally genial demeanor.

But Justice Engoron seems to be losing his patience with Mr. Trump. He has consistently ruled against the former president,
and his decision last week had withering words for the defenses put forward by Mr. Trump’s lawyers. He called the conduct
of the defendants, who include the president’s two adult sons and the family business, “obstreperous” and their arguments
“bogus,” saying they had ignored reality when it suited their business needs.

“In defendants’ world,” he wrote, “rent-regulated apartments are worth the same as unregulated apartments; restricted land
is worth the same as unrestricted land; restrictions can evaporate into thin air.”

At a hearing two weeks ago, the judge, addressing one of the former president’s lawyers, pounded his fist in apparent
frustration, saying, “You cannot make false statements and use them in business.”

William K. Rashbaum is a senior writer on the Metro desk, where he covers political and municipal corruption, courts, terrorism and law enforcement. He
was a part of the team awarded the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News. More about William K. Rashbaum

A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 13 of the New York edition with the headline: Jurist Presiding Over Trump Trial Is the Judge and Jury

Trump Civil Fraud Trial

Opening statements are over. Trump attacked the attorney general and the judge.

The Trump civil fraud trial is unlike the criminal actions he faces.

The tenor of the trial changed during Trump’s lawyers’ opening statements.

The witness list reads like a Trump family (and company) reunion.

Trump faces a $250 million fine and other serious punishments.

ATTACHMENT F
 Anthony Zappin
1827 Washington Blvd. — Huntington, WV 25701 — Phone: (304) 730-4463
E-Mail: [email protected]

Date: July 1, 2021

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND E-MAIL

Justice Rolando Acosta

Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appellate Division, First Department
27 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010

Jorge Dopico
Attorney Grievance Committee
First Judicial Department
180 Maiden Lane, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10038

Re: Disciplinary Complaint against Kevin M. Doyle

Dear Justice Acosta and Mr. Dopico:

I write to file a formal ethics complaint against attorney and disciplinary prosecutor Kevin
M. Doyle in connection with the attorney disciplinary case Matter of Giuliani.

It is my understanding that Mr. Doyle is admitted to practice in the First Department and
maintains a professional address at 180 Maiden Lane, Floor 17, New York, NY 10038. Thus, he
is within the jurisdiction of the First Department with respect to ethical and attorney disciplinary
matters.

As you know, Mr. Doyle is the staff attorney who obtained an interim suspension and is
currently pursuing disciplinary action against Rudy Giuliani in the First Department. He is seeking
that discipline be imposed on Mr. Giuliani based on Mr. Giuliano’s representation of President
Donald Trump in the aftermath of the 2020 Presidential election. More specifically, Mr. Doyle
has accused Mr. Giuliani of making false statements about voter fraud in connection with the 2020
election, despite the fact that there has never been an adjudication that any of Mr. Giuliani’s
statements were indeed false. Put bluntly, Mr. Doyle is requesting that discipline be imposed on
Mr. Giuliani over matters that heavily trends towards the political spectrum.

It has been long held that the “role of the public prosecutor is not merely to convict but to
foster the trust of the public in the … justice system.” People v. Baker, 99 A.D.656, 658 (4th Dept.
1984). “In fulfilling that function it is essential that a prosecutor avoid even the appearance of
impropriety.” Id. Here, Mr. Doyle brazenly and unabashedly shirked this responsibility.
Disciplinary Complaint against Kevin M. Doyle
Page 2 of 3

In September 2019, Mr. Doyle threw his two cents into the political fray by writing a
disturbing article for “America: The Jesuit Review.” Importantly, in that article he directly
attacked President Trump and cast derogatory, disparaging and outright shocking aspersions at
him, which included:

• Calling President Trump a “racist”;

• Calling President Trump a “misogynist”; and
• Calling President Trump a “solipsistic man-boy.”

These are troubling statements to come out of any attorney’s mouth, but they are especially
shocking when they are made publicly by the First Department’s “Principal Staff Attorney” for
the Attorney Grievance Committee. One would think Mr. Doyle would hold himself to a higher
standard than calling the President of the United States a “man-boy.”

Regardless, the ABA Model Rules make clear that a “prosecutor should not user improper
considerations, such as partisan or political or personal considerations, in exercising prosecutorial
discretion.” ABA Prosecutorial Standard 3-1.6.

Here, Mr. Doyle’s public and childish aspersions against President Trump raise serious
questions as to whether he was politically motivated or biased in pursuing disciplinary action
against President Trump’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani. Certainly, in view of his aspersions against
President Trump, Mr. Doyle acting as a lead prosecutor in Matter of Giuliani has created an
improper “appearance of impropriety” violating the Rules of Professional Conduct and
diminishing the public trust in the Attorney Grievance Committee and the attorney disciplinary
procedures in the First Department.

Indeed, there is no question that Mr. Doyle knew he had previously made one (1) year prior
politically charged and highly demeaning statements about President Trump in a published
magazine when he undertook to prosecute Mr. Giuliani for purported disciplinary violations in
connection with representing President Trump. Mr. Doyle no doubt knew his prior public
statements would create an appearance of impropriety in prosecuting Mr. Giuliani if the statements
were discovered. Most importantly, Mr. Doyle’s statements casting aspersions at President Trump
would make any reasonable person question whether Mr. Doyle’s decision to charge Mr. Giuliani
was improperly politically motivated.

To put it simply, Mr. Doyle should have never pursued the disciplinary matter against Mr.
Giuliani in light of his 2019 statements casting politically charged aspersions at President Trump.
If there was a case to be made against Mr. Giuliani, another staff attorney in the Attorney
Grievance Committee could have handled it. By taking it upon himself to prosecute Mr. Giuliani,
Mr. Doyle knowingly violated a host of ethical rules, breached the public trust and diminished
confidence in the judicial process.
Disciplinary Complaint against Kevin M. Doyle
Page 3 of 3

I respectfully request that the Attorney Grievance Committee and the First Department take
appropriate disciplinary action against Kevin M. Doyle for his unethical actions, his misuse of a
position of public trust and, most importantly, his statements and conduct that are unbecoming an
attorney, much less a “Principal Staff Attorney” for the Attorney Grievance Committee.

I thank you both for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully,

Anthony Zappin

Enclosure

cc: Kevin M. Doyle

Hon. Barry Kamins
Hon. John M. Leventhal
Rudolph Giuliani
7/1/2021 With Democratic and Republican flaws, party registration comes down to a coin toss | America Magazine

POLITICS & SOCIETY SHORT TAKE

With Democratic and

Republican flaws, party
registration comes down to a
coin toss
Kevin M. Doyle
September 26, 2019

The great Protestant thinker Reinhold Niebuhr taught that we can be pure or responsible but not both. One must
choose. And so I, a seamless garment pro-lifer, will not again sit out a presidential primary as an unsullied
independent while each party’s base voters potentially sow ruin for harvest in the fall. Before the close of this
article, I will pause and flip a coin to determine whether I will register as a Democrat or a Republican.

For a long time, I was an ardent Democrat. During my early adulthood, this affiliation kept with my views on racial
and distributive justice, gender equality and military restraint. Meanwhile, I counted on my fellow Democrats to
come round eventually on abortion. After all, in principle, the party stood with society’s vulnerable. A lack of
prenatal viability, it seemed to me, provided reason to protect, not permission to discard. I held out hope that this
moral logic would ultimately prevail to the unborn child’s benefit. Then I watched the Democratic Party harden into
the Pro-Choice Party.

I, a seamless garment pro-lifer, will not again sit out a presidential primary as an unsullied independent while each party’s base
voters potentially sow ruin for harvest in the fall.

In 1995, I had to re-register to vote as I returned to my native New York from five years of representing death row
inmates and capital defendants in Alabama. Not registering with a party made some sense because I was to head a
controversial state law office created to represent capital-crime defendants. But I also recalled 1992, when Robert
P. Casey, then the pro-life Democratic governor of Pennsylvania (and father of the current U.S. Senator Bob Casey
Jr.), was denied a chance to address the Democratic National Convention. That tipped the scale. I shed my
Democratic identity.

For years, I had few regrets, even though, under New York’s system, I had to watch primaries from the sidelines.
Then came the 2016 presidential election. Would we get the overt racist and misogynist, the solipsistic man-boy
who promised waterboarding and “a hell of a lot worse” and advocated killing the families of terrorists? Or would it
be the candidate who, pantsuit aside, resembled the smart, secretive, calculating Richard Nixon—the candidate
whose stance on abortion resembled the uncompromising pro-choice slogan “abortion on demand and without
apology” more than it resembled her position in 2007 that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare, and by rare, I
mean rare”? Some choice.

And now we all white-knuckle through an accidental presidency unprecedented in its incoherency, debasement
and danger.

Shame on us, all of us, for those choices and calamitous outcome. Shame on me, the primary season bystander.

Privacy - Terms

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2019/09/26/democratic-and-republican-flaws-party-registration-comes-down-coin-toss 1/3
7/1/2021 With Democratic and Republican flaws, party registration comes down to a coin toss | America Magazine

Looking ahead, whether my coin lands heads for Republican or tails for Democrat, I will not become a party zealot.
I will recognize good ideas regardless of red or blue origins.

I will still think that Hillary Clinton showed foresight when she advocated a moonshot approach to Alzheimer’s
research; compassion demands it, but so do health care cost projections as lifespans lengthen. I will still think that
Rick Santorum correctly argued that our tax code should encourage larger families; America’s aging population
both needs and threatens our entitlement programs. I will still think that Bernie Sanders was not simply indulging
his faux socialism when condemning private prisons; no person is a commodity to be warehoused for profit. And I
will still think that Carly Fiorina put children first by advocating for parental choice through vouchers and charter
schools where public schools are failing.

I will still take greatest satisfaction in good hearts and good minds rising above party lines: War hero John McCain
stood for decency when he denounced as “dishonest and dishonorable” the cynical “swift boat” attempt to discredit
John Kerry’s record of valor under fire. Both Mr. McCain and Mr. Kerry stood for decency when they condemned
waterboarding. Democrat Madeleine Albright and Republican Robert Gates offer an alternative to a balkanized
United States by promoting the expectation of universal national service, whether military or civilian, by every
young person.

I will not become a party zealot. I will recognize good ideas regardless of red or blue origins.

Whether as a newly minted Republican or a Democratic retread, I will put thorny questions to my party mates. To
my fellow Republicans:

Is The Wall Street Journal right when it claims that the only military the United States cannot afford is “one
that is too small”? Aren’t a crumbling infrastructure and ever-less-healthy youth, among other things,
national security concerns and funding priorities?
Just how will we persuade as the pro-life party when we do not even aim for universal health care? And given
the availability of abortifacients and interstate travel, just how much will state prohibitions reduce the number
of abortions?

To my fellow Democrats:

Let’s take pride in marriage equality, but does a pluralistic society need to punish the conscientious objector
who refuses to bake a wedding cake for two lads or two lasses getting married? Why mimic the intolerance of
those who would even today criminalize homosexual acts?
More important, are we really champions of the weak when we perpetuate the moral fiction of a magical birth
canal? Does the brief passage from in utero to ex utero really bestow personhood?

O.K. I have a quarter in hand. One flip, not two out of three. No do-overs. Heads, I revert to the Democratic Party;
tails, I register Republican. Here goes....

Huh. Hmm. Gee.

So what was I saying? Oh yeah, was that F.D.R. a godsend or what?

More: ELECTION 2020 US POLITICS PRO-LIFE

Privacy - Terms
MOST POPULAR
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2019/09/26/democratic-and-republican-flaws-party-registration-comes-down-coin-toss 2/3
7/1/2021 With Democratic and Republican flaws, party registration comes down to a coin toss | America Magazine

1 The Catholic Church must come clean—completely—about what it did to Native Americans
The Editors

2 Joe Biden’s Jesuit-run DC parish says it ‘will not deny the Eucharist’
Michael J. O’Loughlin

3 Pope Francis: Paul is a testament that God uses sinners to do his will
Pope Francis

4 I lost a boyfriend, a dog and my grandfather—all in the span of two months. Here’s how I learned to grieve.
Maggi Van Dorn

5 Pope Francis: God calls us to be free from fear, worldly power and hypocritical outward show
Gerard O’Connell

Your source for jobs, books, retreats, and much more.

Director- Campus Ministry

Jobs

Stations of the Cross by Mattie McClane

Books

IMPOSSIBLE? THINK AGAIN.

Spiritual Resources

Immaculate Conception Seminary School of Theology – Seton Hall University

Seminaries

Marist Brothers Vocations

Vocation

See all Classifieds

Privacy - Terms

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2019/09/26/democratic-and-republican-flaws-party-registration-comes-down-coin-toss 3/3