| Alvin Bragg
Sued Jim Jordan and
Pomerantz in SDNY Now
Jordan Opposition Before
Hearing
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
April 17 – For
weeks, a media
spotlight has
been on
Manhattan
District
Attorney Alvin
Bragg,
including
photographers
waiting on
Hogan Place
and
demonstrators
on both sides
in Collect
Pond
Park.
On
April 11,
Bragg reached
south of Worth
Street and
filed suit in
the U.S.
District Court
for the
Southern
District of
New York,
using an
outside law
firm, Gibson
Dunn &
Crutcher
LLP.
Bragg sued not
only Rep. Jim
Jordan and his
Committee but
also his
office's
former
prosecutor
Mark
Pomerantz,
stating that
"Mr.
Pomerantz'
book [People
vs. Donald
Trump: An
Inside Account]
did not and
could not
waive any
privilege
belonging to
the DA's
Office."
Among
the relief
requests is
"enjoining Mr.
Pomerantz's
compliance
with the
subpoena."
The assigned
District Judge
later issued a
scheduling
order:
"The Court
declines to
enter the
proposed
Temporary
Restraining
Order and
Order to Show
Cause. any
response by
Defendants to
the motion
shall be
served and
filed by April
17, 2023 at
9:00 AM. The
Court will
hold a hearing
on Plaintiff's
motion on
April 19, 2023
at 2:00 PM in
Courtroom 18C
of the Daniel
Patrick
Moynihan
Courthouse. SO
ORDERED.
(Signed by
Judge Mary Kay
Vyskocil on
4/11/2023)."
On April 17
before the 9
am hearing on
26 Federal
Plaza, Jordan
et al. filed
their
opposition
brief
beginning:
"Plaintiff
District
Attorney Alvin
Bragg, Jr.,
seeks
extraordinary
and
unconstitutional
relief from
this Court to
impede a
Congressional
inquiry by
preventing a
witness from
complying with
a duly issued
subpoena.
Plaintiff (i)
has sued
Congressional
Defendants
Chairman Jim
Jordan and the
U.S. House
Committee on
the Judiciary
(Committee)
(yet failed to
apprise the
Court of these
Defendants’
immunity from
suit under the
U.S.
Constitution’s
Speech or
Debate
Clause); and
(ii) demands
emergency
relief to stop
a former
employee from
cooperating
with a
Congressional
investigation
(even though
that
individual has
authored a
detailed
public account
about his
employment
discussing
subjects of
inquiry by the
Committee).
Courts have
consistently
rejected
attempts to
enjoin
compliance
with
Congressional
subpoenas,1
and Plaintiff
does not cite
a single case
where a court
has taken such
an action.
This Court
should reject
Plaintiff’s
invitation to
do so here."
Brief on
Patreon here.
The
case is Bragg
v. Jordan, et
al.,
23-cv-3032
(Vykocil)
***
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
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2023 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
