Seems like there might be some truth to Dunbar and/or Baker paying off witnesses to recant their testimony. Now, it sounds worse for Dunbar since it implicates his lawyers in the payoff scheme, but unless you are claiming this is proof that Dunbar is guilty and Baker is innocent, I'm not sure how it helps Baker.
I would venture, if I'm not wrong, that Grieco will have to withdraw because he was named as a participant (use of his office) for the alleged payoffs, in the (application for) warrant in the Leonard DN piece. If indeed it was the same Grieco, he can no longer represent Dunbar as he may be a witness. If he wants to be represented by counsel, Dunbar had to retain new lawyers.
How is this a positive for Baker? Got me.
those lawyers are likely to need their own lawyers soon
I would venture, if I'm not wrong, that Grieco will have to withdraw because he was named as a participant (use of his office) for the alleged payoffs, in the (application for) warrant in the Leonard DN piece. If indeed it was the same Grieco, he can no longer represent Dunbar as he may be a witness. If he wants to be represented by counsel, Dunbar had to retain new lawyers.
How is this a positive for Baker? Got me.
It's positive for Baker because:
1. Baker and Dunbar have been represented by two different teams who always seem to be at odds with each other. There was always going to be a point when one team throws the other under the bus.
2. Baker's Lawyer claimed Baker was being extorted from the first day and has never changed his story.
3. Baker's lawyer never submitted the sworn affadavit from the people who originally said they were robbed and then changed their story. If Baker had made the Payoffs, why did his team refuse to submit the recanted statements? Only Dunbars team submitted them.
4. In the link below Baker's Lawyer states they spoke to the FBI about Dunbar's Lawyers attempt to set up the payoff. In fact he states the text messages between Baker and the Coach were supervised by his law team and they documented everything.
5. If proven that Baker never paid the payoff, the prosecution would be stupid to go to court trying to get a conviction for Baker with their 4 star witnesses, who may or may not have criminal records, and Dunbar who can now be considered a co-conspirator with the shady lawyer who is implicated in coordinating the payoffs with the Coach who set up the party and invited Baker in the first place.
6. If this goes to trial, the only people and evidence pointing at Baker is the eyewitness accounts of people who lied twice to the police and have been implicated in extortion and took a payoff. Not the best witnesses
I would venture, if I'm not wrong, that Grieco will have to withdraw because he was named as a participant (use of his office) for the alleged payoffs, in the (application for) warrant in the Leonard DN piece. If indeed it was the same Grieco, he can no longer represent Dunbar as he may be a witness. If he wants to be represented by counsel, Dunbar had to retain new lawyers.
How is this a positive for Baker? Got me.
This is exactly it. According to the article in the daily news there is video evidence of a cash exchange made in Greco's office building. There is witness statements made that it was a pay off. You can not defend a client if you are under investigation of illegal improprieties in that case.
The good news for baker. His lawyers were not involved meaning they were not in Greco's office building when this took place and according to bakers lawyers, baker was not there. He was with his lawyers when this all happened.
Cohen issued a brief statement in response to the Pat Leonard story.
I suggest reading that statement over and pondering what it says and does not say.
I would not put stock in Patrick Patel's publicity-seeking ramblings. I would not group Cohen and Patel together as "Baker's lawyers."
This is Cohen's case. He has never publicly acknowledged any role for Patel.
Cohen says he reported extortion against Baker, period. Fine. But, at this point, we don't know exactly when, in the sequence of events, Cohen learned that Baker had been approached and what might have happened up to that point.
It's also very possible that the prosecution sees the payoff conspiracy as confirmation of the original armed robbery story and thinks a jury will see it that way, also.
We'll see.
Dunbar and Baker are likely either both guilty or both innocent...
Cohen issued a brief statement in response to the Pat Leonard story.
I suggest reading that statement over and pondering what it says and does not say.
I would not put stock in Patrick Patel's publicity-seeking ramblings. I would not group Cohen and Patel together as "Baker's lawyers."
This is Cohen's case. He has never publicly acknowledged any role for Patel.
Cohen says he reported extortion against Baker, period. Fine. But, at this point, we don't know exactly when, in the sequence of events, Cohen learned that Baker had been approached and what might have happened up to that point.
It's also very possible that the prosecution sees the payoff conspiracy as confirmation of the original armed robbery story and thinks a jury will see it that way, also.
We'll see.
shyster, don't have it in front of me, but I read it carefully this w/e: as I suggested in one of the w/e threads, the 'Baker has been extorted' narrative is not inconsistent or at odds with facts that ultimately show that 1) Baker did commit felonies at the Madden Lawn party and 2) that he did not.
As to Patel's involvement, a bit odd, because he clearly represented to the public (via the press) that he represented Baker. The premise had been he was part of Cohen's firm. Wouldn't you think that, if he were not, Cohen would have taken pains to disabuse that presumption?
Hopefully the NFL and the Giants are conducting their own investigation. Guts with poor judgment often let a team down at the worst possible time. i. e. Plax
shyster, don't have it in front of me, but I read it carefully this w/e: as I suggested in one of the w/e threads, the 'Baker has been extorted' narrative is not inconsistent or at odds with facts that ultimately show that 1) Baker did commit felonies at the Madden Lawn party and 2) that he did not.
As to Patel's involvement, a bit odd, because he clearly represented to the public (via the press) that he represented Baker. The premise had been he was part of Cohen's firm. Wouldn't you think that, if he were not, Cohen would have taken pains to disabuse that presumption?
I don't disagree with your first paragraph. My comment is that it is very possible the prosecution sees the payoff conspiracy as confirming the accuracy of the original armed robbery story. Which wouldn't be good news for Baker's prospects of getting the case dismissed.
As for your second paragraph, Patel is not part of Cohen's firm. Cohen has a practice in Florida, where the case is. Patel has a practice in New Jersey and, to my understanding, was Baker's attorney for other matters before this case arose.
As long as Baker keeps his relationship with Patel, there would be nothing gained by Cohen's publicly casting doubt on Patel's credibility.
hmm, interesting, if what you say re a pre-existing att'y/client relationship with Patel, the lawyer has certainly let it be known and believed that he represents Baker in the FL 'case' if not the FL proceedings. Early on, I was under the impression that Patel worked with/for Cohen's firm.
How is this a positive for Baker? Got me.
How is this a positive for Baker? Got me.
It's positive for Baker because:
1. Baker and Dunbar have been represented by two different teams who always seem to be at odds with each other. There was always going to be a point when one team throws the other under the bus.
2. Baker's Lawyer claimed Baker was being extorted from the first day and has never changed his story.
3. Baker's lawyer never submitted the sworn affadavit from the people who originally said they were robbed and then changed their story. If Baker had made the Payoffs, why did his team refuse to submit the recanted statements? Only Dunbars team submitted them.
4. In the link below Baker's Lawyer states they spoke to the FBI about Dunbar's Lawyers attempt to set up the payoff. In fact he states the text messages between Baker and the Coach were supervised by his law team and they documented everything.
5. If proven that Baker never paid the payoff, the prosecution would be stupid to go to court trying to get a conviction for Baker with their 4 star witnesses, who may or may not have criminal records, and Dunbar who can now be considered a co-conspirator with the shady lawyer who is implicated in coordinating the payoffs with the Coach who set up the party and invited Baker in the first place.
6. If this goes to trial, the only people and evidence pointing at Baker is the eyewitness accounts of people who lied twice to the police and have been implicated in extortion and took a payoff. Not the best witnesses
So that why I say this is good news for Baker.
Baker Lawyer disputes Payoff - ( New Window )
How is this a positive for Baker? Got me.
This is exactly it. According to the article in the daily news there is video evidence of a cash exchange made in Greco's office building. There is witness statements made that it was a pay off. You can not defend a client if you are under investigation of illegal improprieties in that case.
The good news for baker. His lawyers were not involved meaning they were not in Greco's office building when this took place and according to bakers lawyers, baker was not there. He was with his lawyers when this all happened.
I suggest reading that statement over and pondering what it says and does not say.
I would not put stock in Patrick Patel's publicity-seeking ramblings. I would not group Cohen and Patel together as "Baker's lawyers."
This is Cohen's case. He has never publicly acknowledged any role for Patel.
Cohen says he reported extortion against Baker, period. Fine. But, at this point, we don't know exactly when, in the sequence of events, Cohen learned that Baker had been approached and what might have happened up to that point.
It's also very possible that the prosecution sees the payoff conspiracy as confirmation of the original armed robbery story and thinks a jury will see it that way, also.
We'll see.
I suggest reading that statement over and pondering what it says and does not say.
I would not put stock in Patrick Patel's publicity-seeking ramblings. I would not group Cohen and Patel together as "Baker's lawyers."
This is Cohen's case. He has never publicly acknowledged any role for Patel.
Cohen says he reported extortion against Baker, period. Fine. But, at this point, we don't know exactly when, in the sequence of events, Cohen learned that Baker had been approached and what might have happened up to that point.
It's also very possible that the prosecution sees the payoff conspiracy as confirmation of the original armed robbery story and thinks a jury will see it that way, also.
We'll see.
As to Patel's involvement, a bit odd, because he clearly represented to the public (via the press) that he represented Baker. The premise had been he was part of Cohen's firm. Wouldn't you think that, if he were not, Cohen would have taken pains to disabuse that presumption?
Hopefully the NFL and the Giants are conducting their own investigation. Guts with poor judgment often let a team down at the worst possible time. i. e. Plax
shyster, don't have it in front of me, but I read it carefully this w/e: as I suggested in one of the w/e threads, the 'Baker has been extorted' narrative is not inconsistent or at odds with facts that ultimately show that 1) Baker did commit felonies at the Madden Lawn party and 2) that he did not.
As to Patel's involvement, a bit odd, because he clearly represented to the public (via the press) that he represented Baker. The premise had been he was part of Cohen's firm. Wouldn't you think that, if he were not, Cohen would have taken pains to disabuse that presumption?
I don't disagree with your first paragraph. My comment is that it is very possible the prosecution sees the payoff conspiracy as confirming the accuracy of the original armed robbery story. Which wouldn't be good news for Baker's prospects of getting the case dismissed.
As for your second paragraph, Patel is not part of Cohen's firm. Cohen has a practice in Florida, where the case is. Patel has a practice in New Jersey and, to my understanding, was Baker's attorney for other matters before this case arose.
As long as Baker keeps his relationship with Patel, there would be nothing gained by Cohen's publicly casting doubt on Patel's credibility.