George Santos files appeal to keep names of those who helped post $500,000 bond sealed
Source: CBS News
Washington Rep. George Santos, Republican of New York, filed an 8-page appeal Friday seeking to keep sealed the names of those who helped him make the $500,000 bond in his federal criminal fraud case.
Submitting the filing just before the noon deadline, Santos' lawyers argue that the people who helped him post the bond would likely have to withdraw from serving as his bond supporters if their names are released. This, Santos says, could force him into pre-trial detention or impose upon him onerous release conditions.
The court filing includes a passage stating that Santos "has essentially publicly revealed that the suretors are family members and not lobbyists, donors or others seeking to exert influence over the Defendant." Santos's next court appearance is scheduled for June 30, but the judge could rule on whether to release the unsealed records at any time.
The federal judge in New York granted a request from media organizations to make public the identities of three people who signed the bond for Santos' release after his indictment, but said their names should remain hidden for now to allow him to appeal. The consortium of media organizations sought the unsealing of the records, citing First Amendment and common law rights of access to the information.
Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-santos-appeal-keep-names-500000-bond-sealed/
Response taken from docket here - https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67358443/united-states-v-devolder-santos/
is here (PDF) - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.497086/gov.uscourts.nyed.497086.23.0_2.pdf
RandySF
(57,196 posts)PortTack
(32,491 posts)Harmed
TwilightZone
(25,267 posts)That would be predictable and wouldn't really raise any eyebrows. Not sure that would be noteworthy enough to try to hide.
I think it's likely to be someone a lot more, well, objectionable.
PortTack
(32,491 posts)Buying that!
TwilightZone
(25,267 posts)So, maybe it really is, uh...family! haha
PortTack
(32,491 posts)louis-t
(23,175 posts)the story in the headlines. And eventually, we will find out who it is anyway.
(you almost owe me a keyboard because I was actually sipping some water when I saw your post )
FSogol
(45,312 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 9, 2023, 11:54 AM - Edit history (1)
IronLionZion
(45,163 posts)maxsolomon
(32,918 posts)why would they need to withdraw if their names were revealed?
Delay delay delay. He's learned from his grifter idol.
mahatmakanejeeves
(56,717 posts)elias7
(3,974 posts)Moosepoop
(1,909 posts)Just the other day he said he'd rather have his bond removed and go to jail than have his suretors named.
But in his appeal...
So he's gone from "I'd rather go to jail!!" to "Don't make me go to jail!!"
What a weenie.
Cha
(295,543 posts)Lulu KC
(2,543 posts)bullimiami
(13,024 posts)If this proves false there should be serious consequences.
Javaman
(62,397 posts)Hes fucked for any help.
They will kick his boat from the dock without any oars
TlalocW
(15,342 posts)Kanye. So I don't blame him for wanting to keep it secret.
eggplant
(3,884 posts)Orrex
(63,057 posts)It happens to citizens all the time.
Unless those citizens have shady patrons willing to foot the bill in secret, of course.
BumRushDaShow
(126,630 posts)if he lost 1 of the 5 votes that keeps them in the majority (although they aren't doing much at the moment given the loons have shut down the House and Kevvie sent them all home).
Nice.
onenote
(42,296 posts)First, this is not actually an "appeal" in the ordinary sense. It is a motion for the judge to whom the case is assigned to review and modify the decision of the magistrate judge that ordered the release of the identities of those who signed the bail bond. It is not an appeal brought to the appellate level court.
Second, while there are procedures for asking a judge to review and modify an order issued by a magistrate judge, the provision of law cited by Santos' letter is not applicable. He claims he is seeking modification of the order to release the names under 18 USC 3145(a )(2 ).
Here is that provision:
(a) Review of a Release Order.If a person is ordered released by a magistrate judge, or by a person other than a judge of a court having original jurisdiction over the offense and other than a Federal appellate court
(1) the attorney for the Government may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation of the order or amendment of the conditions of release; and
(2) the person may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for amendment of the conditions of release.
As you can see, the "release" to which this provision applies is the release of a person not the release of information. Hard to believe this lawyer didn't flunk out of law school -- and the law school he attended wasn't exactly top notch: CUNY School of Law, ranked 154th out of 196 law schools rated by US News and World Report.
cstanleytech
(26,027 posts)which causes me to call bullshit on that.
PSPS
(13,484 posts)Well, that certainly puts the issue to rest. After all, a nobel prize-winning former pope with such a deep history in academia would never lie!
PortTack
(32,491 posts)That makes a lot of sense
Mawspam2
(697 posts)Phony Stark does not have one yet.
Harlan Crow to go with Clarence Thomas.
John Malone needs exclusive content for CNN.
The Winklevoss twins. Just because.
George Soros, he owns everybody, am I right?
SouthernDem4ever
(6,339 posts)They ahole Kevin Mccarthy should have tried to get rid of him a long time ago. I don't care how much of the house he controls.