Thread: Legal Charges Against Trump

• New Effort To Remove Trump From Ballot Underway In California

A group of California lawmakers are exploring a new method of potentially removing Donald Trump from the state’s ballot over the former president’s alleged 14th Amendment violations.

The nine lawmakers ― eight members of the state Assembly and one member of the state Senate ― signed a letter Monday asking the state’s Attorney General Rob Bonta to pursue a judiciary ruling on the matter, saying he’s “uniquely positioned to proactively seek the court’s opinion to confirm Mr. Trump’s inability to hold office.”

The idea behind the effort, a version of which is underway in a handful of otherstates, is that Trump’s actions after losing the 2020 election violate a section of the 14th amendment barring a person from holding federal office if they took an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and then breached it by inciting insurrection or rebellion.

“We all watched in horror Mr. Trump’s insurrection against the United States when he ordered a mob of his supporters to the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021 to intimidate Vice President [Mike] Pence and the United States Congress and interrupt the certification [of] the 2020 Presidential Election that Mr. Trump lost,” the letter states.

Trump’s role in the attack on the Capitol is the focus of one of four recent indictments against him. Despite his legal troubles, polls show him as the clear frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.

The lawmakers hope that asking Bonta to spearhead the effort could speed things along.

“Whatever the courts decide it is important that they do so quickly to avoid further political strife, and the Attorney General is uniquely positioned to get the American people the answers we need to protect our Republic,” California Assemblyman Evan Low, who wrote the letter, said in a statement.
While efforts in other states to invoke the 14th Amendment against Trump have gone through secretaries of state and voter lawsuits, this could be the first time a state’s attorney general got behind such an endeavor.

As with other efforts to oust Trump from the ballot, this would be a difficult feat. Trump would most likely appeal any court’s decision against him, and the U.S. Supreme Court ― dominated by conservatives and three justices he nominated ― would most likely have the final say.

• Rudy Giuliani sued by own lawyer for $1.3m in unpaid fees

The New York mayor turned Donald Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani has been sued by his own lawyer, who seeks more than $1.3m in outstanding fees.

“This action simply seeks payment of an outstanding bill for legal services rendered by plaintiffs in the amount of $1,360,196.10,” said a lawsuit filed in New York state supreme court on Monday by Robert J Costello, of Davidoff Hutcher & Citron.

The suit, which also seeks interest and costs, is the latest heavy blow for Giuliani, whose proliferating legal troubles arising from work for Trump – prominently including efforts to overturn the 2020 election – have left him by his own lawyers’ account struggling to deal with spiraling bills.

In a statement, Giuliani said: “I can’t express how personally hurt I am by what Bob Costello has done. It’s a real shame when lawyers do things like this, and all I will say is that their bill is way in excess to anything approaching legitimate fees.”

Giuliani, 79, and Costello, 75, are long-term associates, having been federal prosecutors together in New York in the 1970s.

Giuliani was mayor of New York between 1993 and 2001, leaving office in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Becoming known as “America’s mayor”, he briefly led the Republican presidential primary in 2008 before crashing out of the race.

He made millions in speaking and consulting fees in the years after 9/11 but his closeness to Trump has proved particularly costly.

When Trump became president, Giuliani sought a cabinet appointment. Missing out, he stayed close as the ex-president’s personal lawyer. His work in Ukraine – seeking dirt on political opponents – contributed to Trump’s first impeachment. His work on Trump’s attempt to overturn his electoral defeat by Joe Biden in 2020 has contributed to his own legal jeopardy and financial distress.

Like Trump, Giuliani has pleaded not guilty to 13 racketeering and conspiracy counts in Georgia. In the same state, Giuliani was found liable for defaming two election workers.

Among other troubles, he faces a $10m lawsuit from a former assistant who alleges offenses including abuse of power, wage theft, sexual assault and harassment. The DC Bar Association has recommended Giuliani be disbarred.

The suit filed on Monday said Costello worked on matters including “representing the defendant while he was being criminally investigated by the US attorney for the southern district of New York, representing the defendant during a pending criminal investigation in Georgia … representing the defendant during a pending criminal investigation by special counsel Jack Smith regarding the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, and representing the defendant during a pending investigation by the US House select committee to investigate the January 6 attack on the US Capitol”.

Giuliani, the suit said, also “directed plaintiffs to supervise more than 10 civil lawsuits … in various state and federal courts as well as participating in representing the defendant in disciplinary proceedings regarding his law license in the District of Columbia and the first department of New York”.

Giuliani had paid $214,000 of the total $1,574,196.10 bill, the suit said.

Trump recently hosted a fundraiser to help Giuliani. But the former mayor’s lawyers have said he is struggling, former donors have reportedly deserted him and his luxury New York apartment was recently put up for sale.

• Trump's New York hush-money criminal trial could overlap with state's presidential primary

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on Wednesday signed a bill setting the state’s presidential primary for April 2, potentially putting former President Donald Trump on the ballot as he stands trial in Manhattan for a hush-money criminal case.

The new primary date could add a new layer to an increasingly chaotic calendar for Trump next year, as the Republican frontrunner attempts to navigate court cases in multiple states while he seeks a return to the White House.

His New York trial is set to begin on March 25, and though the date could change, it may set up an extraordinary scenario in which the former president might find himself in court as Republican voters in the state are picking their next presidential candidate.

Trump became the first former U.S. president in history to face criminal charges when he was indicted this year on charges in New York state stemming from hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to bury allegations of extramarital sexual encounters. He has pleaded not guilty.

_________

• Attorney Lin Wood named as state’s witness in Georgia case but says he hasn’t turned on Trump

Lin Wood, an attorney who filed lawsuits seeking to overturn former President Trump’s loss in the 2020 election, said he hasn’t turned on Trump after Georgia prosecutors named him as a witness.

Buried in a 103-page-long court document filed Wednesday, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s (D) office noted Wood is a witness in its criminal case against Trump and 18 others in charges in Georgia that include racketeering and conspiracy.

In an interview with The Hill, Wood said he’s simply responding to a subpoena.

“There’s zero truth to that,” Wood said when asked if he had turned against Trump.

A special purpose grand jury that heard evidence in the probe for months had recommended Wood be indicted, but prosecutors ultimately opted against charging him with Trump and 18 others last month. Wood previously indicated that he had been subpoenaed to appear before the special grand jury.

Wood said he received the subpoena last week, after the indictment was handed up, to testify at next month’s trial. He dispelled the notion that he had reached some sort of agreement with prosecutors.

“I’m always willing to go in under subpoena. I’ll go testify and answer their questions, honestly, like I did in the grand jury,” Wood said.

Only two of the defendants, Trump-aligned attorneys Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell, are slated to go to trial in October, while Trump and the others’ charges will move at a slower pace.

Wood and Powell were both involved in filing lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results based on unfounded claims of mass election fraud, though Wood never actually represented Trump.

Wood retired this summer and gave up his law license rather than face disbarment proceedings over his post-election efforts.

Powell is charged over a breach of an elections office in Coffee County, Ga., but Wood said he has no connection to those allegations.

“I continue to be at a loss to understand why I’m dragged into this,” Wood said.

Prosecutors revealed Wood is a witness as part of court documents identifying potential conflicts of interests for six attorneys representing various defendants in the case.

Willis’s office said Harry MacDougald, an attorney representing Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, who will not go to trial in October, has a potential conflict because he was previously co-counsel with Wood.

“L. Lin Wood is a witness for the State in the present case,” prosecutors wrote. “Mr. MacDougald’s former clients and co-counsel would be subject to cross-examination by him were he to remain counsel of record in this case.”

The Hill has reached out to MacDougald for comment.

“There is no conflict. We will respond to the motion in due course,” said Chris Anulewicz, who represents attorney Bob Cheeley, one of the defendants.

Willis’s office said Anulewicz has a potential conflict because he previously represented Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and is a witness himself.

Willis also said Scott Grubman, an attorney representing Chesebro, had a potential conflict because he represented Raffensperger and his wife.

Grubman pushed back later in the day, writing in court filings that he only “briefly” represented the Raffenspergers in a personal capacity and that both they and Chesebro signed waivers giving Chesebro consent to continue.

“Mr. Grubman would have informed the District Attorney’s Office of such informed consent had they reached out before filing their Notice,” Grubman wrote. “The State did not extend that typical professional courtesy.”

The Hill has reached out to the other four attorneys also identified as having potential conflicts for comment.

________

• Rudy Giuliani, Ruby Freeman propose winter trial dates in Georgia case

Former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and two Fulton County, Ga., election workers jointly proposed three potential trial dates this winter in the workers’ lawsuit against the former New York mayor.

A judge found Giuliani automatically liable for defaming election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss after Giuliani resisted turning over discovery in the case.

The trial will only be held to determine how much Giuliani owes in damages, and the judge had asked both sides to submit three proposed trial dates between November and February.

In a joint filing submitted Wednesday, the parties proposed the trial begin either Dec. 11, Jan. 8 or Feb. 20. They said the trial would last between three to five days.

“Plaintiffs’ strong preference is for the trial to take place at the earliest possible date, and in all events, before the end of 2023,” the filing states. “Unfortunately, given counsel and witness schedules, the parties were able to find only one week in November or December of 2023 in which the parties could be available.”

Freeman and Moss sued Giuliani after he made a series of statements in the wake of the 2020 election about Freeman and Moss’s work at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, where ballots were counted.

Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City turned Trump attorney, and others baselessly claimed the two workers committed election fraud by processing “suitcases” of illicit ballots.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who is overseeing the case, last month found Giuliani civilly liable by default for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy after he refused to turn over discovery.

Howell suggested Giuliani may have resisted doing so to avoid legal exposure in other cases. He was indicted alongside former President Trump in the Georgia election subversion case last month. They pleaded not guilty.

“Perhaps, he has made the calculation that his overall litigation risks are minimized by not complying with his discovery obligations in this case,” Howell wrote. “Whatever the reason, obligations are case specific and withholding required discovery in this case has consequences.”

Howell ordered Giuliani to pay nearly $90,000 and his businesses to pay more than $43,000 to reimburse legal fees the election workers incurred in their attempt to compel Giuliani to turn over the materials.

Giuliani has appeared to face a cash crunch in the wake of his legal battles. His ex-lawyers sued him earlier this week for unpaid legal bills.

• NY AG: Trump request to delay civil fraud trial ‘brazen and meritless’

New York Attorney General Letitia James’s (D) office late Wednesday night pushed back on former President Trump’s “brazen and meritless” attempt to delay an upcoming civil trial in which she is suing Trump, his business and two of his adult children for fraud.

James warned a delay could cause issues with Trump’s broader court calendar, in which he is facing four criminal indictments. The trial in this civil suit was set to begin Oct. 2, but a judge issued an interim pause after Trump claimed the trial judge was ignoring an appellate ruling. The pause request now heads to a panel of New York appeals judges for a final decision.

Judith Vale, deputy solicitor general in James’s office, called Trump’s petition a “brazen and meritless attempt” to “usurp” the trial judge’s authority to manage his own docket and his “fundamental judicial role” to issue certain rulings.

The New York attorney general’s office is suing Trump, the Trump Organization and two of his adult children, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., alleging more than a decade of fraud. The lawsuit claims Trump’s company falsely inflated and deflated the value of its assets for personal gain, like lower taxes and better insurance coverage.

James’s office in the new court filings asked that the panel reject Trump’s delay request and issue the ruling before Oct. 2 so the trial can begin on time.

James’s office portrayed Trump’s delay attempt as an effort to get around the trial court’s upcoming summary judgment ruling, which could resolve the case ahead of the trial.

“To rule otherwise would upend the judicial process,” Vale wrote in new filings asking the court to deny Trump’s request.

Some $250 million in financial penalties are sought by James’s office, plus Trump and his children would be barred from serving as officers or directors of New York-registered or licensed corporations.

James’s office, in pushing back on Trump’s latest request, noted the former president’s upcoming criminal and civil trials scheduled for early next year.

“Even a brief stay of the October 2 trial date would likely wreak havoc on the trial schedule not only in this proceeding but also in scheduled trials in other courts that involve petitioner Donald J. Trump,” James’s office wrote.

The judge overseeing the fraud case previously suggested the trial could extend through late December, if the current start date holds.

Trump is scheduled to go on a civil defamation trial in a case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll beginning Jan. 15.

The former president’s criminal trial in the federal 2020 election subversion case is scheduled for March 4, his hush money criminal case is scheduled to begin March 25, and his classified documents case is set to begin May 20.

A fourth possible trial date in Georgia, where the former president is accused of attempting to subvert the state’s election results, has not yet been set.

Trump has pleaded not guilty in each case.

• Giuliani ordered to attend election workers defamation trial

Rudy Giuliani ordered to be ‘present in person’ for every day of trial to determine how much he owes Georgia election workers he defamed

Starting Dec. 11, there will be no phoning it in for Rudy Giuliani after a federal judge ordered that he must physically appear in court for every day of his impending defamation trial involving Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea ArShaye Moss.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell found Giuliani automatically liable for defaming the Georgia poll workers in a scorching opinion issued this August after he refused to turn over records for discovery in the case. Howell set a Dec. 11 trial date — which be only to determine damages — in a paperless order late Wednesday

“[O]n December 11, 2023, at 9:00 AM, the parties are directed to appear in Courtroom 26A for jury selection for a trial in this matter, with plaintiffs and defendant present in person for the duration of trial,” the docket entry said.

Court filings indicate that both parties expect the trial to last three to five days. The trial will establish precisely how much Giuliani will be required to pay Freeman and Moss, since he was already declared liable for defaming them — and has all but admitted to doing so.

The mother-daughter duo sued him in December 2021, more than a year after their lives were turned utterly upside down and nearly destroyed after the ally to former President Donald Trump spread wild conspiracy theories that the women had committed fraud while working the polls at State Farm Arena in Georgia in November 2020.

Pointing to security footage of the women working at the arena, Giuliani fatefully seized on one moment where Moss was seen handing something to her mother. He publicly and falsely accused Moss of giving her mother “USB drives” containing votes for now-President Joe Biden. He suggested the hand-off was meant to be covert and that Moss, a Black woman, slid the “port” to her mother like she was passing off “vials of cocaine.”

As it would turn out, the “USB port” was actually a ginger mint.

The Georgia Elections Board this June issued a report finding zero evidence of fraud or any conspiracy to rob Trump of votes in the state, a resounding rebuke to the false accusations made by Giuliani and echoed by Trump at rallies and on social media.

Since Trump’s departure from the White House, Giuliani’s legal troubles have steadily mounted.

_______

• Giuliani snubbed judge’s order in defamation case, election worker says

Rudy Giuliani has failed to comply with a federal judge's order to turn over evidence and pay legal fees to election workers he defamed, according to a new court filing.

In papers filed Thursday, lawyers for Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss say Giuliani "failed to take any of the actions" a federal judge ordered him to carry out by Sept. 20, including paying $89,000 in attorney's fees for the two election workers.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington, D.C., issued the order last month in response to Giuliani having failed to comply with earlier court orders.

An attorney and a spokesperson for Giuliani did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday night.

In her ruling last month, Howell blasted Giuliani for repeatedly ignoring court orders demanding he turn over required information to Freeman and Moss for their civil suit alleging he defamed them after the 2020 presidential election.

"The bottom line is that Giuliani has refused to comply with his discovery obligations and thwarted plaintiffs Ruby Freeman and Wandrea ArShaye Moss’s procedural rights to obtain any meaningful discovery in this case,” Howell wrote.

She granted Freeman and Moss a default judgment in August finding Giuliani "civilly liable on plaintiffs’ defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and punitive damage claims."

Howell also ordered Giuliani to turn over personal and business financial documents by Sept. 20, and to pay Freeman and Moss' lawyers for legal costs tied to trying to get him to comply with court orders. Further, she ordered his businesses to pay $43,684 for costs related to a similar motion, "with interest on that amount to accrue from September 20, 2023 until the date of final judgment against Giuliani personally if his eponymous businesses fail to comply."

In a separate ruling Thursday, before Freeman and Moss's filing, Howell set a Dec. 11 trial date to determine a dollar amount for damages in the defamation case.

Giuliani had claimed the pair were “passing around USB ports like they were vials of heroin or cocaine” while counting votes in the 2020 election. The House Jan. 6 committee’s report found they were passing a ginger mint.

_______

• Fulton DA rejects claims of official role by Trump ‘fake electors’ in 2020 election case

Fulton County prosecutors describe a trio of Georgians who served on a false slate of Republican electors in the 2020 presidential election as being fantastical in their attempt to argue their felony election interference racketeering case should be moved to federal court.

On Tuesday, the Fulton County District Attorney’s office said the so-called fake electors engaged in a logical fallacy as attorneys for former Georgia Republican Party Chairman David Shafer, state Sen. Shawn Still and ex-Coffee County GOP chairwoman Cathy Latham argued their clients were acting as federal officers when casting electoral votes for Donald Trump on Dec. 14, 2020.

The three co-defendants in the sweeping election interference conspiracy case that ensnared Trump and 18 of his allies are the latest defendants to arguing in U.S. District Court that they acted as federal officers and therefore should be exempt from state prosecution.

The attorneys for Shafer, Still and Latham said Wednesday that their clients never imagined they had acted inappropriately when they were told by an attorney representing the Republican party and Trump campaign that their votes would be helpful in case of a successful legal challenge that would overturn President Joe Biden’s election win.

Fulton special prosecutor Anna Cross characterized the defense’s arguments as being factually unsound and said the three were among 16 people who were “impersonating” Republican electors in 2020.

Cross said the electors had presented no case law supporting the idea “that you can file a procedurally and substantively deficient challenge and, suddenly, everything’s up in the air.” She said the Republicans did not become federal officers simply by claiming to be official presidential electors.

“They were fake electors,” Cross said. “They were impersonating electors. They were not electors at all.”

Shafer, Still and Latham’s reasoning for having their cases moved to a potentially friendlier federal jurisdiction differs substantially from two other co-defendants in the sprawling election conspiracy case who worked in the federal executive branch at the time of the alleged criminal conspiracy named in the Fulton indictment.

_________

• Pro-Trump Lawyer Argues Emails Should Be Excluded From Georgia RICO Case

Kenneth Chesebro, an election attorney for former President Donald Trump, argued on Thursday that his emails should be excluded as evidence from the Georgia election-racketeering case in which he and Trump are co-defendants.

In a motion Thursday seeking to have all evidence stemming from a search of his email account excluded from the proceedings, Chesebro's attorneys argued that search warrant used to obtain them was "defective, and the search and seizure predicated thereon is illegal."

Prosecutors "backdoored" their way into obtaining emails that are protected by attorney-client privilege, Chesebro's lawyers, Scott Grubman and Manubir Arora argued.

Chesebro and fellow ex-Trump election attorney Sidney Powell are scheduled to face trial beginning Oct. 23, before the other 17 defendants in the Georgia election-racketeering case, because they filed motions to expedite the process under Georgia's Speedy Trial Act.

The alleged architect of the so-called "false electors" effort, Chesebro is facing seven state felony counts. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

• Jack Smith adds war crimes prosecutor — his deputy from the Hague — to special counsel team

Special counsel Jack Smith has added a veteran war crimes prosecutor — who served as Smith’s deputy during his stint at the Hague — to his team as it prepares to put former President Donald Trump on trial in Washington and Florida.

Alex Whiting worked alongside Smith for three years, helping prosecute crimes against humanity that occurred in Kosovo in the late 1990s. The Yale-educated attorney also worked as a prosecutor with the International Criminal Court from 2010 to 2013. He has taught law classes at Harvard since 2007 as well, hired as an assistant professor by then-Dean Elena Kagan — now a Supreme Court justice — and rising to a visiting professorship in 2013.

Whiting’s precise role on Smith’s team is unclear. A spokesperson for Smith declined to comment, and Whiting did not immediately return requests for comment. The prosecutors’ office in the Hague and Harvard University also did not respond to requests for comment about Whiting’s current employment status.

But a POLITICO reporter observed Whiting at the U.S. district courthouse in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday and Thursday, spending several hours monitoring the trial of a Jan. 6 defendant. The judge in the case is Tanya Chutkan, who is slated to preside over Trump’s trial in March on federal charges stemming from his efforts to subvert the 2020 election.

_________

Just for fun.

Judge Chutkan was overseeing Jan. 6 trial this past week (Antony Vo), her first since Trump’s indictment.

The jury just returned a guilty verdict after 78 minutes of deliberations.

_________

• Trump's lawyers still don’t have clearance approved for documents case

Donald Trump's lawyers are still fighting to get their security clearance approved for the Mar-a-Lago documents case, a court status report revealed.

Buried in the update released last week is the nugget that the Trump legal team is still fighting to work through the process. Clearance approval can take months, particularly at the highest levels. The lawyer's self-reported details have to be checked, and interviews are conducted with those who can confirm the background.

On page 3 of the update, the text explains: "On September 13, 2023, the Government also made its first production of classified discovery, some of which may be viewed by counsel with interim clearances, and some of which requires counsel to have final clearances with additional necessary read-ins into various compartments."

The update went on to detail the materials that require clearance.

"This material includes classified documents that had been stored at Mar-a-Lago as well as other classified material generated or obtained in the Government’s investigation, including documents related to witness interviews such as reports and transcripts," the update states. "The Government anticipates making additional productions of classified discovery, which will include additional Jencks material, additional material related to witness interviews, and other documents obtained during the Government’s investigation."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...8653.158.0.pdf

• Court: Seizure of Mike Lindell's cellphone didn't violate his constitutional rights

Mike Lindell, CEO of Chanhassen-based MyPillow and a prominent supporter of former President Donald Trump’s false claims of election fraud, faces a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit over his claims that voting machines had been rigged.

A panel of federal judges says the government didn't violate Mike Lindell's constitutional rights when FBI agents seized his phone last year in the drive-thru line at a Mankato Hardee's.

The judges, upholding a lower court ruling, said the agents had a warrant that explicitly authorized them to search and seize his cellphone as part of a federal investigation.

"Lindell's irritation as to where and how the government took possession of his cell phone does not give rise to a constitutional claim, let alone a showing of a callous disregard for his constitutional rights," read the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Friday.

Lindell, the CEO of Minnesota-based MyPillow, is the subject of an ongoing federal investigation into the security breach and publishing of forensic images of election software used in the 2020 election in Mesa County, Colo. Lindell has repeated the false claim that voting machines were rigged to illegally give more votes to President Joe Biden than former President Donald Trump.

In a Star Tribune interview after his cellphone was seized, Lindell likened the FBI's seizure of his cell phone to the "Gestapo in Nazi Germany."

After calling his lawyer, Lindell turned over his phone, but he quickly sued to block the review of its contents and have it returned to him immediately, arguing he uses it for day-to-day work running his businesses.

But in its ruling, the panel said that Lindell acknowledged in a sworn declaration that he backed up the phone five days before it was seized, meaning he had access to "the vast majority of information" it contained.

"While he has been deprived of possession of his phone, he has not been deprived access to the phone's contents, other than perhaps a limited slice of no more than five days' worth of information that he has neither detailed nor identified with any particularity as vital to his businesses," the ruling read.

However, the court said the government would need to provide justification for continuing to hold on to Lindell's phone, which they've had for more than a year.

"Absent sufficient justification, the government has no right to hold onto property that is not contraband indefinitely," the panel wrote.

No charges have been filed in this investigation, but Lindell is the subject of multiple lawsuits around his false claims of election fraud. He and MyPillow face a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voter Systems and Smartmatic. Lindell and MyPillow have also filed lawsuits against the voting machine companies.

A private arbitration panel has also ordered Lindell to pay a computer forensics expert $5 million after Lindell said he would pay that sum to anyone who could disprove data he claimed showed Chinese interference in the 2020 election. Lindell is countersuing in that case.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/09/223510P.pdf

• Trump and New York AG Agree in Courtroom Clash: Billion-Dollar Civil Fraud Case Has Morphed Into Something Out of ‘Alice in Wonderland’

Trial judge Arthur Engoron indicated that he would issue rulings on Tuesday — as an appellate battle looms

donald trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James do not agree on much in a case alleging billions of dollars of fraudulently inflated assets, but both landed on the same analogy during oral arguments in a Manhattan courtroom on Friday morning.

The high-profile civil case has morphed into something out of "Alice in Wonderland."

"In defendants’ world there is no objective truth even in the square footage of a New York City condominium," Assistant New York Attorney General Andrew Amer said in court.

Amer added later: "Defendants have clearly stepped through the looking glass."

Christopher Kise, a defense attorney for the former president, echoed that analogy during defense arguments, but he offered a different spin.

“The foundation of the [New York Attorney General’s] case is ignore everything except what we want you to focus on,” Kise said.

Kise argued that the trial judge has ignored the clear mandates of an appellate court depriving him of jurisdiction of most of the remaining claims, which he said were time-barred.

Trump is currently slated to stand trial on Oct. 2, in a case accusing him, two of his sons, and his business entities and associates of perpetrating a massive fraud by misleading banks and insurers about the values of his properties. Amer argued that the trial isn't necessary on the first of the six claims, alleging fraud, based on the "undisputed" evidence.

If granted, Amer said that the trial would be "streamlined" on evidence of intent to defraud and evidence to support other relief. James has asked the court to bar Trump and his sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. from ever serving as a director of a New York corporation. The original lawsuit sought $250 million in damages, but the AG now estimates that Trump inflated his assets up to $3.6 billion in a single year alone.

The AG's office also has sought to sanction Trump for repeating "frivolous" arguments, which the judge already had rejected.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, who previously found Trump in contempt of court in the investigation that preceded the lawsuit, appeared to agree that the former president's lawyers didn't listen.

"You were warned," Engoron declared at one point in a raised voice.

During oral arguments on Friday, Amer ridiculed the defenses raised by Trump's attorneys about what he described as the "light years" disconnect between the properties' actual values and what the former president said they were.

"From Mr. Trump's perspective—the perspective of a creative and visionary real estate developer who sees the potential and value of properties that others do not, not on a year to year time horizon but often decades ahead—the valuation of those properties would have looked very different," Trump's attorneys Michael Madaio, Clifford Robert, and Kise wrote on Sept. 1.

The AG's office displayed charts showing Trump's valuations for statements of financial condition for Mar-a-Lago, Trump Tower, Trump Park Avenue and other properties towering over the price tags assessed by appraisers — often by hundreds of millions of dollars per property. Trump famously estimated that a Trump Tower triplex was nearly three times larger in square footage than it actually was, an act that the attorney general calls deceptive.

Kise argued that valuations are "highly subjective," and he said that broker Lawrence Moens valued Mar-a-Lago as higher than Trump did.

"It's not fraud because they disagree," Kise said.


Describing Trump as possessing "investment genius," Kise called the transactions at issue as successful for both sides. Trump's defense team has repeatedly argued that the sophisticated banks and insurers who received the statements of financial condition performed their own due diligence, and no one was harmed.

Trump's attorneys want the trial judge to dismiss the case outright, but that appears unlikely based on Engoron's remarks toward the end of the proceedings. He told Trump's lawyers that he heard them offer no new arguments on the issues that he previously rejected, and he answered their contention that nobody was harmed by the alleged fraud by pointing to a more intangible damage.

That's to "fairness in the marketplace," Engoron said.

Sparks flew earlier in the proceedings when Engoron pounded the table repeatedly to state a principle of law.

“You cannot make false statements and use them in business,” Engoron thundered, in the middle of Kise's arguments.

The same judge previously found Trump in contempt of court during the investigation that preceded the AG's filing of the civil case, and he curtly rejected one of Trump's prior motions with a short, handwritten note that his lawyers' position was "completely without merit."

Seeking an appellate lifeline, Trump's team has asked New York's Appellate Division, First Department, to pause the trial while they challenge Engoron's rulings. The appellate court previously dismissed the AG's allegations against daughter Ivanka Trump — and one of its judges put the case on ice on a temporary basis. James has asked the court to lift that stay, arguing that any trial delay would "wreak havoc" in light of Trump's crowded civil and criminal court calendar.

Ending the proceedings without a ruling, Engoron announced that he would issue his decisions by Tuesday. The appellate court is also expected to issue a ruling on Trump's so-called Article 78 petition, the New York equivalent of a mandamus petition seeking extraordinary relief before trial.

The daylong arguments drew to a close shortly before 4:30 p.m. ET.

• Hearing set on possible attorney conflicts of interest in Mar-a-Lago documents case

At the request of the U.S. Justice Department, Judge Aileen Cannon ordered new hearings Monday to look into possible conflicts of interest for two attorneys representing former President Donald Trump's co-defendants in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.

The South Florida federal judge set an Oct. 12 date for the attorneys representing Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira and Trump's valet Walt Nauta. Both men are charged with helping the former president obstruct justice by allegedly moving boxes of classified documents in and out of a storage room at the resort.

According to the Justice Department, Nauta's attorney Stanley Woodward has represented "at least seven other individuals who have been questioned in connection with the investigation," including those who have testified about Nauta.

"Nauta should be thoroughly advised of the potential conflicts and attendant risks," the DOJ wrote.

One of those seven individuals was Mar-a-Lago IT worker Yuscil Taveras, who recanted his testimony over the summer after a Washington, D.C., federal judge appointed a new lawyer, according to prosecutors.

De Oliveira's attorney John Irving is also serving as counsel to other Mar-a-Lago workers who could be called as witnesses, and "has information demonstrating the falsity of statements De Oliveira has made to the government," the DOJ said.

One witness "has information about De Oliveira's loyalty to Trump and about De Oliveira's involvement in the replacement of a lock -- at the direction of Trump -- on a closet inside Trump's residence at Mar-a-Lago on June 2, 2022, the day Nauta and De Oliveira moved boxes," the DOJ wrote.

Special Counsel Jack Smith argued that Woodward and Irving also have conflicts of interest because they are being paid by a Trump political action committee.

In June, Trump pleaded not guilty to 37 federal charges that he allegedly mishandled classified documents. Trump faces three additional counts under a superseding indictment, which alleges De Oliveira helped Nauta relocate 30 boxes of materials into a storage unit at Trump's request "to conceal information from the FBI and grand jury."

In August, De Oliveira pleaded not guilty to multiple obstruction-related offenses in the classified documents case. Nauta also pleaded not guilty to conspiring with Trump to obstruct the investigation at Mar-a-Lago.

During next month's hearing, Cannon could appoint federal public defenders for De Oliveira and Nauta, or order them to obtain new lawyers.

• Tanya Chutkan on Stefan Passantino's Andrew Weissmann suit

Judge in Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution now assigned to defamation lawsuit against former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann

The federal judge in Washington, D.C., presiding over special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 criminal case against former President Donald Trump has also been assigned to handle a lawsuit filed last Friday against former special counsel Robert Mueller’s top deputy Andrew Weissmann.

The court docket shows that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Barack Obama-appointed jurist Trump has been trying to have disqualified from overseeing his Jan. 6 case, was assigned Monday to the suit against Weissmann.

The lawsuit filed by former Trump White House ethics lawyer Stefan Passantino claimed that MSNBC legal analyst Weissmann damaged his reputation by tweeting (without naming him) that Passantino coached Jan. 6 star witness and former Mark Meadows aide Cassidy Hutchinson to “lie.”

“Hunt also is Cassidy Hutchinson’s good lawyer. (Not the one who coached her to lie),” Weissmann tweeted on Sept. 15. “And he is the guy who took notes of Trump saying, when Mueller was appointed, quoting him as saying ‘I’m f….d.'”

“Defendant Andrew Weissmann — a partisan former prosecutor and top deputy to Special Counsel Robert Mueller turned MSNBC’ legal analyst’ — has publicly impugned that reputation, claiming that Mr. Passantino coached his client, Cassidy Hutchinson, to lie in congressional testimony,” said the Passantino complaint, demanding a jury trial. “This is an insidious lie. Mr. Passantino never coached Ms. Hutchinson to lie, nor did he attempt to shape her testimony in any way.”

As Law&Crime reported previously, Cassidy Hutchinson testified before Congress that she had been briefly represented by Passantino after being subpoenaed to appear before the Jan. 6 Committee.

“The less you remember, the better,” Hutchinson said Passantino told her. Hutchinson also testified that Passantino told her not to lie and that he said “‘I don’t recall’ is not a lie.”

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...-complaint.pdf

_________

Just for fun.

• Trump campaign backtracks on claim ex-president bought a gun as it could have broken law

Trump campaign denies he bought a gun with his face on

The Trump campaign has backtracked on a claim the former president bought a handgun embellished with his face and name during a stop in South Carolina, as it was claimed such a move could have broken the law.

“I’m going to buy one. I want to buy one,” Mr Trump said after looking at the gun. “Isn’t Glock a great gun?”

But a few hours later, his campaign was forced to backtrack, amid speculation that the former president could have broken the law by his actions.

Mr Trump is currently indicted on two federal charges, as well as two local sets of allegations. They amount to 91 counts in all and Mr Trump has denied all of them.

Commentators pointed out it was a federal crime to receive a firearm while under felony indictment or to sell a firearm to someone under felony indictment.

Mr Trump’s campaign spokesman Steven Cheung had written on social media that he had bought the weapon. He later deleted the post and told CNN that Mr Trump himself had not bought the gun.

^Hope the sales go well.

trump committed fraud

• Donald Trump committed fraud by exaggerating wealth, judge says

A New York state judge ruled Tuesday that former President Trump committed fraud by exaggerating his net worth on financial records, according to a court filing.

The big picture: The ruling by Judge Arthur Engoron comes days before the trial is set to begin on Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James' civil fraud lawsuit against Trump and his business on allegations of falsifying business records.

Driving the news: The ruling narrows the scope of the trial set to begin next week. It's a loss for Trump's lawyers, who have been trying to fight some of the allegations against him, the New York Times notes.

• The judge also ordered sanctions of $7,500 each for attorneys who represented the former president and the other defendants for making claims in filings that Engoron deemed frivolous.

Zoom in: Among the allegations in the lawsuit, Trump is accused of fabricating the value of his apartment buildings, hotels and other assets.

• "In defendants' world: 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; a disclaimer by one party casting responsibility on another party exonerates the other party's lies," Engoron wrote.
• "That is a is a fantasy world, not the real world."

Zoom out: James filed a civil lawsuit a year ago accusing Trump and members of his family of financial fraud, which could result in severe financial penalties for the Trump Organization.

• James has accused Trump and people working for him of inflating his net worth by between $812 million to $2.2 billion each year for more than a decade.

The other side: Trump and his team have repeatedly tried to have the case dismissed.

• Trump has denied wrongdoing and accused James of a "war of intimidation and harassment" against him.

• Trump RICO judge issues order to protect juror identities

Trump RICO judge issues order to protect jurors from being doxxed and threatened during trial

The Georgia judge overseeing the racketeering (RICO) criminal prosecutions of former President Donald Trump and 18 co-defendants issued an order Monday to protect the identities of jurors.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee partially granted a motion filed by the office of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D).

“No person shall videotape, photograph, draw in a realistic or otherwise identifiable manner, or otherwise record images, statements, or conversations of jurors/prospective jurors in any manner that would violate Uniform Superior Court Rule 22(J)(2), except that the jury foreperson’s announcement of the verdict or questions to the judge may be audio recorded,” McAfee began.

________

• Trump lawyers fight to stop gag order in Jan. 6 indictment

‘Desperate effort at censorship’: Trump attorneys rage over gag order requested by special counsel in Jan. 6 election subversion case

In a contentious response to a limited gag order sought by special counsel Jack Smith, attorneys for Donald Trump fighting allegations that the former president criminally conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election blasted everyone from the media to the Biden administration to the Justice Department for what they claim are imminent violations of Trump’s First Amendment rights.

The heated 25-page filing from attorneys Greg Singer, Todd Blanche and John Lauro entered Monday night comes after prosecutors first asked presiding U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Sept. 5 to impose narrow limits on Trump’s public commentary about the case.

That request was made under seal and then unsealed on Sept. 15, just four days after Trump first demanded Judge Chutkan recuse herself from the case altogether, thinly alleging she too was biased against him.

The prosecution’s Sept. 5 proposed gag order featured a litany of examples of Trump’s “inflammatory” public remarks leading to threats, shows of violence and attacks on the people or institutions he deems his enemies and adversaries. It also includes some of Trump’s most recent comments, including those attacking Judge Chutkan or prosecutor Jay Bratt, as well as attacks on former Vice President Mike Pence, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, and others. Prosecutors additionally asked Chutkan to place rules around how Trump’s defense team might conduct polling in Washington, D.C., as prospective jurors are sorted out ahead of his trial in the district in March 2024.

The real timing of the special counsel’s proposed gag order is a particularly important detail as it relates to Monday’s filing from the defense. This is because Trump’s attorneys suggest that the proposed order only came up once President Joe Biden through public polling became “keenly aware that [he] is losing [the] race for 2024.”

Calling it “transparent gamesmanship” from prosecutors intended to “poison” Trump’s defense as he enters “the most important months of his campaign against President [Joe] Biden in the 2024 presidential race,” defense attorneys seethed: “At bottom, the proposed gag order is nothing more than an obvious attempt by the Biden Administration to unlawfully silence its most prominent political opponent, who has now taken a commanding lead in the polls. Indeed, this very Motion came on the heels of adverse polling for President Biden.”

Notably, the defense does not cite the polling data it references at all. Nonetheless, the claim dovetails neatly with Trump’s lengthy public track record of claiming political persecution by anyone opposed to his position, policy, or opinion.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...58148.60.0.pdf

__________

• Trump expands criminal defense team

Donald Trump has added at least two veteran attorneys to help defend him in his multiple criminal cases.

Emil Bove, a former federal prosecutor who was co-chief of the national security unit at the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office, and Kendra Wharton, a seasoned white collar defense lawyer with Capitol Hill ties, have signed onto the legal team organized by Trump attorney Todd Blanche.

In recent days, Bove joined Blanche’s firm, while Wharton launched her own firm and is expected to partner with Blanche, according to two people close to the legal team granted anonymity to discuss personnel decisions. Bove and Wharton are expected to work on Trump’s criminal matters, including the New York criminal case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and the federal cases filed by special counsel Jack Smith. Trump is also facing a fourth criminal case in Fulton County, Ga., and has hired a separate defense team for that matter.

The additions are the most significant new legal hires in months for Trump as he prepares for multiple criminal trials scheduled for next year. Bove and Wharton are expected to help fill out a team that was, in some ways, hobbled by the abrupt departures of veteran lawyers John Rowley, Tim Parlatore and James Trusty around the time Trump was indicted by a Florida grand jury in June.

Since then, Blanche, also an alumnus of the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office, has emerged as the architect of Trump’s multi-front legal battle, and the new hires further solidify his imprint on some of the most significant criminal cases in American history.

“Emil is an expert in white collar and CIPA-related litigation and his trial skills are among the best in the business,” Blanche said in a statement, referencing the Classified Information Procedures Act, the federal law governing the use of classified documents in criminal cases. “We are thrilled and lucky to have him on our team defending President Trump and all of our other clients.”

“Kendra is a brilliant lawyer and clients have trusted her for years,” Blanche continued, “and is providing the same excellent service to our team that has been her signature for many years.”

Blanche’s hires coincide with Smith’s own addition to his team. He recently added Alex Whiting, a longtime war crimes prosecutor who worked as Smith’s deputy at the Hague.

While working as a federal prosecutor, Bove handled matters including the investigation of Guo Wengui, an ally of Steve Bannon who was indicted earlier this year on charges that he and his financier orchestrated a more than $1 billion fraud scheme.

Bove also worked on the prosecution of Cesar Sayoc Jr., who pleaded guilty to mailing pipe bombs to Trump critics. Bove is currently listed as a partner at Blanche’s firm, which notes his “extensive trial and appellate experience.”

Wharton spent a decade working at Blanche’s former firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, before launching her own in recent weeks. Before that, she spent four years working for Sen. Mitch McConnell as a legislative aide.

During her tenure at Cadwalader, Wharton defended companies and corporate executives in investigations led by the Justice Department, SEC and other federal agencies. She has also managed internal corporate investigations and their responses to congressional inquiries.

Originally Posted by thailazer

Been watching the clips of Cassidy Hutchinson talking about her book "Enough" which was just released today. She talks of how careless and lawless the White House was in the last days of Trump's reign. Don't care to read too many political books normally but her comments are compelling enough that I got a copy of it heading for my Kindle. The title, "Enough" is apropos and conveys how Americans should feel about the past six years......

Yes, the way she describes things it was an absolute shit show.

Ex-Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson accuses Giuliani of groping her on Jan. 6

• Chutkan rejects Trump request to step aside as judge in his D.C. trial

U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on Wednesday denied Donald Trump’s demand that she recuse herself from his federal election obstruction case, saying attorneys for the former president had applied a “hypersensitive, cynical, and suspicious” reading of two of her statements in sentencing Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack defendants to accuse her of bias.

In a 20-page opinion, Chutkan wrote that “a reasonable person ... would understand that in making the statements contested here, the court was not issuing vague declarations about third parties’ potential guilt in a hypothetical future case,” or Trump, as his attorneys claimed. The judge continued, “Instead, it was fulfilling its duty to expressly evaluate the defendants’ arguments that their sentences should be reduced because other individuals whom they believed were associated with the events of January 6 had not been prosecuted.”

Trump’s defense can appeal, but the standard for a federal appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling is very high, requiring “clear and indisputable” proof a judge has failed her duty, and showing that assigning a new judge is “appropriate” considering all the circumstances and there is no adequate alternative.

In asking for Chutkan to recuse herself earlier this month, Trump’s lawyers said the veteran jurist appeared to have prejudged the former president’s guilt, citing her statements when sentencing two defendants charged in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In October, Chutkan alluded to Trump when she told a defendant that he and others at the Capitol “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution,” adding: “It’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”

Trump attorney John F. Lauro wrote in a defense filing that the meaning of Chutkan’s statement “is inescapable — President Trump is free, but should not be.”

Prosecutors, however, said Trump’s defense had cherry-picked two of Chutkan’s statements out of context and misapplied the law to wrongly argue that the judge was biased against him. Far from presenting clear evidence of prejudice, the said, Chutkan’s statements were an appropriate response to the two defendants’ arguments that they deserved leniency because they were inspired by or less culpable than others who had not been held responsible.

“The Court’s statements addressing this sentencing mitigation argument were factually accurate, responsive to arguments presented to the Court, and evidenced no improper bias or prejudgment of the current case,” senior assistant special counsels Molly Gaston and Thomas Windom wrote.

A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1994 that “opinions formed” through court proceedings would require a judge to recuse from a case only if those opinions “display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.”

Gaston argued that a judge’s core duties at sentencing including responding to arguments and forming opinions based on facts in the case and that the higher standard for recusal is essential for statements “made by a judge while she is doing her job.”

Chutkan in her opinion agreed. She wrote that she “specifically withheld judgment on whether other people should be charged for conduct related to January 6, and ... did not recommend that the government investigate or charge any other individuals.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md...sal-bias-jan6/

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2023cr0257-61

• Special counsel fights Trump effort to ‘upend the entire schedule’ of Mar-a-Lago case

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team aggressively pushed back against a proposal by former President Trump to shift court deadlines in his upcoming trial for mishandling classified records at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump’s proposed delay of various deadlines for procedures for addressing classified evidence “threatens to upend the entire schedule established by the Court and that amounts to a motion to continue the May 20, 2024 trial date,” prosecutors wrote in the late Wednesday filing.

Smith’s team suggests a short deadline extension on the latest matter before the court but argues the rest of the deadlines should remain in place.

The bulk of the filing deals with the arcane processes for handling classified information at trial.

At issue are deadlines set by Judge Aileen Cannon for how to deal with various motions expected under the Classified Information Procedures Act, which lays out ground rules for determining how to deal with classified evidence throughout the case.

The existing schedule does compress some activity in the months shortly before the trial, but prosecutors say Trump’s request would unnecessarily delay motions regarding discovery for three months.

Unlike in other cases, the government must only turn over evidence that is relevant and helpful, and Smith’s team argued that Trump’s attorneys already have enough information to stake out their legal positions.

“The defendants already have more than sufficient discovery to provide the Court with a description of the type of information they consider relevant and helpful. The defendants’ motion can and should be denied on this ground alone,” prosecutors wrote.

DocumentCloud

_______

• Fani Willis rejects Ken Chesebro's RICO immunity arguments

‘Unsupported by law’: Lawyer behind memo to overturn election on Jan. 6 must argue his immunity ‘justification’ before RICO jury, Fulton County DA says

The Fulton County District Attorney’s Office responded Tuesday afternoon to Ken Chesebro, arguing that the lawyer-turned-RICO defendant’s bid to derail his Georgia criminal case lacked legal substance.

Chesebro, the lawyer who drafted a legal memo asserting that then-Vice President Mike Pence could reverse the election in then-President Donald Trump’s favor on Jan. 6, previously filed a motion ahead of his speedily approaching trial to either dismiss the indictment or obtain immunity from prosecution under the theory that his alleged conduct was justified.

In other words, Chesebro asserted he was merely working “within his capacity as a lawyer” for former President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign “in researching and finding precedents in order to form a legal opinion which was then supplied to his client.”

Fulton County DA Fani Willis’ (D) team responded to that argument by saying Chesebro can save it for the jury.

“This motion, like many of the motions filed by the Defendant to this point, cites to no law in support of its position,” the reply began. “It conflates dismissal of an indictment or a finding of immunity with the assertion of an affirmative defense, and it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the limited statutory authority to grant immunity provided by law. ”

The “justification” affirmative defense is something that generally “cannot be raised prior to trial,” the response continued.

“Affirmative defenses, with limited exceptions concerning statutes that expressly provide for immunity, discussed infra, are determinations of fact to be made by the jury,” the DA’s office said — but only “if there is some evidence presented at trial to support them.”

Describing Chesebro’s “reliance” on “catch-all provisions” as “misguided and unsupported by law,” the DA’s office requested that Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee reject the motion to dismiss/motion for immunity out of hand.

“The Defendant has cited to no statute, no case, and no other provision of law that would authorize this Court to dismiss the indictment or grant him immunity based on a pre-trial assertion of the purported justification defenses raised in his motion, and the Court should deny his motion,” the state response said, urging the judge to issue the requested denial “without a hearing.”

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...on-defense.pdf

• Court rejects Donald Trump’s bid to delay trial in wake of fraud ruling that threatens his business

An appeals court Thursday rejected Donald Trump’s bid to delay a civil trial in a lawsuit brought by New York’s attorney general, allowing the case to proceed days after a judge ruled the former president committed years of fraud and stripped him of some companies as punishment.

The decision, by the state’s intermediate appellate court, clears the way for Judge Arthur Engoron to preside over a non-jury trial starting Monday in Manhattan in New York Attorney General Letitia James’ civil lawsuit.

Trump is listed among dozens of possible witnesses, setting up a potential courtroom showdown with the judge. The fraud ruling Tuesday threatens to upend his real estate empire and force him to give up prized New York properties such as Trump Tower, a Wall Street office building, golf courses and a suburban estate.

Trump has denied wrongdoing, arguing that some of his assets are worth far more than what’s listed on annual financial statements that Engoron said he used to secure loans and make deals. Trump has argued that the statements have disclaimers that absolve him of liability. His lawyers have said they would appeal.

Trump’s New York fraud trial cleared to begin Monday

________

• Trump will not seek to move Georgia RICO case to federal court

In a surprise move, former President Donald Trump has decided not to seek to move his criminal trial from Fulton County to federal court, his lawyer said Thursday.

In a two-page notice filed in Fulton County, Trump attorney Steve Sadow said Trump based the decision “on his well-founded confidence that this Honorable Court intends to fully and completely protect his constitutional right to a fair trial.” In order to move his case, Trump would have had to show he was operating as a federal official — rather than a political candidate — in taking steps to change the outcome of announced results in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia and elsewhere.

A move to the Northern District of Georgia could have provided Trump with a more favorable jury pool than he might receive from heavily Democratic Fulton County.

The notice comes three weeks after Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff, failed in his bid to move his case to U.S. District Court. In a 49-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Steve Jones said Meadows did not meet the legal burden to move his case to the federal system. Meadows is appealing to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Four other Fulton County defendants — former U.S. Department of Justice official Jeffrey Cark and three Trump electors — also asked Jones to transfer their cases. Jones has yet to rule.

Caren Morrison, an associate professor of law at Georgia State University, noted that Sadow had been in court for at least two of those removal hearings and likely concluded his client’s chances of winning were slim. She also said that for Trump to have any chance of succeeding in showing he was acting as a federal official and not a candidate he would likely have to testify.

DocumentCloud

_________

• Trump's legal team asks to delay deadlines in special counsel's election interference case

Former President Donald Trump's legal team asked a federal judge Thursday to postpone filing deadlines by 60 days in the special counsel's 2020 election-related case against him, citing the "numerous novel and complex legal issues" the prosecution presents.

Attorneys for Trump filed a motion to Washington, D.C. federal Judge Tanya Chutkan exactly a month after she set an October 9 deadline for any pretrial motions the parties might want to file. In federal trials, prosecutors and defense attorneys submit written arguments to the court about legal issues ranging from concerns about the investigation to attempts to dismiss the case. The court then sets time limits for responses to those filings, usually allowing ample time for a response and other litigation. As a result, any changes to the schedule generally result in trial delays.

In this case, Trump's attorneys have urged Chutkan to move the Oct. 9 deadline by two months — to Dec. 9, 2023 — which would move the initial due date for raising primary legal issues to under three months before the trial is currently set to begin, on March 4, 2024.

Special counsel Jack Smith charged Trump in August with four counts tied to his alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and conspiracy to obstruct Congress' work on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump pleaded not guilty, has denied wrongdoing and has characterized the prosecution as politically motivated.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...942-trumpdelay

• Attorneys fret shutdown will derail long-awaited Trump deposition

The impending government shutdown might inadvertently derail a deposition of Donald Trump that has been years in the making, attorneys in a long-running civil lawsuit warned Thursday.

Lawyers for former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page — who are suing the Justice Department claiming their departures from the bureau were improperly influenced by Trump — say they’ve scheduled a two-hour Oct. 17 session with the former president.

However, they noted that the Justice Department typically seeks to delay all civil matters during government shutdowns and might seek to do so in the Strzok-Page case as well.

“Considering the lengthy effort that scheduling Mr. Trump’s deposition required and that a stay might result in substantial delay of the conclusion of this action, Plaintiffs will oppose any stay and expect to promptly request relief from any default stay that is imposed,” Strzok and Page’s attorneys wrote.

The two former FBI employees were involved in Trump-related investigations in 2016 and 2017 before the public release of their private text messages by Justice Department officials revealed hostility and disgust with Trump. They’ve sued over the handling of those messages and claimed that Trump’s public attacks on them contributed to the FBI’s decision to fire Strzok and Page’s resignation.

Deposing Trump is the last step in the process of evidence gathering connected to the lawsuit, which has also resulted in depositions of FBI Director Christopher Wray and other senior FBI and DOJ officials.

The effort to depose Trump has been laborious. An earlier scheduled deposition in the spring was postponed after the Justice Department sought to block it altogether, claiming that Strzok and Page had failed to present evidence that Trump’s conduct had any bearing on their departures from the bureau. But Judge Amy Berman Jackson ordered a narrow and limited deposition of Trump despite DOJ’s efforts.

The Justice Department sought intervention from an appellate court to block Trump’s deposition, but an appeals court panel rejected the effort over the summer, putting Trump’s deposition back on track.

DocumentCloud

__________

• Trump suing ex-MI6 officer who alleged he was ‘compromised’ by Russian security service

Donald Trump is suing a former MI6 officer and the intelligence consultancy he founded, high court records in England show.

The former US president, who is mired in lawsuits in his own country, is bringing a data protection claim against Orbis Business Intelligence and its founder Christopher Steele, who previously ran the secret intelligence service’s Russia desk.

According to a court order published on Thursday, a two-day hearing for the legal action is set to start on 16 October , the PA news agency reported.

No other details of the case have been made available and the current frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination is not expected to attend.

Steele was the author of the so-called Steele dossier, which included allegations that Trump had been “compromised” by Russian security service the FSB.

The dossier, which was leaked to the website BuzzFeed in 2017, also alleged that Vladimir Putin “supported and directed” an operation to “cultivate” Trump as a presidential candidate for “at least five years”. Trump denied the claims.

Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence were previously sued for libel by Russian national Aleksej Gubarev over the publication of the dossier, claiming they were legally responsible for BuzzFeed publishing the dossier. However, in a judgment in October 2020, Mr Justice Warby dismissed the claim.

__________

Just for fun

• Rudy Giuliani’s Georgia Lawyer Ditches His Case

• Trump’s DC Case Judge Schedules Oct. 16 Hearing on Jack Smith’s ‘Narrow’ Gag Order Request

Prosecutors and attorneys for Donald Trump will debate a proposed "narrow" gag order that would limit the former president's speech regarding his criminal case tied to trying to overturn the 2020 election at a hearing on Oct. 16, a federal judge ordered on Friday.

Special Counsel Jack Smith on Sept. 15 requested a "narrow" gag order barring Trump from attacking government witnesses in the federal election obstruction case.

Among other public statements by Trump, Smith's office cited the former president's Aug. 4 post to his Truth Social platform just three days after his indictment in the case: "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!"

Smith's proposed order would bar "statements regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses" and "statements about any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflammatory, or intimidating."

Attorneys for Trump pushed back against Smith's request in a court filing this week, calling the proposed measure "unconstitutional on its face."

In their response, Trump's attorneys argued Smith's proposal "lacks any semblance of narrow tailoring, sweeping in, for instance, all 'disparaging' statements about any 'potential witnesses,' regardless of subject, and including individuals who are actively waging political campaigns against President Trump."

Prosecutors are scheduled to file a response to Trump's filing by Sept. 30.

________

• Judge in Trump racketeering case denies Kenneth Chesebro's motion to suppress evidence

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee on Friday denied a motion by former Trump campaign attorney Kenneth Chesebro to toss out emails and memos he wrote detailing a plan to use a Republican slate of electors in Georgia and six other swing states won by Democrat Joe Biden.

Chesebro’s lawyers had argued that the documents were protected under attorney-client privilege and should not be used against him in the sweeping election interference case brought by Fulton District Attorney Fani Willis. In an order issued Friday morning, McAfee said those protections are only meant to shield lawyers who are not suspects in a crime, and he referred to the defense motion as a “strained reading” of Georgia law.

McAfee wrote that documents accompanying a search warrant that turned up the memos “repeatedly refers to the Defendant as a ‘co-conspirator,’ ‘participant,’ ‘intermediary,’ and ‘liaison’ working with several other charged defendants in this case to further a ‘false elector plot’ in violation of several laws.”

The documents — which include emails to co-defendants John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani — are important to the state’s case against Chesebro and include a Jan. 4, 2021, email to Eastman that “outlined multiple strategies for disrupting and delaying the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021,” according to the indictment.

Chesebro faces five felony charges in the sprawling racketeering investigation brought against him, former President Donald Trump and 17 others who prosecutors claim attempted to illegally subvert the 2020 presidential election in Georgia and elsewhere.

McAfee dealt another blow to Chesebro’s defense Friday, denying another motion to dismiss the case entirely or to provide him with immunity from prosecution. Like other lawyers charged in the indictment, Chesebro has claimed he was merely providing legal advice to his client and should not be criminally charged.

McAfee said Chesebro is free to tell the jury that he “simply performed his legal duty to a client.”

“But it is irrelevant in the pretrial context of immunity, and this Court declines the invitation to supplant the jury’s role as the factfinder,” he wrote.

Jury selection to start in Chesebro-Powell trial Oct. 20

DocumentCloud - DocumentCloud

_________

five years of probation, pay a total of $5,000 and serve 200 hours of community service

• Trump Georgia election case defendant pleads guilty

First co-defendant in Trump Georgia election case pleads guilty

Scott Hall, one of 18 co-defendants of former President Donald Trump in the Georgia election interference case, pleaded guilty Friday to multiple criminal charges.

Hall, a bail bondsman, is the first defendant in the case to plead guilty in the case.

Hall confirmed in a court hearing that his plea deal requires him to testify in any further proceedings — including the trials of his co-defendants.

Hall’s change of plea ratchets up pressure on the other defendants in the case, who could face years in prison if convicted on the counts against them.

Hall will avoid spending time behind bars as part of the deal negotiated with prosecutors.

He guilty to five misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit intentional interference with performance of an election, Judge Scott McAfee said during a hearing in Fulton County Superior Court on Friday afternoon.

Hall will serve five years of probation as part of the sentencing agreement. He will also have to pay a total of $5,000 and serve 200 hours of community service, the judge said in that hearing.

Hall was originally charged with seven counts in the case, which alleges an illegal conspiracy by Trump and the other defendants to overturn President Joe Biden’s electoral victory in Georgia’s 2020 election.

Hall was accused of willfully tampering with electronic voting machines in Coffee County, Georgia, and of working with multiple other co-defendants, including the pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell, as part of that effort.

Like all other defendants in the case, Hall had pleaded not guilty to the charges brought by Atlanta District Attorney Fani Willis.

But earlier Friday, an attorney for Hall submitted a court filing waiving his indictment in the case.

_______

• Fulton County prosecutors may extend 'offers' to 2 defendants in Georgia election case

With less than a month to go before the first trial gets underway in the sweeping Georgia election interference case, prosecutors in the Fulton County district attorney's office on Friday suggested they may extend some sort of plea offer to the two defendants set to stand trial.

Former Trump campaign attorney Sidney Powell and lawyer Kenneth Chesebro are scheduled to stand trial on Oct. 23 after a judge severed their cases from the 17 other defendants following the pair's speedy trial requests.

Powell and Chesebro, along with former President Donald Trump and 16 others, have pleaded not guilty to all charges in a criminal racketeering indictment for alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state of Georgia.

The possibility of an offer was raised Friday during a virtual status conference, when Judge Scott McAfee brought up "disposition without a trial" and asked if the state "is planning to convey any offers in this case?"

Prosecutor Nathan Wade responded that attorneys in the DA's office "have not made an offer." The judge then followed up, asking, "Is the state in the position to be able to make one in the near future?"

"Judge, I believe that we can," Wade replied. "We'll sit down and kind of put some things together and we'll reach out to defense counsel individually to extend an offer."

• Trump’s attack on Milley fuels special counsel’s push for a gag order

Special counsel Jack Smith’s office argued Friday that Donald Trump’s recent attacks on Gen. Mark Milley and one of their own newly appointed prosecutors bolster their case to put a gag order on the former president ahead of his trial in Washington, D.C.

In a 22-page filing, senior assistant special counsel Molly Gaston said prosecutors rejected Trump’s claims that their proposed gag order was an attempt to silence him on the campaign trail. Rather, she said, it was an effort to prevent him from trying to make “use of his candidacy as a cover for making prejudicial public statements about this case.”

“[T]here is no legitimate need for the defendant, in the course of his campaign, to attack known witnesses regarding the substance of their anticipated testimony,” Gaston wrote.

The filing is prosecutors’ last word to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan ahead of an Oct. 16 hearing on Smith’s proposed gag order. Since their original request, which was unsealed last week, Trump has unleashed a social media attack on Milley — suggesting he should have been put to death for treason — who is expected to be a witness in the case against him.

“[N]o other criminal defendant would be permitted to issue public statements insinuating that a known witness in his case should be executed,” Gaston wrote. “This defendant should not be, either.”

And after POLITICO revealed Smith’s appointment of a longtime war crimes prosecutor to his team, Trump uncorked another attack on Smith’s office. Prosecutors cited that attack as a potential danger as well.

Prosecutors say that Trump’s attacks are a form of witness intimidation and a way to taint the jury pool ahead of his highly anticipated trial, which Chutkan has scheduled for March 4. The judge has warned Trump to refrain from “inflammatory” comments about the case and suggested she could expedite his trial if they continue. Earlier this week, Chutkan denied Trump’s bid to remove her from the case.

Smith’s team also says Trump’s attacks on their office and on the judge herself threaten to taint the upcoming trial or drive up dangerous threats.

Prosecutors also sharply rejected efforts by some of Trump’s advisers to explain away some of his statements. They noted that after a Trump aide suggested the former president had purchased a firearm in South Carolina — a potential violation of federal law, since he’s under criminal indictment — his team later walked it back.

“The defendant either purchased a gun in violation of the law and his conditions of release, or seeks to benefit from his supporters’ mistaken belief that he did so,” Smith’s team said.

Smith’s office also rejected Trump’s argument that the indictment does not formally accuse Trump of having a role in the violence that unfolded on Jan. 6, instead accusing Smith of unfairly linking Trump to the riot in a brief public statement announcing the indictment last month.

“[T]he indictment does in fact clearly link the defendant and his actions to the events of January 6,” Gaston wrote. “In short, the indictment alleges that the defendant’s actions, including his campaign of knowingly false claims of election fraud, led to the events of January 6.”

DocumentCloud

• Trump claims he’ll attend New York business fraud trial, pushing back Florida deposition

Former President Donald Trump plans to attend his New York business fraud trial in person next week, he revealed in an unrelated court filing Friday, requesting a deposition in another case be rescheduled.

Trump’s deposition in his civil lawsuit against former attorney Michael Cohen was scheduled for Tuesday, the day after the New York business fraud trial begins. In light of the overlap and Trump’s intent to attend the beginning of the New York trial, the Miami judge granted Trump’s request and rescheduled the Florida deposition for October 9.

Trump’s civil suit against Cohen alleges that the former attorney broke his duty of confidentiality with the former president and broke other contracts by disparaging him in the media.

“Plaintiff represented that, now that pretrial rulings have been entered in the case that materially altered the landscape, it was imperative that he attend his New York trial in person — at least for each day of the first week of trial when many strategy judgments had to be made,” Judge Edwin Torres wrote in his decision.

The business fraud case found that Trump and his sons intentionally misled banks and insurance companies by inflating and deflating the value of their assets by at least $2.2 billion. A judge ruled last week that Trump and his company committed fraud, with the trial next week to determine damages.

________

• Judge shoots down bid by four Trump co-defendants to move Georgia criminal charges to federal court

Judge shoots down Jeff Clark’s bid to move Georgia criminal charges to federal court

Jeff Clark, the former Justice Department official charged alongside Donald Trump in a sweeping racketeering conspiracy in Georgia, failed to present evidence that the former president directed him to work on matters related to the 2020 election, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Court Judge Steve Jones, in a 31-page opinion, rejected Clark’s bid to transfer the criminal case against him to federal court. Clark, who was the acting head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division in the final weeks of the Trump presidency, is charged for his efforts to disseminate a DOJ letter that would have encouraged state legislatures in several Biden-won states to hold emergency sessions and reconsider the results of the 2020 election.

“Other than his counsel’s own vague and uncertain assertions, the Court has no evidence that the President directed Clark to work on election-related matters generally or to write the December 28 letter to the Georgia State Officials on their election procedures,” Jones wrote.

“No evidence in the Record definitively shows that the President directed Clark to write the letter,” he continued. “Instead, the evidence before this Court does not show the President’s involvement in this letter specifically until the January 3 meeting where the President decided not to send it to the Georgia officials.”

Clark is one of five Trump co-defendants who sought to move his case to federal court, contending that the charges against him sought to criminalize his work as a federal government official that was authorized by Trump himself. Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows made similar arguments at a hearing before Jones earlier this month, which also resulted in a denial.

Clark argues that his efforts to provide advice to Trump — even if that advice was ultimately rejected — can’t be the basis of a criminal case.

But Jones found that Clark failed to present evidence that his work on election-related matters was part of the scope of his government responsibilities. Clark’s DOJ supervisors have publicly testified that Clark was operating far outside his job responsibilities when he spearheaded the drafting of the Dec. 28 letter.

DocumentCloud

_______

• Indicted Georgia Trump electors can't take case to federal court

Cathy Latham, Shawn Still and David Shafer were among the 16 Republicans who signed Electoral College documents claiming Trump won the election

Three Georgia Republicans who signed Electoral College documents claiming Donald Trump won the 2020 election can't be tried in federal court.

U.S. District Judge Steve C. Jones ruled Friday that Cathy Latham, Georgia state Sen. Shawn Still and David Shafer were not acting as federal officials when they met Dec. 14, 2020, to cast presidential elector ballots on behalf of Trump.

"The Court ultimately concludes that (the electors were) not a federal officer when (they) acted as a Republican-nominated presidential elector because presidential electors are not federal officers," a ruling stated.

The three Republicans didn't appear at a hearing last week regarding their request. Their attorneys argued they passed the three-condition test needed to move their case out of Fulton County Superior Court because they were federal officials who acted under the asserted authority of their office.

Craig Gillen, an attorney for Shafer, argued that the elector role is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution and the 1887 Electoral Count Act.

The Democratic and Republican presidential electors were "contingent" until Congress made its final ruling because an election challenge filed by Trump and Shafer hadn't been resolved by Dec. 8, 2020 — the so-called "Safe Harbor" date, Gillen asserted.

Further, Gillen and other attorneys for the electors argued that state law covered only the appointment process of electors. Federal law oversees the casting of Electoral College ballots, and the governor's certification is not the final word in the process. They said that is the first step before an election can be challenged.

Special prosecutor Anna Cross rejected those arguments, calling them "wrong. Nonsense. Unsupported. Fantasy." The DA's Office said the electors were indeed "fake" who acted to further the goals of the Trump campaign.

Cross also argued that if an election challenge was successful, the proper remedy would be a new election — not handing the victory to Trump.

Latham, the former Coffee County GOP chair, also allegedly played a key role in the copying of sensitive election data and software in Coffee County. She faces 11 charges tied to both events.

Still, the only current elected official indicted in the case, faces seven charges, including impersonating a public officer and forgery. He was elected to office following his alleged role in this plot.

Shafer, the former head of the Georgia Republican Party, faces eight charges, including impersonating a public officer and a count of false statements and writings. Shafer led the meeting of Trump electors at the Georgia State Capitol on Dec. 14, 2020.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...19434.27.0.pdf

Every snake oil salesman in history has been drummed out of town in the end. It is Donald's turn.....

Originally Posted by S Landreth

“Plaintiff represented that, now that pretrial rulings have been entered in the case that materially altered the landscape, it was imperative that he attend his New York trial in person — at least for each day of the first week of trial when many strategy judgments had to be made,” Judge Edwin Torres wrote in his decision.

So trump said he'd be at one trial in person next week so he could skip a deposition in another trial. I wonder what Cohen is going to file when trump doesn't show or only makes a token appearance.