Trump attorney wants to propose a 'counter-judgment' in $355M civil fraud case: court docs – Raw Story
Kathleen Culliton is Raw Story's assistant managing editor. She's been covering local and national news for more than a decade for outlets that include the New York Post, Al Jazeera, DNAinfo New York, Bustle, the New York Daily News, WNYC, NY1, City Limits and the New York City Patch. Kathleen is a proud alumna of the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. Here's a shocker; she is from New York City.
Former President Donald Trump’s attorney Wednesday demanded the chance to propose a “counter-judgment” in his client’s $355 million civil fraud trial, court records show.
Clifford Robert filed a letter in the New York City civil court addressed to Justice Arthur Engoron complaining of the landmark ruling that also banned Trump from doing business in the state for three years.
Robert argues Trump was “deprived” the chance to speak out against the ruling before it was filed.
“Because the decision ordinarily entails more complicated relief, the instruction contemplates notice to the opponent so that both parties may either agree on a draft or prepare counter proposals to be settled before the court,” Robert argues.
“Defendants therefore request that the Court set a return date for the Proposed Judgment that affords Defendants sufficient time to submit a proposed counter-judgment.”
Robert signs his letter with a “respectfully,” which represents a sharp shift in tone from the outraged notice he sent Engoron earlier this month accusing the judge of “unprecedented, inappropriate and troubling” antics.
Engoron slapped back to that message with a scathing letter of his own in which he called Robert’s letter “completely out of bounds.”
“You and your co-counsel have been questioning my impartiality since the early days of this case, presumably because I sometimes rule against your clients,” Engoron wrote.
“That whole approach is getting old.”
ALSO READ: How Speaker Mike Johnson’s dream of bipartisan decency died in his hands
The next time the public heard from Engoron about the case was when he issued his ruling against Trump, his two sons and former CFO Allen Weisselberg, all of whom have been found liable of defrauding investors by inflating Trump Organization assets.
Trump has decried the ruling and vowed to appeal, but his financial hands are legally tied by the presence of a court-appointed monitor keeping an eye on his business dealings and a looming deadline to come up with cash or bond.
Donald Trump's niece on Wednesday provided some insider family information on how the former president might react to recent statements by Letitia James, who prosecuted the fraud case in which he was ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars.
Mary Trump outlined a number of recent developments that could hurt her ex-president relative, including James suggesting Trump wouldn't be successful in appealing the case.
But what really got his goat, according to Mary Trump, is James' suggestion that her office "will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets."
ALSO READ: How Speaker Mike Johnson’s dream of bipartisan decency died in his hands
Mary Trump says her uncle will take that comment personally.
"Knowing Donald as I do, here’s why I know this statement will make push him closer to the edge," she wrote. "First, James implies that there’s a possibility Donald does not have enough cash to satisfy the judgment; that alone is enough to enrage him."
She then added that Trump "is obsessed with his net worth and he goes to great lengths to convince people he is enormously wealthy."
"t’s a significant part of his identity," she added.
Delving into his psyche, Mary Trump says, "The urgency with which he clings to the the false idea that he is richer, more successful, and more talented than he is serves to hide the truth – not just from us, but from himself – that he is, quite simply, a loser."
Mary Trump also pointed to this comment from James.
"We are prepared to make sure that the judgment is paid to New Yorkers, and yes, I look at 40 Wall Street each and every day," James said, referring to the Trump Building in Manhattan.
"While you’re at it, A.G. James, how about Trump Tower?" Mary Trump asked.
A new claim of judicial bias against Donald Trump in a criminal case arose and was smacked down on the same day on Wednesday.
A Breitbart reporter earlier in the day stated that Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee is biased against Trump in the criminal case alleging a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election in the state. Wendell Husebø reported that the judge "donated to Fani Willis," the prosecutor who is charging that case.
"The donation of $150, though small, appears to present a conflict of interest for Judge McAfee," he wrote. "Judges are supposed to be impartial and avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. The judge donated to Willis in June 2020, while working for Joe Biden's DOJ."
ALSO READ: How Speaker Mike Johnson’s dream of bipartisan decency died in his hands
A conservative account responded to the report in the comments.
"So citizens should not donate to politians[sic] just in case they get appointed to the bench in the future?" the X user asked. "Is that the new rule?"
Georgia State law professor Anthony Michael Kreis took a moment to respond to the new allegation.
"This is non-news," he wrote Wednesday. "Sincerely, Anyone familiar with Georgia law and politics."
When asked to elaborate further, the professor told Raw Story that "exceptionally small donations do not constitute a conflict of interest. This stuff has been litigated extensively."
Anna Bower of Lawfare also claimed that "this is a nothingburger."
"Judge McAfee donated a small sum to Fani Willis's campaign in 2020—*before* he was appointed to the bench," Bower said. "And Georgia courts have held that nominal campaign contributions are an insufficient basis for judicial recusal. There's no conflict of interest."
She added:
"And, yes, Judge McAfee used to work under Fani Willis when he was an assistant prosecutor in Fulton County. (This was long before Willis ran for DA.) Again, not a sufficient basis for judicial recusal, as the Georgia Supreme Court has held."
"Shocked," a legal expert said on Wednesday after detailing a new Donald Trump filing in which his "angry" attorneys demanded a stay of the massive civil fraud judgment.
MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin took to social media to explain some of the newest revelations in the fraud case, which saw the ex-president being found liable for fraud and ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars. There has been a lot of speculation as to how Trump will pay the hefty fee.
But Rubin is paying more attention to the fact that Trump's lawyers earlier had asked Justice Engoron "for time to submit a proposed counter-judgment even though it should be a relatively plain statement of the injunctive relief Engoron ordered plus some math to fill in the pre-judgment interest."
ALSO READ: How Speaker Mike Johnson’s dream of bipartisan decency died in his hands
In response, Rubin reported, "Judge Engoron tells Team Trump, via email, that they need to state specific objections to the AG's proposed judgment by 5 p.m."
"I have compared the language of the Attorney General’s proposed judgment to the language of my February 16, 2024 Decision and Order, and the former exactly tracks the latter (except for the addition of defendants’ addresses and blanks for interest amounts)," according to Engoron's email.
Rubin reports that Trump's team responded by "demanding" a stay.
"Defendants respectfully submit that the concerns raised in their letter of today’s date about the Attorney General’s unilateral submission of a proposed Judgment to the Clerk of the Court, stating that it is made 'on motion,' merit full compliance with the CPLR and the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court and the County Court," the reply states. "Should the Court decide that the standard processes set forth in the CPLR and the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court and the County Court do not apply in this case, and proceed to enter the Attorney General’s proposed Judgment, Defendants request the Court stay enforcement of that Judgment for thirty (30) days."
Rubin reacted:
"Trump's lawyers, angry that Judge Engoron is apparently not going to allow motion practice on reducing his opinion to a formal judgment, demands a 30-day stay of any entered judgment instead. Shocked," the former litigator wrote.
Copyright © 2024 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | Manage Preferences | Debug Logs
For corrections contact corrections@rawstory.com , for support contact support@rawstory.com .