2 Looming Rulings Could Shape Trump’s Fraud Trial in New York

Spread the love

After four years of investigating and litigating, Letitia James was finally due for her day in court against Donald Trump.

But with that day fast approaching — a trial in her civil fraud lawsuit against him is scheduled to start Oct. 2 — the former president’s lawyers threw a legal Hail Mary that could delay the case and seeks to gut it altogether.

The last-ditch move that left the trial in limbo came in a familiar form for the famously litigious Trump: He filed a lawsuit.

Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times

His targets were James, the New York attorney general, and the judge overseeing the trial, Arthur Engoron. Trump’s lawsuit argues that they ignored a June appeals court ruling that excused Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, from the case and also raised the notion that some of the accusations against the former president and his company might be too old to go to trial.

Trump’s lawsuit — and in turn the fate of James’ case against him — hinges on a passage in the June appeals court ruling that has become a legal Rorschach test of sorts, in which each side sees what they want. Trump’s lawyers are convinced that the June ruling effectively tossed out the claims against him, while James’ team has argued that it had little effect on the accusation at the heart of her case — that Trump overstated his net worth by billions of dollars in his annual financial statements.

Christopher Kise, a lawyer for Trump, recently argued to Engoron that James’ legal strategy was predicated on ignoring the appeals court’s decision.

“The foundation of the case is ignore everything except for what they want you to focus on,” he said. Kise separately asked the appeals court to delay the trial while it considered Trump’s lawsuit against James and Engoron. One of the appeals court judges granted a provisional delay, which teed up the case to be considered by the full appellate court panel.

The attorney general’s office called Trump’s lawsuit “brazen and meritless,” saying in court papers that it reflected a complete misunderstanding of the June appeals court decision. The decision, James’ office argued, left it up to Engoron to decide which claims against Trump can stay and which are so old that they must go.

The high-stakes battle is coming to a head this week, with Engoron expected to issue his ruling by Tuesday. He has already expressed sympathy with some of James’ arguments: At a court appearance last week, addressing Kise, Engoron pounded his fist in apparent frustration and remarked, “You cannot make false statements and use them in business.”

After Engoron decides which of James’ claims can proceed to trial, the appeals court is expected to rule on Trump’s lawsuit against James and Engoron, perhaps as soon as Thursday, according to a spokesperson for the New York State Court system.

When the appeals court issues its ruling, there is no telling whether it will resolve the confusion about its original decision in June. It could simply decide that the timing of Trump’s lawsuit was improper and allow the trial to proceed as planned, potentially with major repercussions for the future of the former president’s family business. (James is seeking a roughly $250 million penalty and wants to oust Trump and his adult sons from leading their own company).

But if the appeals court sides with Trump, it could delay or defang the case before the trial even begins.

Some legal experts said that was unlikely to happen. David B. Saxe, who served nearly 20 years on the same appeals court, said the lawsuit seemed like an attempt to interfere with Engoron’s implementation of that court’s June order. “I think it won’t fare well,” he said.

A lawyer for the New York court system, Michael Siudzinski, declined to comment on the lawsuit against Engoron.

The legal battle traces back to last year, when James sued Trump, his family business and three of his children, including Ivanka Trump. James accused them of lying about the former president’s net worth to secure favorable loans and other financial benefits. The Trumps, she said, fraudulently inflated the value of his assets, some years by more than $2 billion, on annual financial statements they submitted to banks and insurers.

Donald Trump’s lawyers moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing in part that James was dredging up conduct that was so old that she had missed her window to bring the case. They also tried to change judges — they no longer wanted to contend with Engoron, who oversaw issues that arose during the investigation and who held Trump in contempt last year for failing to comply with a subpoena.

But Engoron remained on the case and rejected Trump’s arguments for dismissal, prompting the former president to appeal.

Trump’s daughter, represented by her own legal team, appealed as well. And in June, the appeals court agreed to dismiss her from the case, ruling that the claims against her were too old to proceed.

But the decision was less clear-cut when it came to her father.

The appeals court raised the prospect that some of the claims against Donald Trump, his two adult sons and his company might also be too old. But instead of explicitly throwing out those claims, the court’s ruling used an opaque legal term.

The court ruled that any claims that “accrued” before February 2016 were off limits to James and effectively left it up to Engoron to sort out what that meant for Trump. The decision also left Engoron to decide whether Trump was bound by an agreement between his company and James — which he did not personally sign — that allowed her to reach back and include conduct that “accrued” as early as July 2014.

Soon, the meaning of “accrued” came up for debate among the lawyers scrutinizing the decision. The appeals court tried to explain itself in its ruling, defining “accrued” as the point at which “transactions were completed.” Which led, naturally, to confusion about the meaning of both “transactions” and “completed.”

It did not stop there. Another, even more convoluted legal concept was introduced in the appellate court ruling as well: the so-called continuing wrong doctrine. James had argued that Trump’s financial statements — which she said were chock-full of fraud — represented a series of “continuing wrongs” because he submitted them annually to banks after receiving the loans. So even if Trump received the loans before February 2016, his annual submissions of the financial statements allowed James to cite the loans at trial.

But the appeals court wrote that the continuing wrong doctrine did not extend the legal deadline for filing the case, commonly known as the statute of limitations.

To Trump’s lawyers, that sentence was the magic bullet they needed to kill the case. Given that the majority of the loans that James included in her lawsuit were completed before February 2016, they filed papers with Engoron over the summer arguing that the appeals court had effectively thrown out most of the attorney general’s case.

Amid all the confusion, Trump’s lawyers also recently asked Engoron to delay the trial. They argued that until the outstanding questions are answered, they do not know exactly who was going on trial, or for what.

In asking for the trial delay, they made their beliefs about the appellate ruling plain: “This clear directive leaves no doubt certain of the NY AG’s claims are in fact dismissed,” they wrote of the appeals court’s ruling, adding that Engoron had “no discretion.”

Engoron signaled his disagreement in a terse handwritten order in which he declined to delay the trial: “Defendants’ arguments are completely without merit,” he wrote.

Soon after, Trump sued him.

c.2023 The New York Times Company

EMEA Tribune is not involved in this news article, it is taken from our partners and or from the News Agencies. Copyright and Credit go to the News Agencies, email [email protected] Follow our WhatsApp verified Channel210520-twitter-verified-cs-70cdee.jpg (1500×750)

Support Independent Journalism with a donation (Paypal, BTC, USDT, ETH)

News Agencies

About Author

The latest news from the News Agencies

You may also like

Saudi Arabia imposes curfew

Saudi Arabia imposes curfew due to coronavirus in Makkah and Madina

Spread the loveSaudi Arabia’s government has decided to impose a 24-hour curfew in Makkah and Madina while tightening precautionary measures
saudi royal family

Dozens of Saudi royal family infected with coronavirus: report

Spread the loveRiyadh: 150 members of the Saudi royal family have been diagnosed with Coronavirus.   According to a US