Donald Trump faced a double whammy when a Manhattan judge on Friday berated the former president’s attorneys and ruled he must be tried on fraud charges — hours before the Trump-era ban on bump stocks was lifted.
Judge Arthur Engoron said lawyers for Trump and his Trump organization “should have known better” than to recycle what he says were frivolous, baseless arguments in the paperwork to dismiss New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit .
James, a Democrat, sued Trump, his adult children Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka, and the Trump Organization last September, demanding $250 million and a permanent ban on the former president from doing business in New York state.
News of the fraud case came hours before a federal appeals court in New Orleans struck down a Trump administration ban on bump stocks — devices that allow a shooter to quickly fire multiple shots from semi-automatic weapons after an initial trigger pull.
The ban was imposed after a gunman, sitting in a high-rise hotel and using baton-equipped guns, massacred dozens of people in Las Vegas in 2017.
A New York judge said former President Trump faces a lawsuit from the attorney general’s office accusing him of fraudulently overvaluing his real estate company’s assets and his own fortune
In the fraud case, Judge Arthur Engoron criticized Trump attorneys in his nine-page decision
In the fraud case, Judge Arthur Engoron criticized Trump attorneys in his nine-page decision, even quoting baseball great Yogi Berra, writing that the bulk of their arguments – including Trump’s oft-repeated claim that the lawsuit was part of a politically motivated ‘witch hunt’ – were again a ‘Déjà-vu’.
Engoron dismissed defense claims that James waited too long to sue, failed to prove fraud and should have better justified the $250 million in damages she was seeking.
He also said Ivanka Trump could be sued despite her claims she didn’t falsify estimates and hasn’t worked for the Trump Organization since 2017, and said she could be held liable for involvement in “continuing wrongs.”
The judge also ruled not to punish the defendants for making arguments including that James was engaged in a political “witch hunt” and had no legal authority to sue.
The lawsuit, filed in September, alleges that Trump and the Trump Organization misled banks and others about the value of valuable assets, including golf courses and hotels, that bear his name
“An experienced defender should have known better,” wrote Engoron nonetheless.
The lawsuit, filed in September, alleges that Trump and the Trump Organization misled banks and others about the value of valuable assets, including golf courses and hotels, that bear his name.
“Once again, Donald Trump’s attempts to evade the law have been rebuffed,” James said in a statement.
“We sued Mr. Trump because we found he had engaged in extensive financial fraud for years to enrich himself and to defraud the system. Today’s decision makes it clear that Donald Trump is not above the law and must answer for his actions in court.’
She also wants to bar the Trumps from conducting business in New York and ban Trump and his firm from acquiring real estate there for five years. A trial on October 2 is planned.
Trump attorney Alina Habba said they plan to appeal Engoron’s verdict, just the latest he has issued against Trump or Trump-related interests while directing matters related to the lawsuit and an underlying investigation by his company.
New York State Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, is demanding $250 million and a permanent ban on Republican Trump from doing business in the state
Last year, Engoron scorned Trump and fined him $110,000 after he was slow to hand over the documents.
He also forced him to testify to James’ investigators. In that statement, Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination more than 400 times.
In November, Engoron said he was appointing an independent observer “to ensure there is no further fraud” at the Trump Organization restricting its ability to freely conduct business, sell assets and change its corporate structure while the lawsuit is pending is.
The lawsuit is one of many legal issues affecting Trump, who is seeking another term as president in 2024.
These include criminal investigations related to the FBI’s seizure of government documents from his Florida home and his role in efforts to overturn or interfere with the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Manhattan DAs are also conducting a criminal investigation related to James’ civil trial, and the Trump Organization faces a Jan. 13 conviction after being convicted in another New York tax fraud case
The case revealed how the Trump Organization helped executives evade taxes on extravagant perks like apartments and luxury cars.
The company faces a $1.6 million fine and is scheduled to be convicted on January 13.
A federal appeals court in New Orleans on Friday overturned a Trump administration ban on bump stocks, devices that allow a shooter to quickly fire multiple shots from semi-automatic weapons after an initial trigger pull
In the wake of the former Trump administration’s ban on stockpiles — a U.S. objection banned the devices that allow people to quickly fire multiple shots from semi-automatic weapons.
Gun rights advocates had challenged this in several courts. The 13-3 ruling by the US Fifth Circuit is the latest on this matter, which is likely to be decided before the Supreme Court.
However, the decision has no immediate impact on the ban as the case now goes back to the lower court to decide how to proceed.
The case was somewhat unique in that it was not about the Second Amendment but about the interpretation of federal law.
Opponents of the ban argued that stockpiles do not fall under the definition of illegal machine guns in federal law. The US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says they do, a position now defended by the Biden administration.
The ban on supplies was introduced after a gunman used it to kill 58 people at a Las Vegas country music concert in October 2017. Pictured are people visiting a makeshift memorial honoring the victims of the mass shooting
“A simple reading of the statute text, coupled with a close look at the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, shows that a buttstock is exempt from the technical definition of ‘machine gun’ given in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act,” wrote Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod in the leading majority opinion.
The court found that the definition of a machine gun — set out in two different federal statutes — “does not apply to stores.”
The ban had survived challenges from the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati; the Denver-based 10th Circuit; and the Federal Circuit Court in Washington. A panel of three judges of the 5th federal court also ruled in favor of the ban, upholding a lower court decision of a Texas federal judge. But the entire New Orleans court voted to reconsider the case. Arguments were heard on September 13th.
Bump stocks use the recoil energy of a semi-automatic firearm so that a trigger “resets and continues to fire without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter,” according to the ATF.
A burst fire stock is attached to a semi-automatic rifle to increase the rate of fire
According to court records, a shooter must apply constant forward pressure on the gun with the non-shooting hand and constant pressure on the trigger with the trigger finger.
The entire Court of Appeal sided with the opponents of the ATF regulation on Friday. They had argued that the trigger itself works multiple times when using a truncheon, so truncheon weapons do not qualify as machine guns under federal law.
They point to legal language that defines a machine gun as one that fires multiple times with a “single trigger action.”
The majority of the majority also agreed that if the law is ambiguous, it is up to Congress to address the issue under a court doctrine known as “Lenity.”
In a contradiction, Judge Stephen Higginson disagreed that bump stocks do not fall under the federal definition of machine guns. And he wrote that the majority took the principle of forbearance too far.
“Under the majority rule, the accused wins whenever the government fails to prove that a law clearly criminalizes the behavior of the accused,” Higginson wrote.
Richard Samp, who argued against the rule on behalf of a Texas gun owner, said he was pleased with Friday’s ruling and expected it after the September clashes.
Judges who ruled against the ban were Elrod, Priscilla Richman, Edith Jones, Jerry Smith, Carl Stewart, Leslie Southwick, Catharina Haynes, Don Willett, James Ho, Kyle Duncan, Kurt Engelhardt, Cory Wilson and Andrew Oldham.
All but Stewart are Republican appeals court appointments.
Judges James Dennis and James Graves joined Higginson’s objection.
The case was heard before Judge Dana Douglas, a recently appointed judge appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, joined the 5th Circuit.