TODAY'S NIFTY IDEA

 

Let's back up a bit. Remember Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn?

 

The guy who led "Lock her up" cheers at Trump rallies during the 2016 campaign? 

 

And then, during the transition, spoke with Russian Ambassador Kislyak several times and told him not to worry about the sanctions that Obama had imposed on the Russians for interfering with the 2016 election?

 

And then was appointed by Trump as his National Security Advisor?

 

And then was questioned by the FBI and denied that he had ever spoken to the Russian ambassador about sanctions?

 

And then lied to Vice President Pence and other members of the administration about his communications with Kislyak?

 

And then Trump fired Flynn, making the latter's tenure of 24 days in office the shortest in history?

 

And then Trump asked FBI head Comey "to go easy on Flynn -- he's a nice guy.,"

 

And then Flynn was indicted by a Mueller grand jury for making false statements to the FBI?

 

 And then Flynn pled guilty and admitted in open court that he "willfully and knowingly made false, fictitious, and fraudulent" statements to the FBI?

 

And then repeated those admissions to Judge Sullivan in a hearing several months later?

 

And then, just before sentencing, got a new lawyer, withdrew his plea of guilty, and insisted that he was "not guilty." He told the court his earlier admissions of guilt were the result of inadequate lawyering by his counsel at the D.C. firm of Covington and Burling,

 

And then William Barr's Department of Justice announced it was dropping the case against Flynn on the ground that Flynn's lies were neither "relevant" nor "material," even though all DOJ lawyers who had worked on the case refused to sign on to Barr's request?

 

And then, in his effort to pervert justice, Barr ran into an obstacle: The Law. Barr's right to dismiss the Flynn indictment was not absolute. The Federal Criminal Rules require the government to obtain "leave of court," to dismiss an indictment," and so Barr had to make a motion in the District Court for an order dismissing the case.

 

And then Judge Emmett Sullivan, said "Huh, whyzat? You want my leave to dismiss the prosecution, then you gotta tell me more about why you want to drop this prosecution. I need to inquire, I need to learn. Is this is in the best interest of justice?" Sullivan wanted to listen to both sides of the question, and certainly could not expect to get Barr to present arguments in opposition to his own motion for dismissal. So Sullivan asked retired federal judge John Gleason (EDNY) to write a "friend of the court" brief and make arguments in opposition to the DOJ application, and also consider whether he should hold Flynn in criminal contempt. Sullivan set a hearing date for July 16, 2020,

And then Flynn's lawyer's said Sullivan was biased and should be replaced, and made an application to the DC Court of Appeals for a "special writ" to reverse Sullivan's order, and to dismiss the case against Flynn,

 

And then in June, the appellate court, by a vote of 2 to 1, did just that. The court found that District Judge Sullivan lacked the power to question the prosecutor's decision. In this case, the appeals court held, "leave of court" did not really mean "leave of court," and Judge Sullivan was required to grant Barr's motion to dismiss,

 

And there's lots of interesting things about this Circuit Court decision. First, it was written by Judge Naomi Rao, one of three Trump appointees among the twelve active judges on the court. Judge Rao was critical of  District Judge Sullivan for seeking  "amicus briefs", i.e.,  legal briefs from non-party participants. Yet Flynn's application before the Court of Appeals was supported by an extraordinary list of amicus briefs in support of Flynn. The list included the DOJ, Attorneys General of fifteen "red" states, eleven House members, Mitch McConnell and six other Senators, and others. Given that the issue involved here has NOTHING to do with state or congressional issues, this is simply astonishing. There is nothing subtle about the Trump political push in favor of Flynn,

 

And then the D.C. Circuit Court of appeals, sitting en banc,  (all 12 active judges participate) vacated the 2-1 Rao panel decision, and on August 10 heard argument on whether to permit District Judge Sullivan go forward with his planned hearing on Barr's motion to dismiss the indictment.

 

All of which makes me wonder about the possibilities in this bizarre scenario:

 

One of the arguments made by Gleason, and the dissenting panel judge, was that Flynn's application for a writ was premature. The law disfavors making decisions based upon speculation, especially in cases such as this one. Flynn had asked the Circuit Court panel to reverse a decision that Judge Sullivan had not yet made. If Sullivan had not been interrupted by this premature appellate wrangling, he might have granted the DOJ's motion to drop the indictment, and that would have been the end the matter. We can avoid this "prematurity" issue by letting Sullivan hold his "hearing," as suggested by Gleason and by the dissent in the Circuit Court panel decision.

Media observers to the en banc court argument expect Gleason to prevail, and the court to deny Flynn's application, and send the matter back to Sullivan to hold his hearing.

 

Now matters become overtly political.

 

If Sullivan were permitted to hold his hearing, his opinion might be explosive. Whether he ultimately dismissed the Flynn indictment or not, Sullivan might openly castigate Barr's decision to remake the DOJ into an unabashed servant to the wishes of Master Trump. I can see the media lede: "Sullivan finds Barr guilty of re-engineering a dramatic redefinition of the word 'Justice' following the words 'Department of.' "

 

In the heat of a bitter presidential electoral campaign, even  Fox News would have to report that judicial decision, though it might consign the news bulletin to a 3 a.m. slot.

 

Now, if, as expected, the en banc court permits Sullivan to hold his hearing, we might expect Flynn, (and Barr!), to seek an immediate stay from the Supremes, accompanied by a petition for the Court to take the case. It takes four votes to grant a cert petition, five to grant a stay. 

 

So once again, we revisit the importance of McConnell's manipulation of the Senate to steal the Garland seat, and once again we hold our breath in the hopes that the indomitable RBG  remains indomitable. And once again we test out the "balls and strikes" claim of political impartiality of the Chief Justice, who would likely cast the deciding vote on the stay application.

 

The timing of this process is fascinating. Barring a pardon, either way, Flynn loses. If the Supreme Court denies the stay, Sullivan has his hearing, and both Flynn and Barr end up in the stewpot.

 

If the Court grants the stay, and agrees to hear the case on the merits, it would likely not be able to calendar argument until a date subsequent to January 21. Unless Flynn is pardoned by Trump, Biden's new Attorney General might well withdraw the dismissal motion. That, of course, would moot the Supreme Court appeal, and send the case back to District Judge Sullivan to set a date for Flynn's sentencing!

 

Howszat?

 

A bientot.

..........................................

As regular readers know, there is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you would like to receive a notice of each

 new posting, please click on this link: <a href="http://eepurl.com/gf7fS9">.

 

  

IT NEVER RAINS ...

 

 Let's back up a little bit. Readers might recall my blog piece entitled "Friday Night Massacre."  

 

The short version of that story was this:

 

Promptly after his election, Trump fired Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. As a replacement, Attorney General Sessions chose Geoffrey Berman, a New York Republican who had earlier served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the district. Berman interviewed with the President for the job, an unusual event.

 

But Berman disappointed Barr and Trump. Instead of playing nice, nice with Bill and Donald, Berman proceeded to indict i) the President's former lawyer Michael Cohen and named the President as an unindicted co-conspirator (the President was outraged, and said so), ii) a Republican Congressman named Collins, iii) Jeffrey Epstein, (which resulted in the resignation of Trump's Secretary of Labor, Acosta, who had screwed up the matter earlier in Florida), and iv) Parness and Fruman, acolytes of Rudy Giuliani.

 

Trump had not sent Berman's name to the Senate for confirmation, and after 120 days, Berman was selected as US Attorney by a unanimous vote of all of the judges in the district.

 

In June 2020, Barr announced that he was replacing Berman with Craig Carpenito, (the current New Jersey US attorney,) as temporary US attorney for the SDNY. Barr said the President would send up to the Senate the name of his golf buddy, Jay Clayton, for confirmation as the permanent US attorney for the district.

 

But Berman hung tough and said Barr did not have the right to fire him. Berman had been appointed by the SDNY judiciary, and was  entitled to remain on the job until his successor was named and confirmed by the Senate. After a brief war of words, Barr blinked, dropped Carpenito, and wrote that Berman's hand-picked number two, AUDREY STRAUSS, "would remain as head of the office until a permanent successor is in place." Berman declared victory and immediately resigned.

 

Why is it relevant to repeat all of this here? Because reasonable people wondered what was cooking in the SDNY that so frightened Barr and Trump. What was so important that the administration had to risk the scandal and try to replace Berman with a presidential golf buddy?

 

The speculation in the media revolved around Rudy Giuliani. It was regularly reported in the press that Berman had Rudy on the griddle.

 

But while Rudy has thus far avoided indictment, AUDREY STRAUSS has been busy with another key Trump advisor, Steve Bannon.

 

The Bannon indictment is delicious. He, and three co-conspirators, are accused of conspiracy to defraud, and money laundering, to the tune of more than $1 million in connection with an alleged "non-profit" entity called "We Build the Wall."

 

 

In the process of soliciting donations of more than $25 million to build a segment of the wall separating Mexico from the United States, Bannon and his three associates repeatedly pledged that no salaries would be paid to any of the four conspirators. They repeated again and again that "100% of the donations would go to the construction of a wall," and "not one penny" would go to any other purpose.  The website prepared by Bannon & Co. promised "All money donated to the We Build the Wall campaign goes directly to the wall!!! Not anyone's pocket."

 

Bannon and friends specifically promised that the founder of the We Build the Wall movement (defendant KOLFAGE) "would not be paid a dime." And that the corporation's advisory board, (which Bannon chaired!), would not be compensated.

 

But the four defendants  (Bannon, Kolfage, and two others) siphoned off more than $1,000,000 and enriched themselves by routing project funds through third-party entities, including one "under the control of defendant Bannon."

 

The Bannon entity, using funds stolen from We Build the Wall, paid over $120,00 to conspirator Kolfage, and in an effort to obscure the facts, Bannon's entity issued a 1099 tax form to Kolfage's spouse.

 

In all, Kolfage received from Bannon's entity and others, in excess of $350,000, which he used "To pay for his own personal expenses, including, among other purposes, home renovations, payments toward a boat, a luxury SUV, a golf cart, jewelry, cosmetic surgery, personal tax payments, and credit card debt".  Bannon, and the other defendants "each received hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds from We Build the Wall, which they each used to pay for a variety of personal expenses, including, among other things, travel, hotels, consumer goods and personal credit card debts. "

 

"Bannon's entity received over $1,000,000 from We Build the Wall. ...  Bannon used a substantial portion of those donor funds for personal use and expenses unrelated to We Build the Wall."

 

The scope of the fraud is indicated by the list of bank accounts  the government seeks to forfeit as proceeds of the fraud. Listed are 13 accounts scattered among seven banks, as well as a boat, an SUV, an "any and all property" involved in or traceable to the fraud.

 

The link to Trump is direct. Aside from the fact that Bannon is now at the very top of the swamp creatures list, Trump, as usual, stepped all over his lies in an effort to disassociate himself from the scandal.

 

Directly after Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss (remember her?) announced the indictment, the White House issued a statement that the President barely knew anyone on the Board of Directors of We Build the Wall. That was an out and out lie:

 

The Chairman of the Board was Steve Bannon.

 

The lawyer for the board was Kris Kobach, the right wing Kansas conservative whom Trump appointed to head up the commission searching for voter fraud. (He found none.)

 

The next "unknown" swamp creature is Eric Prince, the head of Blackwater, and the brother of Secretary of Education, Betsy de Vos.

 

Next in line is Dr. Robert Spalding a former "Senior Director for Strategy" for President Trump.

 

Next in line is a series of Tea Party and Breitbart supporters of right wing politics often quoted on Drudge and Breitbart.

 

It is clear the President knows most, if not all members of the Board and is very familiar with the organization.

 

Sons Donald Jr. and Eric have made statements in support of the project. "This is what capitalism is all about" said the elder son, and Eric posed for pictures and gave an award to defendant Kolfage at a Trumpettes award function at Mar-A-Lago. (No, I am not being sarcastic. There really is a group of women in Palm Beach who go by that name!)

 

Kobach, also a board member, is on record saying he had spoken to the President at least three times about We Build the Wall and on each occasion the President was enthusiastic about the project. The President is quoted as saying "You tell the guys at We Build the Wall that they have my blessing." Kobach said the President used those exact words.

 

 

 

Trump was Trump. His lies contradicted his lies. Despite the foregoing, he first said he knew nothing about the project, and then contradicted himself by saying he did know about it but didn't like the project because it was "showboating." (An interesting adverb coming from this reality-TV star.)

 

Acting SDNY US Attorney Strauss says US Attorney General Barr had been informed about the investigation. Is that why they fired Berman? If so, that was a whopping miscalculation!

 

Is there another shoe to be dropped? Giuliani? If one or more of the Bannon conspirators folds, is Kobach next in line? And Bannon is reported to be involved in yet another criminal investigation involving a Chinese billionaire and the Securities Exchange Commission. 

Lots of potential shoes.

 

Audrey Strauss may yet turn out to be The Spider Lady!

 

A bientot!

 

.......................................

As my regular readers know, there is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you want

 a notice of each new posting, just send me an email and I will add you to the notice list.  mlondon34@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SDNY v TRUMP

Score another victory for the good guys. Let’s back up a bit. Almost a year ago, Cyrus Vance, the District Attorney of New York County, served a grand jury subpoena on Trump's accountant, Mazars. The subpoena demanded production of business records going back eight years, including Trump's family jewels, his tax returns. In September, 2019, Trump sued to quash the subpoena on the ground that as president, he was absolutely immune from responding to a subpoena served by a state district attorney.

SDNY District Court Judge Victor Marrero wrote a brilliant 75-page opinion rejecting the immunity claim. 

By the way, even though this was a demand for Trump's pre-election business documents, Bill Barr's DOJ joined Trump's lawyer in seeking to quash the subpoena. (Was that legal? So what?)

The Second Circuit affirmed the Marrero decision. Surprise, surprise, Trump thought he would succeed in running out the clock by taking an appeal to the Supreme Court.

While most legal analysts thought the Court would reject the appeal as lacking in merit, they took the case and in June, 2020 held that Trump was not above the law, he was not immune from process issued by state grand juries.

 

But the Supremes dashed any hopes Trump would be required to turn over his tax returns before the election: it sent the case back to the District Court to permit Trump to argue that the subpoena was too broad, and uttered in bad faith.

Within days of that decision, District Judge Marrero brought the parties in and asked if there were anything more he need do. “Yes," asserted Trump's lawyer, "I will now move to quash the subpoena on the grounds that it is overly broad and in bad faith." He did that by filing an amended complaint, seeking relief on those grounds.

 

Marrero put the case on a short timetable. Trump argued  breadth and bad faith. Vance's response was filed on August 14. He urged that the Supreme Court had held there is no heightened standard the District Attorney need meet in crafting a subpoena just because the respondent was President of the United States. The grand jury had broad exploratory powers, the law granted grand jury subpoenas a presumption of validity, and Trump's litigation strategy was delay, delay, delay.

Within seven days of the filing of Vance's response, Judge Marrero issued a 103-page opinion. He basically disassembled every argument Trump's lawyer made. He ruled that Trump‘s amended complaint alleged no facts showing that the subpoena was overbroad. Just because one of Vance's aims was to dig into whether there were any state law violations in the manner in which Trump used his lawyer Michael Cohen to make hush-money payments to two women who alleged sexual adventures with Donald, does not mean that there were no documents that might be relevant to other things in which the grand jury might be interested.

Marrero even gave us an example of what may very likely come out of the Vance investigation. He wrote:

“For example, by comparing the Trump entities' final tax returns, financial statements, and independent auditor's reports ... to draft versions, and to information relied upon to prepare the returns and reports, the grand jury can assess whether any Trump entity has falsely recorded any financial transaction in violation of New York law."

And as to Trump's argument the subpoena was in bad faith because it copied the exact words of a Congressional subpoena, Marrero ruled that hardly was evidence of bad faith. The documents sought by Congress and by the New York grand jury might be relevant both to congressional purposes as well as to state law enforcement purposes. There is “dual sovereignty“ in the United States; a single act can give rise to both state and federal crimes.

 

Finally, the judge declined to give Trump yet another bite at the apple by serving a third complaint. The court noted that Trump used the route of filing a complaint instead of a motion to suppress, – a technical matter but an important one. If Trump had made a motion to suppress he would’ve had to include all his factual proof in his moving papers. He chose, instead, to file a complaint which, under the rules, can be a much vaguer document. But in this instance, Marrero found the complaint's vague allegations were insufficient.

 

In denying the Trump application for another chance at drafting as sufficient pleading, the judge referred to the Vance argument that Trump's entire litigation strategy was delay. Marrero held:

“While the court need not find here that the President has actually acted in a dilatory manner, the District Attorney's repeated assertions plainly support a finding that further amendment would be unduly prejudicial to the District Attorney. ... Justice requires an end to this controversy.“

 

Next stop: the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which, I suggest, will promptly affirm.

 

My guess is that’s the last stop on this train. The Supremes have already ruled on the law and sent the case back to the lower court to make factual determinations on the claim of overbreadth and bad faith. It is extremely unlikely that four Justices, even on this Supreme Court, would entertain a review of the findings made by the District Court and affirmed by the Circuit Court.

That means while it is unlikely, it is still possible for Vance to get his hands on Trump's tax returns and business records during the month of September.

Will we see them? Grand jury documents are secret -- except to the extent they are revealed in an indictment that is a public document.

Could we have an October Surprise? If there’s one thing Trump has learned from all of the indictments and litigation in the State and Federal Courts located in New York, it’s “Don’t screw with New Yorkers.“

 

And changing the Trumpian residence to Florida just ain't gonna help with that problem.

 

A bientot.

 

...........................................

As my regular readers know, there is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you want

 a notice of each new posting, just send me an email and I will add you to the notice list.  mlondon34@gmail.com

 

  

WOLF PACK DISSOLVED?

THE BIG BAD WOLF, Act II

Last week I reported on some of the misdeeds of Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad Wolf. Well, we are not yet at the conclusion of Act III, but here's the lightning bolt unleashed in Act II:

As you will recall, Wolf had been appointed Acting Secretary of Homeland Security by President Trump in February, 2020. Wolf replaced an interim Acting Secretary who replaced Kirstjen Nielsen, found to be insufficiently loyal to the President's agenda.

Wolf, on the other hand, was loyal to a “T.“ As a display of his ferocity, promptly after his appointment, he attacked all the residents of New York State for their insufficient loyalty at the polls in 2016. He entered a decree banning all New Yorkers from membership in the various airline travel perquisites. No more short lines at TSA's Trusted Traveler security posts, no more Global Entry to avoid lines at immigration counters.

The justification was that we were all threats to the government's anti-terror programs. Specifically Wolf scolded New York for failing to give ICE et. al. complete access to all DMV records, now that New York was permitting undocumented residents to obtain driver's licenses.

 He blatantly insulted New York in the process:

 “It’s particularly interesting coming from New York, again, from where 9/11 occurred ... . We want to make sure we share information and not continue to withhold information.“... New York is the only state, and I think that bears repeating, the only state that prohibits information sharing.“ 

New York State promptly sued Mr. Wolf in an effort to strike the ban. Wolf was, of course, represented in federal court by the Civil Division of the US Attorneys office, which, once again earned the sobriquet, “the Sovereign District of New York.“

In the early stages of the litigation,  the US Attorney’s office submitted sworn statements made by its client, and legal briefs based upon those statements. They argued that the singularity of New York’s decision was the basis, the justification, for the DHS  ban. So certain was the US Attorney‘s office as to the legal sufficiency and power of that claim, they moved for "summary judgment"-- a request that the judge enter a final judgment in  DHS's favor without a trial.

But as the time to argue that motion approached, there was a startling revelation. Audrey Strauss's team learned the statements made by their client were false. The entire basis for the Wolf decree disappeared instantly.  Given who they are, the US Attorneys office promptly advised the court that there was no substantive basis for Wolf's ban. His statements to the effect that New York was “the only state that prohibits information sharing“ were absolutely false. 

In other words, either Wolf knew his statement was a lie, or he didn't know what he was talking about and just made up a justification for punishing New York.  In any case, there was  no merit to DHS's defense of New York's lawsuit.

District Judge Jesse Furman found the confession “troubling" and demanded a detailed explanation as to how the U.S. Department of Homeland Security came to make false sworn statements to a U.S District Court. The explanation was due August 12. The U.S. Attorney‘s office asked for an extension of time to September 14. The judge gave them half a loaf. He demanded the complete report be filed no later than September 4, and warned that he was not likely to grant any further delay.

This morning’s press reports on yet another chapter to the Trump-DHS disgrace. The General Accounting Office has ruled that President Trump’s appointment of Wolf, and his top assistant  Cuccinello, were violations of federal law. In other words, those appointments were invalid from the git-go: Wolf was never legally the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security! 

The GAO did not take the bait, and declined to respond to the question on everybody’s lips: If he was not the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, is everything Wolf did in that capacity a nullity?

Not only is Wolf a non-official as far as DHS is concerned, but none of our immigration agencies have Senate-confirmed leaders either: i.e,  Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and US Citizenship and Immigration Services are all headed by non-Senate-confirmed  chiefs. And in the nine months since February, Trump has never sent Wolf's name to the Senate for confirmation. 

Don't bother researching for the outraged voices coming from the Republican leadership of the Senate about this end-run around Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Perhaps they recognize that as political eunuchs, they no longer have free will honestly to employ their "advice and consent."

Will the GAO's decision have any effect on the SDNY litigation? No way. Trump, of course rejects the ruling, as does Wolf. In any event, the DHS wolf-pack still needs to come forward and make new sworn statements explaining how and why they earlier filed false sworn statements.

What's next, a revelation that Trump is not qualified to be president because his parents were not citizens because their parents were immigrants?

Stay tuned. Nothing is off the table.

A bientot.

............................................

As my regular readers know, there is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you want

 a notice of each new posting, just send me an email and I will add you to the notice list. 

 mlondon34@gmail.com 



A WOLF IN TRUMP'S CLOTHING

 

Candidate Donald Trump vowed to "clean up the swamp in Washington."

 

Part of that cleansing was to appoint Chad Wolf as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security. (He has never  been confirmed by the Senate for that position, but that's a Trumpian stunt, the legality of which is beyond me.)

 

Upon graduation from college, Wolf became a staffer for several Republican senators, then worked for the TSA, then left to become a lobbyist for contractors who wanted to sell stuff to the TSA, then emerged from the swamp to go back to the TSA, after which Trump appointed him as Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

 

Trump, seeing a loyal soldier with the Trumpian values of dishonesty and cruelty, in November 2019, appointed Wolf to be Acting Secretary of DHS, where he didn't disappoint. In his brief tenure, he

 

i) Became an early architect of the Trumpian policy of separating immigrant children from their parents.

 

ii) Lied to Congress about his role in that program. Calls for his indictment were ignored by swampcreature William Barr.

 

iii) Sent untrained federal agents wearing unmarked camo uniforms into the streets of Portland Oregon, where they gassed, beat, and on some occasions illegally seized innocent protestors. His justification? The protestors were "violent anarchists."

 

iv) On February 5, 2020, entered an order excluding all New York residents from participating in Trusted Traveler and Global Entry programs.

 

v) In defending New York's court challenge of that order,  Wolf, (represented in court by the Civil Division of the SDNY US Attorneys Office) made submissions to the court (District Judge Jesse Furman) asserting that the ban was justified because New York's so-called sanctuary law was "unique, and precluded DHS from conducting adequate risk assessments of New York applicants for Trusted Traveler Programs."

 

What happened next was nothing short of extraordinary. On July 23, 2020, DHS announced it was rescinding its February ban, effective immediately.   Judge Furman promptly directed counsel to confer and advise him whether the rescission of the ban made the litigation moot.

 

(What a coincidence. My previous blog, I'm sure you will recall, was about the Supreme Court decision affirming a district court finding that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross was an out-and-out liar. What I neglected to include in that post was the not-so-small detail that Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in that case was 100% based on a meticulously detailed, 60-page opinion by the very same Judge Jesse Furman.)

Okay, back to our story. Why did DHS fold and rescind the ban on New Yorkers? Could it have something to do with the letter the SDNY US Attorney sent to Judge Furman within an hour of his request for the parties' view of the mootness question?

 

In fifty years of  federal civil and criminal litigation, I have never seen the likes of this one. US Attorney Audrey Strauss informed the court that her client DHS wished to withdraw its defense of New York State's legal attack because "newly disclosed facts" revealed that the government's submissions, some sworn, "are inaccurate in some instances and give the wrong  impression in others."  Moreover, the new revelations were so material as to "undermine a central argument" of the defense and even "undermined the 'rationale' for DHS' original decision and for defendants' 'defense' of that decision."

 

This is lawyer-talk for, "Judge, my client lied to me, and to you. Plaintiff is correct: The DHS ban has no legal justification and was 100% a political attack. There is no defense to New York's claims in this litigation."

 

Holy cow!  This is beyond just plain political scandal; now we are talking about real fraud on the court and perjury.

 

But exactly who said what? That's what Judge Furman wants to know, and he has entered an order that the media have barely reported. It is of huge significance to Wolf, Trump, and their stooges.

 

Within the next two weeks, the government must submit to the court:

 

1. A list of "any and all" inaccurate or misleading statements.

 

2. An explanation, with respect to each statement, why it is inaccurate or misleading.

 

3. An identification of who made each statement

 

4. A summary of "what due diligence" the US Attorney's office made to determine whether each statement was accurate.

 

5. A statement of when and how the US Attorney learned of the false statements, including who reported the inaccuracies in the first instance.

 

6. A description of "who, when, and how" DHS discovered the submissions to the court were false or misleading.

 

And the icing on the cake,

 

7. With respect to false statements made under oath, the declarant must submit a new sworn statement:

 

a) describing how he came to include a false statement in his sworn declaration,

 

b) what steps, if any, he took, to confirm accuracy before he signed the sworn declaration, and

 

c) when and how he learned his statement was false.

 

Phew.  And this is not the end. Furman warns the DHS declarants they may be required to testify at a hearing.

 

Will the person or persons at DHS who filed false sworn statements take the Fifth?

 

Will someone really come clean and report who said what to whom in the DHS?  There can be little doubt The-Liar-in-Chief was involved in the DHS ban, and perhaps even in the litigated defense of it.  Will his name come up in the responses to Furman's questions?

 

Governor Cuomo has called the entire episode "criminal" and he wants counsel fees and costs. This wouldn't be the first time Trump agreed to sanctions including counsel fees for unmeritorious litigation. (See footnote 2, below.)

 

Will Furman grant New York's request for further discovery?

 

What will the big bad Wolf do now? In "Little Red Riding Hood," the bad guy was decapitated by an axe-bearing woodsman. Will Wolfie survive this one?

 

 

This is more exciting than HBO's Perry Mason!

A bientot!

...................................

1, As  my regular readers know, there is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you want

 a notice of each new posting, just send me an email and I will add you to the notice list. 

 mlondon34@gmail.com

2. For the details of a litigation in which, on behalf of my client, I won counsel fees from Donald

Trump, see my memoir "The Client Decides," available on Kindle and at Amazon.