Skip to main content

On Monday, Donald Trump’s sparklemagic lawyer Alina Habba filed notice of his intent to appeal the order appointing an independent monitor to oversee the Trump Organization and ensure it does not move assets outside the jurisdiction of the New York Attorney General and the state’s courts.

Supreme Court Justice Engoron was scathing in his ruling last Thursday, finding that “the balancing of the equities tips, strongly, if not completely, in favor of granting a preliminary injunction, particularly to ensure that defendants do not dissipate their assets or transfer them out of this jurisdiction.”

“In the absence of an injunction, and given defendants’ demonstrated propensity to engage in persistent fraud, failure to grant such an injunction could result in extreme prejudice to the people of New York” by making assets unavailable for “potential disgorgement at the conclusion of this case,” he wrote, particularly singling out the former president’s eldest son who “signed off on representations to Mazars without performing the due diligence necessary to ensure their accuracy or compliance with GAAP [Generally Accepted Accounting Principals], raising serious doubt as to the reliability of future [statements of financial condition] for which Donald Trump Jr. may be responsible.”

Indeed, Justice Engoron’s order contained six references to false statements and documents issued by officers of the Trump Organization, such as CFO Allen Weisselberg assuring Zurich underwriters that outside appraisers had valued the properties for the company’s financial statements when, “in fact the Trump Organization itself concocted them out of whole cloth.”

In contrast, the issues presented in the notice of appeal seem almost comically vague:

  1. Whether Defendants have a likelihood of success on the merits in the underlying action, including, but not limited to, the viability of Defendants’ arguments regarding standing, capacity, and disclaimers.
  2. Whether the OAG was required to make a showing of irreparable harm and, if so, if such a showing was adequately made;
  3. Whether the balancing of the equities weighed in favor of the OAG and, if so, whether it was to a sufficient degree to warrant the granting of a preliminary injunction;
  4. Whether the OAG met its heightened burden to justify the extraordinary relief of the appointment of an independent monitor;
  5. Whether prejudgment attachment was authorized by law and, if so, whether the OAG made a sufficient showing to warrant same;
  6. Whether the Order is so vague and ambiguous that it is unenforceable;
  7. Whether the Court erred in adjudicating the rights of defendants who were not parties to the OTSC and had not yet answered or otherwise appeared in the underlying action.
  8. Whether the Court otherwise committed errors of fact and/or law or abused its discretion.

No properties were “attached.” But at least Habba didn’t repeat the claims Trump’s lawyers made in court describing the independent monitor as “nationalization” of the company, much less Trump’s screeching online and to the pitchfork mob about “communism come to our shores” and “a process of property confiscation, akin to Venezuela, Cuba, or the Soviet Union.”

Meanwhile, the Trump Organization has done everything but take out an ad in the paper announcing its intent to transfer property out of the jurisdiction of the court. (Ads are for calling to execute innocent young Black men.) Not only did it establish a Delaware LLC called Trump Organization II the very same day the AG filed her complaint, but Trump filed that batguano insane lawsuit last week demanding that a Florida state court intervene and declare it illegal for the New York Attorney General to even possess a copy of the Florida revocable trust which holds his assets, much less direct the disposition of those assets pursuant to an order from a New York court.

They haven’t exactly been subtle. Nor have they made a particularly convincing showing of litigating in good faith during the three years in which they fought to stave off the AG’s investigation, hide records, and block subpoenas for testimony. Indeed, the last time they appealed an order by Justice Engoron, they made the bizarre argument that it was illegal for the AG to force them to testify while the (now defunct) criminal matter was pending.

“You’re asking us to eliminate dozens of years of precedent or act as legislators,” Presiding Justice Rolando Acosta said incredulously, before the court tossed out the case. “It’s not like you are unaware of your criminal jeopardy, in which case you can invoke your privilege against self incrimination. That’s the remedy that you have.”

Justice Engoron has set a deadline of Thursday for the parties to come up with proposed candidates for independent monitor. Odds that the First Department Appellate Division leaps in to pull Trump’s bacon out of the fire on this one … LOLOL.

For more of the latest in litigation, regulation, deals and financial services trends, sign up for Finance Docket, a partnership between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.

Related

trump

Donald Trump And The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day In Court

You can delay that day of reckoning, but it will come eventually.

trump

Court Orders Trump Organization To Cough Up Those Cell Phones In NY AG Probe

Tick tock, time is running out on the statute of limitations here.

trump family

After Sh*tshow Trump Hearing, Court Orders Vanky, Deej, And Their Dad To Go Under Oath

Not a lot of facts or law, but a whole lotta tables got pounded.