Could the attempt to establish the slush fund blow up in Don's face in an unexpected way?

[berg80]

Judge Reopens Trump’s I.R.S. Suit and Questions His ‘Weaponization’ Fund​

A federal judge in Miami reopened President Trump’s $10 billion case against the I.R.S. in a striking turnabout, saying that she wanted to investigate “grievous allegations” that the hasty deal to resolve it was “premised on deception.”

The ruling by the judge, Kathleen M. Williams, on Friday to revive the case shortly after closing it was a significant blow both to Mr. Trump, who had voluntarily dismissed the suit last week, and to the Justice Department. After the president withdrew the suit, senior department officials released a pair of extraordinary agreements that settled the case by establishing a $1.8 billion fund to compensate people who claimed they were victims of government “weaponization” by Democrats.

The deal also conferred lucrative tax benefits on Mr. Trump, his family and his businesses.

Judge Williams’s decision came in response to court papers filed on Wednesday by a bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges who urged her to bring the case back to life and dig into the details of the agreement to settle it.

The former judges said that Mr. Trump’s settlement agreement raised serious questions about his “candor toward the court and manipulation of the judicial system.”

Judge Reopens Trump’s Lawsuit Demanding $10 Billion From IRS​

The ruling was a blow to both President Trump, who had voluntarily dismissed the suit last week, and to the Justice Department, which used the suit to establish a fund likely intended for Trump allies.

www.nytimes.com

It appears less and less likely the slush fund will ever become a reality.

 

[Dekster]

Judge Reopens Trump’s I.R.S. Suit and Questions His ‘Weaponization’ Fund​

A federal judge in Miami reopened President Trump’s $10 billion case against the I.R.S. in a striking turnabout, saying that she wanted to investigate “grievous allegations” that the hasty deal to resolve it was “premised on deception.”

The ruling by the judge, Kathleen M. Williams, on Friday to revive the case shortly after closing it was a significant blow both to Mr. Trump, who had voluntarily dismissed the suit last week, and to the Justice Department. After the president withdrew the suit, senior department officials released a pair of extraordinary agreements that settled the case by establishing a $1.8 billion fund to compensate people who claimed they were victims of government “weaponization” by Democrats.

The deal also conferred lucrative tax benefits on Mr. Trump, his family and his businesses.

Judge Williams’s decision came in response to court papers filed on Wednesday by a bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges who urged her to bring the case back to life and dig into the details of the agreement to settle it.

The former judges said that Mr. Trump’s settlement agreement raised serious questions about his “candor toward the court and manipulation of the judicial system.”

Judge Reopens Trump’s Lawsuit Demanding $10 Billion From IRS​

The ruling was a blow to both President Trump, who had voluntarily dismissed the suit last week, and to the Justice Department, which used the suit to establish a fund likely intended for Trump allies.

www.nytimes.com

It appears less and less likely the slush fund will ever become a reality.

I really do not understand the Court's interest here. Cases settle all the time without judges needing to approve the settlement unless it is bankruptcy, class-action, or labor relations or involves a minor.

 

[berg80]

I really do not understand the Court's interest here. Cases settle all the time without judges needing to approve the settlement unless it is bankruptcy, class-action, or labor relations or involves a minor.

A bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges on Wednesday asked the judge who oversaw President Trump’s remarkable lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service to reopen the case and conduct an inquiry into whether the hasty deal to resolve it could be challenged as an act of fraud.

The move by the former judges was one of an increasing number of legal efforts to attack the validity of the two extraordinary benefits that emerged from the agreement last week: a $1.8 billion fund that could compensate allies of Mr. Trump who claim they suffered “weaponization” at the hands of the federal government and the conferral of lucrative tax benefits on the president, his family and his businesses.

The motion by the former judges, filed in Federal District Court in Miami, was a direct appeal to Judge Kathleen M. Williams, who closed the I.R.S. case last week after Mr. Trump voluntarily dismissed his suit. It asked her to bring the matter back to life under a rule that permits her to set aside a judgment she had made and examine the terms of the deal that appeared to have been reached in a plan to avoid that sort of scrutiny.

“The purported ‘settlement’ that was publicly disclosed after this court dismissed this matter raises profound questions about the parties’ candor toward the court and manipulation of the judicial system, which threatens to undermine confidence in the administration of justice,” lawyers for the former judges wrote.

Former Judges Urge Inquiry Into Deal Trump Struck With I.R.S.

The motion was particularly significant because it asked the judge overseeing the initial suit against the I.R.S. to examine the terms of the deal.

www.nytimes.com

trump may be immune from prosecution for committing crimes but these judges don't think he should be able to defraud the court as a way to establish the slush fund.

 

[JustAGuy1]

You can hope.

 

[Dekster]

A bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges on Wednesday asked the judge who oversaw President Trump’s remarkable lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service to reopen the case and conduct an inquiry into whether the hasty deal to resolve it could be challenged as an act of fraud.

The move by the former judges was one of an increasing number of legal efforts to attack the validity of the two extraordinary benefits that emerged from the agreement last week: a $1.8 billion fund that could compensate allies of Mr. Trump who claim they suffered “weaponization” at the hands of the federal government and the conferral of lucrative tax benefits on the president, his family and his businesses.

The motion by the former judges, filed in Federal District Court in Miami, was a direct appeal to Judge Kathleen M. Williams, who closed the I.R.S. case last week after Mr. Trump voluntarily dismissed his suit. It asked her to bring the matter back to life under a rule that permits her to set aside a judgment she had made and examine the terms of the deal that appeared to have been reached in a plan to avoid that sort of scrutiny.

“The purported ‘settlement’ that was publicly disclosed after this court dismissed this matter raises profound questions about the parties’ candor toward the court and manipulation of the judicial system, which threatens to undermine confidence in the administration of justice,” lawyers for the former judges wrote.

Former Judges Urge Inquiry Into Deal Trump Struck With I.R.S.

The motion was particularly significant because it asked the judge overseeing the initial suit against the I.R.S. to examine the terms of the deal.

www.nytimes.com

trump may be immune from prosecution for committing crimes but these judges don't think he should be able to defraud the court as a way to establish the slush fund.

There is no rule that said this was the type of case that required court approval of a settlement and its weak sauce to say they defrauded the court when they also reportedly made no representations to the court at all regarding why the case was being dropped by Trump. That the judge didn't inquire before she signed the order clearly indicates that there was no duty or burden on the parties to inform the court. I think the deal is ridiculous but that does not justify the court wrapping itself up in the politics of it after the fact by inventing a duty that never existed.

 

[berg80]

There is no rule that said this was the type of case that required court approval of a settlement and its weak sauce to say they defrauded the court when they also reportedly made no representations to the court at all regarding why the case was being dropped by Trump. That the judge didn't inquire before she signed the order clearly indicates that there was no duty or burden on the parties to inform the court. I think the deal is ridiculous but that does not justify the court wrapping itself up in the politics of it after the fact by inventing a duty that never existed.

The judge's filing explains their rationale. One I agree with.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172.63.0.pdf

Movants are 35 former federal judges. A full list of Movants is listed in the attached Appendix. Movants are filing this motion because they have dedicated their professional lives to the administration of justice. The purported “settlement” that the parties never placed before this Court raises profound questions about the parties’ candor toward the Court and manipulation of the judicial system, which threatens to undermine confidence in the administration of justice. As former judges, Movants have an interest in bringing to the Court’s attention these concerns and the availability of relief under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows the Court to set aside the judgment and reopen the case.

 

[jacksonlamb]

A settlement can be a fraud.

I really do not understand the Court's interest here. Cases settle all the time without judges needing to approve the settlement unless it is bankruptcy, class-action, or labor relations or involves a minor.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

It's the Orwell defense. "What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
―The Liar-in-Chief, 2018

should have said: "What you're seeing and what you're reading is not the same thing."

 

[berg80]

A settlement can be a fraud.

It seems the judge's concern is the suit was a smokescreen without legal merit. Once the presiding judge made comments to that effect trump withdrew his attempt to win the case and instead awarded himself almost $2B to dole out to his favorite criminals.

 

[jacksonlamb]

It seems the judge's concern is the suit was a smokescreen without legal merit. Once the presiding judge made comments to that effect trump withdrew his attempt to win the case and instead awarded himself almost $2B to dole out to his favorite criminals.

It will be overturned.

 

[JoeB131]

I really do not understand the Court's interest here. Cases settle all the time without judges needing to approve the settlement unless it is bankruptcy, class-action, or labor relations or involves a minor.

Because this case was a particularly corrupt settlement.

It's the equivelent to if a lawyer was bribed to plead a case down.

The problem here is that Blanche can't be both Trump's lawyer and the IRS's lawyer.

There is simply no way that if Harris had been elected, Trump would have gotten this kind of a deal. It stinks of corruption.

 

[Dekster]

The judge's filing explains their rationale. One I agree with.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172.63.0.pdf

Movants are 35 former federal judges. A full list of Movants is listed in the attached Appendix. Movants are filing this motion because they have dedicated their professional lives to the administration of justice. The purported “settlement” that the parties never placed before this Court raises profound questions about the parties’ candor toward the Court and manipulation of the judicial system, which threatens to undermine confidence in the administration of justice. As former judges, Movants have an interest in bringing to the Court’s attention these concerns and the availability of relief under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows the Court to set aside the judgment and reopen the case.

So I read it and it is all about the court has the authority to reopen the case. It still contains no substantive legal basis for claiming that a fraud was committed on the court. They just allege it without presenting any factual or legal basis.