I wrote a column several weeks ago arguing that lawyers involved with Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS should face ethical charges for their role in the sham. Well, it looks like that may be coming to pass. This is great news for anyone interested in the rule of law.
As a quick recap, on Jan. 29 of this year, Donald Trump (along with Donald, Jr., Eric and The Trump Organization) filed a lawsuit against the IRS alleging that the IRS was liable for IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn’s leaking Trump’s tax returns to ProPublica and The New York Times. According to Trump’s complaint, the tax returns went back 15 years. Trump demanded statutory damages of $1,000 for each disclosure or “actual damages” of $10 billion.
On April 17, the IRS filed a motion for extension of time to file an answer. In response, the court stayed the time for the IRS to file an answer, but the court required the parties to file by May 20 memoranda on the question of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear the suit.
On May 18, the IRS entered a “settlement” agreement with Trump and his co-plaintiffs. This settlement agreement established the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to benefit others who “incurred harm from similar Lawfare and Weaponization.” Apparently, the insurgents who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, would be entitled to cash in. The “settlement” is a total capitulation that is not justified by the facts or the law. But that’s what happens when one party controls both sides of a lawsuit.
The judge saw through the settlement
Kathleen Williams, the judge who presided over the case, issued an order on July 13 imposing monetary sanctions on the parties to the suit. That order also stuck it to the lawyers. The order referred attorney Alejandro Brito, who signed the complaint, to the Florida Bar “for its consideration, review, and determination as to whether disciplinary action is appropriate in light of the findings and rulings made in this Order.”
The order also provides that Daniel Epstein, another Trump lawyer who signed the settlement agreement, will not be allowed to seek pro hac vice admission to the Southern District Court for one year. The order also requires the court clerk to “mail a copy of this order to the State Bar of New York, of which Acting Attorney General [Todd] Blanche is a member … and to the District of Columbia Bar, of which Associate Attorney General [Stanley] Woodward is a member, … where disciplinary proceedings are currently ongoing.”
In her conclusion, Judge Williams set out a concise summary of why the case was a sham and why the lawyers should be disciplined:
These facts lead to the inexorable conclusion that … [t]his action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute. … this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in law.”
Speaking of “inexorable conclusions,” three flow from this decision:
Jack Greiner is a Cincinnati attorney. He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues. He can be reached at greinerjack46@gmail.com.
This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Trump’s lawyers may finally face accountability | Strictly Legal
Reporting by Jack Greiner, Special to The Enquirer / Cincinnati Enquirer
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By Jack Greiner, Special to The Enquirer | USA TODAY Network
