Lawyers of the former president Donald Trump In filing two briefs with the Appellate Division, First Department in New York, he argued civil fraud case The lawsuit against Trump earlier this year was flawed, with no victims and the case being statute-barred.
Two briefs filed late Friday contained many of the same arguments Trump’s lawyers have made in the case in the past.
“President Trump’s business partners were pleased with these transactions. They benefited enormously by making more than $100 million in profits,” lawyers Cliff Robert and Alina Habba argue in a 46-page latest attempt to block Mr. Trump’s $485 million civil settlement, which they call “illegal and unconstitutional.” judgment of fraud.
This is the latest update in the month-long appeals saga after Judge Trump’s ruling and members of his family engaged in a scheme to improperly inflate his assets on financial statements, which allowed Trump to take advantage of favorable loan and insurance rates to which he was not otherwise entitled.
Habba and Robert reiterated that none of Trump’s business partners were defrauded and, in fact, paid back on time or early, “in stark contrast to today’s credit market, where defaults are at an all-time high.”
As they forcefully did during the three-month trial, Robert and Habba disputed the court’s valuation of Mar-a-Lago between $18 million and $27 million. Lawyers said the property was valued at more than a billion dollars.
They also said disclosures about state Attorney General Letitia James’ financial situation at the center of her case against Trump were misjudged. The president has maintained that Trump’s assets are worth much more than the statements reflect.
In their applications last weekNew York state lawyers urged an appeals court to uphold the nearly $500 million fine, citing overwhelming evidence that Trump lied about his wealth for years and saying his complaint was riddled with “unsound legal arguments.” he and his co-defendants engaged in “fraud and illegality on a grand scale.”
A separate brief filed by Trump’s lawyers concerns the sanctions imposed on the trial lawyers who represented Trump, arguing that the trial court erred in sanctioning the lawyers for what they say are “good faith” legal arguments.
“It’s perfectly fine for a lawyer to make arguments that a judge might disagree with in order to preserve the same thing for appellate review,” attorney Brian Isaac said in a briefing.
Oral arguments at the Court of Appeal will begin on September 26.