American Bar Association Requiring All Law Schools To Push DEI, Displacing Constitutional Law
After Indiana University implemented DEI standards in its law curriculum, John Lawrence Hill took his concerns to the state legislature.
A New York appellate court on Monday ruled that former President Donald Trump can post a $175 million bond instead of the over $450 million penalty he owes in his headline-grabbing civil fraud case, the New York Times reported.
The paper characterized the ruling as "a crucial and unexpected victory" for Trump.
Indeed, far-left New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the unprecedented case against the former commander in chief, set Monday as the deadline for Trump to fork over the massive sum — or she would begin seizing his properties.
Monday was a day James likely relished, given she campaigned on the promise that she would go after Trump and has made statements along the way underscoring her obsession with securing the keys to his iconic properties — such as when James earlier told ABC News, "Yes, I look at 40 Wall Street each and every day.”
James will have to keep daydreaming for now.
The Times said the court gave Trump 10 days to obtain the $175 million bond, adding that "two people with knowledge of his finances said he should be able to secure it by then." The paper also said the bond will prevent James from collecting on the judgment while Trump appeals.
Trump attorney Christopher Kise told ABC News the court "no doubt recognized the rule of law must triumph over the political agenda of the Attorney General. President Trump looks forward to a full and fair appellate process which overturns the judgment and ends the Attorney General's abuse of power and tyrannical pursuit of the front running candidate for President of the United States."
In the wake of the appellate court ruling, a spokesperson for James told ABC News that "the $464 million judgment — plus interest — against Donald Trump and the other defendants still stands." The statement also said Trump "is still facing accountability for his staggering fraud."
But even if eventually Trump fails to get the massive judgment against him overturned, and he runs out of financial options, and James moves forward with seizing his properties, a separate report Sunday from the New York Times indicated that James would face a daunting challenge.
The Times said attorneys "warn that getting control over, and trying to liquidate, any of the former president’s flagship properties is an uphill battle" and that James likely is looking at untangling a "spider web of transactions."
“People are really, really good at litigating and getting to the point of a judgment,” Brad Eric Scheler, senior counsel at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, told the Times. “But they never focus on the fact that collecting on a judgment is very hard.”
First off, the paper noted that Trump doesn't outright own almost any of his properties; instead, the Times said, they are "protected by a maze of interlocking trusts and limited liability companies."
“Let me give you an analogy,” Scheler continued to the paper, explaining how Yellow Cab operators are similarly protected. “Taxi fleets had each of their taxis in a separate corporation, so that if the taxi was in a car accident and the insurance didn’t cover it, it would be limited to the entity that had the cab.”
What's more, lawyers told the Times that if James seizes a Trump property with mortgages or loans against it, those debts must be paid first.
“It’s 1,000 percent complicated, and the reason it is 1,000 percent complicated is there are creditors and equity holders that are ahead of Letitia James,” commercial bankruptcy lawyer Leo Jacobs told the paper. “Imagine 40 Wall Street is worth $250 million, and there’s $200 million collateralized against it. After transfer taxes and fees, she will be left with $1 million. Is it worth it to enforce the judgment? The answer is no, it’s not.”
More from the Times:
For some of the buildings, the ownership structure is so complex that it becomes unclear what, if anything, the court could seize.
Take the sleek skyscraper at 1290 Avenue of the Americas. Nearly two decades ago, Mr. Trump acquired a 30 percent stake in an entity that owns the 43-story building in Midtown Manhattan adjacent to Radio City Music Hall. The other 70 percent is owned by the Vornado Partnership Trust.
The fine print of the partnership makes it difficult, maybe even impossible, for Mr. Trump to sell his 30 percent stake. Initially set to expire in 2044, the partnership states that “a partner may not, directly or indirectly, sell, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of any part of their partnership interest, without prior written consent from the majority owner,” according to an excerpt from the agreement shared during the trial.
In the lawsuit, Ms. James argued that Mr. Trump and his proxies had inflated the value of this property by treating it as if it were an asset that could be bought and sold.
Now, if the same asset is seized, the state will face the same limitations that they uncovered during the trial — namely that he is more or less stuck in this partnership for another two decades, said real estate attorneys.
Beyond the mountain of paperwork, red tape, and legal roadblocks ahead of James if she goes through with seizing Trump's properties, pollster Frank Luntz on Thursday warned James that she is "going to elect Donald Trump" if she goes this route.
Here's a snippet of what Luntz told a CNN panel:
I want you to remember this moment, and don’t forget it: If the New York attorney general starts to take his homes away, starts to seize his assets — it’s all gonna be on camera, pundits are gonna sit there and scream ... 'This man cannot be elected' — you’re going to create the greatest victimhood of 2024, and you’re going to elect Donald Trump. If they take his stuff, he’s gonna say that this is proof that the federal government and the establishment in the swamp in Washington and all the politicians across the country and the attorneys generals and all of this, that this is a conspiracy to deny him the presidency. He’s gonna go up in the polls just like he went up every single time they indicted him. The indictment, and let’s not talk about whether it’s justified or not, but it will prove the things that he’s saying on the campaign trail, and he will go up, and it may just elect him president. Do not forget that.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The U.S. Department of Justice may be orchestrating a "retaliation" against Blaze News investigative journalist Steve Baker over his reporting about Jan. 6, 2021, attorneys representing Baker said Monday.
"Steve’s actions on January 6 have been known to the Department of Justice for 3 years," Baker's attorneys said in a news release. "But it is only now — after Steve has broken two major stories greatly embarrassing to the DOJ — that he is possibly being targeted for arrest and possibly felony prosecution. Any action taken to put him in handcuffs, hold him in custody, and have him transported to court by federal law enforcement will be nothing other than retaliation for his recent reporting."
Baker announced last month that the FBI said the DOJ would be charging him for his Jan. 6 reporting and that he needed to self-surrender Dec. 19. Two days after Baker's announcement, he noted that the FBI said his self-surrender was postponed until after Christmas.
He's still waiting.
Baker said last month an FBI special agent in contact with his attorney didn't know what the charges are against him — and wouldn't know until a judge signs off on a warrant.
Baker also told Blaze News that if the Justice Department goes forward with charges, travel restrictions will be placed on him, which will hamper his reporting, as he's based in North Carolina but works a great deal in Washington, D.C., covering trials, viewing Jan. 6 videos, and speaking face-to-face with elected officials.
Given Baker has been writing Blaze News investigative stories on Jan. 6 since early October, he said he "cannot help but think the timing [of the possible charges] is suspect."
Blaze Media editor in chief Matthew Peterson penned an op-ed last month criticizing the DOJ and demanding that it "free Steve Baker!"
What we see with the government’s decision to prosecute Baker is an escalation in its weaponization of the law against its perceived political enemies.
I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that Baker learned of his coming indictment the very same day he met with a pair of Capitol Police whistleblowers. Nor do I believe it’s a coincidence that the Justice Department decided to press ahead as Baker has spent more than a week viewing hundreds of hours of Capitol closed-circuit TV video and unearthing previously undisclosed details about the events of January 6.
Baker's attorneys in their news release expressed concern about what might be coming from the federal government.
"We now have information that Steve’s reporting has so agitated officials in multiple federal agencies that an effort is now underway to find a basis to charge Steve with more serious crimes and to use those more serious crimes as a pretext for early morning raids to execute search and arrest warrants on him and his family," his attorneys said.
More from the news release:
If this is true, and search and arrest warrants are used to drag Steve out of his house in the early morning hours someday soon, that will be evidence of retaliation against a journalist exercising his First Amendment rights to report information that is embarrassing to government officials.
This will be ANOTHER breaking of institutional norms by the Department of Justice. Among the undersigned counsel are former prosecutors with the Department of Justice — each having served for more than 20 years — who have witnessed the breaking of other norms of DOJ policy and procedure over the past three years, such as using arrest warrants and SWAT raids to apprehend persons charged with only misdemeanor offenses.
Now a journalist reporting facts embarrassing the government is being targeted for prosecution. There were dozens of members of the media working for various organizations — as well as numerous independent freelance journalists like Steve — present at the Capitol on January 6. Many went inside the Capitol building to capture what was happening there. We have been compiling a list of all such journalists over the past several months. We will be calling upon those journalists and their employers to publicly stand in favor of the First Amendment and denounce any effort by the Department of Justice to prosecute Steve.
The Justice Department on Monday didn't immediately respond to Blaze News' request for comment on the news release from Baker's attorneys.
Baker discussed his Jan. 6 legal saga in a pair of October commentary pieces for Blaze News (here and here). In them, Baker said he'd been under federal investigation for the better part of two years following his independent journalistic work on Jan. 6, which began before he joined Blaze News.
From Baker's first commentary:
I made no effort to hide what I was doing on January 6. I did two different interviews that same day with WUSA, a CBS News affiliate in Washington, D.C. I also uploaded a short YouTube video commentary later that same evening.
Upon returning to my home in Raleigh, North Carolina, I socked myself away for five days, doing a frame-by-frame analysis of my own videos. I then wrote and published on January 13, 2021, a 9,500-word opus to my blog detailing what I experienced that day, titled, “What I Saw on January 6th in Washington, D.C.”
That piece, and a February 24, 2021, follow-up, “Who was ‘Up the Chain’ on January 6?” has been viewed and read by hundreds of thousands of readers on my blog and various social media pages.
I always expected that I would be contacted by the FBI at some point, at the very least to acquire my videos for the bureau's investigations. I did no violence or property destruction on January 6, and I certainly did not interfere with the election certification, as I didn’t enter the Capitol Building until well after both the Senate and House of Representatives had been evacuated.
After the FBI made initial contact with Baker in July 2021, Baker said he and his attorney met in person with FBI Special Agents Gerrit Doss and Craig Noyes in North Carolina on Oct. 18, 2021. At the conclusion of the interview, Baker said he and his attorney volunteered to turn over Baker's Jan. 6 videos, but nothing came of that.
Baker said his attorney got a Nov. 17, 2021, email from assistant U.S. attorney Anita Eve saying that Baker could expect to be "charged within the week" — and that the charges would be interstate racketeering and property damage, which Baker said were bogus. With that, Baker said he and his attorney informed the media that he — an independent journalist — was being prosecuted for his coverage of Jan. 6.
Baker noted that Eve was forwarded a copy of that news release and told his attorney that she was "not thrilled" with it. Baker's attorney replied, “Mr. Baker is obviously feeling threatened by the charges and is using his First Amendment right to garner support. ... Are you suggesting that he refrain from making further statements? ... He has nothing to hide. But he does have a right to speak truthfully about his experiences and share his opinions. ... It’s not fair to ask him to be silent while he endures federal prosecution.” Baker's attorney again volunteered to turn over his Jan. 6 videos.
Despite the threat of charges "within the week," Baker said he didn't hear from Eve's office for nearly two years — and in August 2023, his attorney accepted service of a grand jury subpoena, signed by Eve, for all the Jan. 6 videos Baker personally recorded.
Baker wrote in his second commentary that "grand juries generally are not convened for misdemeanor offenses but rather for felony charges." Curiously renewed interest from the Justice Department coincided perfectly with his discussions with Blaze News to become a contributing investigative journalist and columnist.
As Baker told Blaze News last month, he'd been "poking the bear rather aggressively."
Later that same August, Baker and his attorney delivered a flash drive containing his videos to FBI Special Agent Noyes.
Baker concluded his second commentary with the following promise: "The truth is, my life hasn’t been destroyed. Yet. But many others have been. I intend to show through my investigations that many lives have been destroyed for no good reason — and that cannot stand."
Baker's first Jan. 6 analysis for Blaze News came last October, following countless hours in a House subcommittee office looking at frame after frame of Jan. 6 closed-circuit video — and it had him wondering: Did Capitol Police Special Agent David Lazarus perjure himself in the Oath Keepers trial?
Soon after, the slow pace of getting an unrestricted look at everything recorded on video prompted Blaze Media editor in chief Matthew Peterson's appeal to House Speaker Mike Johnson to release all the videos. On Nov. 17, Johnson did just that.
Baker's investigative efforts also resulted in two additional analyses, both focusing on Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn: "January 6 and the N-word that wasn't" and "Harry Dunn's account of January 6 does not add up. At all."
In December, Baker alleged he uncovered major irregularities involving Dunn, Capitol Police, the press, and U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland).
Last week, Baker asserted that just-released U.S. Capitol closed-circuit TV video clips from Jan. 6 show Lazarus gave false testimony in the Oath Keepers trial.
Proof of Perjury | The Truth About January 6 youtu.be
Also last week, Baker added another analysis revealing that the individual who discovered a pipe bomb at Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021 — previously called a "passerby" — actually was a United States Capitol Police plainclothes officer.
Baker's attorneys concluding their news release by asking the Justice Department, "If you are so convinced in the strength of your case against Steve Baker that you file charges against him in the District Court for the District of Columbia, we invite you to join in a stipulation with the defense to have Steve’s case tried in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina or the Northern District of Texas."
They also wondered, "Are citizens of those two districts not suitable for jurors in Steve’s case? Is the federal judiciary in those two districts not able to provide a fair and impartial trial? On what basis does the United States Department of Justice believe the 'United States' can only get a fair trial in the District of Columbia and not one of those 'United' States?"
As for Baker, he noted in the release that he won't be bullied into silence.
"I will not be intimidated," he said. "I will continue to report the findings of my investigation into the evidence being made available to me to review. I have followed and reported on dozens of trials of January 6 defendants, and the more I investigate, the greater is my unease at what is being done in the name of 'justice.'"
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!