New York v. Trump — Amicus Brief

May it please the Court,

Please accept this letter as an Amicus Brief in two cases the State of New York has brought against Donald Trump.

The letter will address very few of the particular issues that would warrant a reversal of the trial court in both cases. The purpose of this letter is to request the court to do more than merely reverse the trial courts. In these two unique cases, mere reversal is inadequate.

Both New York Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg commenced these cases with full knowledge an appellate court would one day reverse any judgment that might be obtained. Both trial judges, the Honorable Arthur Engoron and the Honorable Juan Merchan, fully anticipate and expect their judgments to be reversed on appeal.

These two cases caused a new word to enter our vocabulary — lawfare — lawsuits designed primarily to harm the defendant outside the courtroom, not inside the courtroom. In these two cases, their primary purpose was to harm the defendant’s chances of successfully running for president. They were deliberately timed to be tried shortly before the election and to have any appeal decided after the election.

In each case, the prosecution used unprecedented legal theories to twist and contort existing statutes into creating new handcrafted violations of law that were apparently violated only by this defendant. Research quickly revealed no other person had ever been accused of such “illegal” conduct in the past, and there is null chance anyone will be charged for such conduct in the foreseeable future.

In each case, the elected prosecutor had made a campaign promise to prosecute Donald Trump. In each campaign, the prosecutor failed to tell the voters what particular crime Donald Trump committed. They simply told the voters Donald Trump was a bad man and that they would “stop” him by finding something to charge him with.

In each case, the trial court made an unprecedented number of bad rulings. The first of which, in both cases, was the failure to recuse the prosecutor due to their blatant politicizing of each case. Again, this letter will refrain from articulating each erroneous ruling. But, this conclusion is inescapable: the number of “errors” is unprecedented, and many of them are not “close calls”.

The election prevented Judge Merchan from having the opportunity to sentence Mr. Trump, so the evidence of his bias does not include a cruel and unusual sentence. Judge Engoron, however, completed his litany of errors with the most severe civil penalty in the history of American jurisprudence for conduct against victims who told the court they do not consider themselves victims, and who told the court they have no regrets from any of their transactions with the defendant.

To reverse these cases for mere good faith legal error would be a disservice. The four individuals named above did not act in good faith. All four should be formally referred to the appropriate professional tribunal for professional discipline.

The actions of Ms. James, Mr. Bragg, Hon. Engoron, and Hon. Merchan have embarrassed every prosecutor and every trial judge in the State of New York. These four individuals violated their oath of office. Your oath requires you to call them out. You cannot save the reputation of New York prosecutors and trial judges. You can, however, uphold the reputation of the New York State Supreme Court.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

G-Pub