HERE’S WHY I BELIEVE THAT SQUIRRELY DOCUMENT THAT CLAIMS TO PREVENT THE IRS FROM PROSECUTING ANYONE NAMED TRUMP IS VULNERABLE
Stay with me here because I’m going to take you on a procedural ride which will explain why I, and other attorneys, believe that this massive grift by Trump and Blanche – that some are calling the biggest, most blatant corruption in the history of our country – is legally vulnerable.
Like I said, stay with me because it’s all lawyerly technicalities – those things that people complain about, until they need them to save our country.
This squirrely document (yes, that’s a legal term, just like ‘weasely’) is included for Notes from the Front members along with the following documents from Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS: The Complaint, Trump’s notice of voluntary dismissal, the court order closing the case, and not one, not two, but *three* amicus briefs including one by a *court-appointed* Amicus! Also the document creating anti-weaponization fund, the document purporting to prohibit the IRS from investigating any Trump AND – and I *just* this moment found this, the settlement agreement.
I’m including the Amicus briefs because they are interesting, and it’s an educational view into this historic, if brief, lawsuit. They are from a) former government officials, b) 93 members of Congress, and c) that court-appointed Amicus.
But our trip begins at the end of the lawsuit. With the handwriting on the wall – that handwriting saying that there was NFW (No F’ Way – another legal term) that this lawsuit was going to go forward, let alone that Trump was going to prevail, Trump filed a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit yesterday. When I saw it I immediately noticed that it was *with* prejudice. That means that the lawsuit can’t be refiled. Usually a *defendant* would want that, but *not* a plaintiff, and this was the plaintiff dismissing it with prejudice.
“Hrrrm..” I thought “why would a *plaintiff* not want to leave open the option to re-file their lawsuit?
The Court duly dismissed the lawsuit, in a 3-page order (included for Notes from the Front members). Now, that order is short, but it says volumes (we’ll get to that in a minute).
The next thing that happened, still yesterday, was Blanche announcing and posting the document creating the “anti-weaponization” fund (also included for Notes from the Front members).
And I immediately locked in on clause D of that document, which says, and I quote:
“D. Once the funds are deposited into the Designated Account, the United States has no liability whatsoever for the protection or safeguarding of those funds, regardless of bank failure, fraudulent transfers, or any other fraud or misuse of the funds.”
“Hrrm..” says I, again, “this document seems to *contemplate* fraud.”
Then *today* Blanche drops this bombshell – the document reading, and again I quote:
“C. The United States RELEASES, WAIVES, ACQUITS, and FOREVER DISCHARGES each of the Plaintiffs from, and is hereby FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED from prosecuting or pursuing, any and all claims, counterclaims, causes of action, appeals, or requests for any relief, including injunctive relief, monetary relief, damages, examinations or similar or related reviews, appeals, debt relief, costs, attorney’s fees, expenses, and/or interest, whether presently known or unknown, that-as of the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement-have been or could have been asserted by Defendants against any of the Plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals (including, without limitation, family or others filing jointly), or parties including trusts, parent, sister, or related companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries, by reason of, with respect to, in connection with, or which arise out of (1) any matters that were raised or could have been raised in the Case or the Pending Agency Claims; (2) Lawfare and/or Weaponization; or (3) any matters currently pending or that could be pending (including tax returns filed before the Effective Date) before Defendants or other agencies or departments.”
This document was executed *today*.
Then just a short while ago, an actual settlement agreement, signed yesterday (included for Notes members) showed up on the DOJ site.
Ok, now you are caught up in terms of the timeline.
Judge Kathleen Williams, in her order dismissing the case based on Trump’s notice of voluntary dismissal, goes to *great lengths* to make *very clear* that there *is no settlement agreement in this case*. Among other things she says:
“Because the Notice does not reference any settlement or include a stipulation of settlement, there is no settlement of record. Additionally, Defendants – federal agencies represented by the Department of Justice, which has an independent obligation to uphold the “public’s strong interest in knowing about the conduct of its Government and expenditure of its resources” and the “fair administration of justice,” neither submitted any settlement documents nor filed any documents ensuring that settlement was appropriate where there was an outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed.”
Got it? The Judge says NO SETTLEMENT EXISTS.
And then the case is closed.
Now, a *day* later, they come up with a signed settlement agreement, signed yesterday. AND captioned:
“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. l:26-cv-20609-KMW”
Nope, nope. You can put that at the top of the document, but what the Judge says trumps your ink.
You know what I think? I think that Judge Williams knew that something squirrely was going on, and she was making damned sure that there was a record. I also suspect that she is feeling used.
Trump may be used to backdating checks, or even documents, but backdating your settlement agreement – and putting the number of a case on it that *no longer exists* – well, you can butter me and call me a biscuit, but that doesn’t make me a biscuit.
But wait, there’s more:
That document saying that the IRS can’t prosecute any Trump…guess what. It doesn’t *really* say that the IRS can’t prosecute any Trump. Read it again. It says that the IRS can’t prosecute any *”plaintiff”*. Now look at when it’s dated. Yep, today. As of yesterday *there was no lawsuit*. So there *are no plaintiffs* today.
That document actually says that the IRS can’t prosecute a non-existent person.
And this is why I say that I believe these documents are vulnerable to legal challenge. And I’m not the only lawyer who thinks so, as I’ve been talking with colleagues who also see what I see.
Now, *none* of this as ever been tested before. Other lawyers may think differently (I’m sure Blanche thinks … *hopes*… that this all can withstand legal challenge).
And these are just a few of the squirrely things over which legal action may be brought with respect to this entire grift. And I happen to know that many people and agencies are frantically figuring out the best angle of attack, who can bring the lawsuits, etc..
Fear not, people are working on it.
Notes from the Front members: *ALL* of the documents – the Complaint, Trump’s notice of voluntary dismissal, the court order closing the case, the three amicus briefs, the document creating anti-weaponization fund, the document purporting to prohibit the IRS from investigating any Trump AND the settlement agreement are in your inbox now!
If you’re not a Notes from the Front member this document is a great reason to join! For just $5 a month you can access all of the source documents with each post, and you can stop relying on this platform’s algorithms to show you my updates *and* get the included documents! *And* help keep me in that sweet elixer of productivity, coffee! :~) Join here now:
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/heres-why-i-believe-that-squirrely
Don’t have the $5? You can also ensure that you never miss an update by getting them directly in your inbox for *free* (yes really) by signing up for my Notes from the Front Lite – it’s like Notes from the Front but without the documents and coffee. You can sign up for that here (it really is completely free, no ads, no spam, just also no documents or private chats): https://notesfromthefront.fyi
New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without subscribing to my $5 Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here’s how: https://www.annepmitchell.com/buy-anne-a-coffee/
P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word “squirrel” or “biscuit” – your choice! It will show me that my efforts aren’t in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about squirrels and biscuits! ;~)
Source