Category Archives: Court

Pulitzer Prizes Board hits Trump with broad demand for documents

7 Replies

The headline from Law&Crime.com highlights the dangers of filing a defamation lawsuit, such as the one Trump filed against the Pulitzer Prizes Board after it declined to rescind its 2018 awards to the Washington Post and New York Times for their coverage of the investigation of Russian election interference.

Pulitzer Prize Board members dump broad discovery demands on Trump for tax returns, psych records, and ‘any’ prescription meds history

It sounds like just another boring legal filing in a Florida court case: “DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF DONALD J. TRUMP”

But it’s a quiet legal bombshell tossed into the oval office.

The Pulitzer Board’s court filing sets out a long list of requested information related to Trump’s claims that he suffered immense harm from the board’s refusal to rescind the prizes to the two newspapers.

After all, since Trump alleges he has been damaged to the tune of billions of dollars, defendants in the lawsuit have every right to evaluate the claim by examining all the evidence.

And so it begins.

“All Documents and Communications Concerning…,” repeated 42 times, each one requesting information relevant to Trump’s claims that he was damaged by the Pulitzer Board’s actions. The list begins on page 5 of the court filing, in a section headed “Requests for Production.”

The full document is attached below.

But then it gets personal, as defamation cases are wont to do, seeking details of Trump’s finances and financial holdings, assets and liabilities, tax returns “from all jurisdictions,” and last but not least, all documents regarding Trump’s physical and mental health.

33. All of Your tax returns, from all jurisdictions, including all attachments, schedules, and worksheets, for tax years 2015 to the present.

34. Documents sufficient to show all sources of Your income, including but not limited to the dollar figure attributable to each source, from January 1, 2015, to present. For the avoidance of doubt, income includes earned and unearned income.

35. Documents sufficient to show all of Your financial holdings, including but not limited to the financial value of each holding, from January 1, 2015, to present.

36. Documents sufficient to show all compensation, gifts, or items of $100,000 or more in value given to you from January 1, 2015, to present.

37. Documents sufficient to show all assets, including but not limited to the financial value of each asset, held by You, from January 1, 2015, to present.

38. Documents sufficient to show all of Your financial liabilities, including but not limited to the financial value of each financial liability, from January 1, 2010, to present.

39. All Documents and Communications Concerning any financial losses You or any of Your businesses have allegedly incurred as a result of the Board Statement.

40. The “voluminous and comprehensive financial information made available” to the defendants in Donald J. Trump v. Timothy L. O’Brien, et al., Case No. L 545 06 (N.J. Super.Ct.), as referenced in Paragraph 2 of the complaint in that action. See also id. 9 19 (“Trump directed that O’Brien be given complete access to comprehensive information … detailing his holdings, assets and ownership thereof.”)

41. To the extent You seek damages for any physical ailment or mental or emotional injury arising from Counts I-IV of Your Complaint, all Documents (whether held by You or by third parties under Your control or who could produce them at your direction) concerning Your medical and/or psychological health from January 1, 2015, to present, including any prescription medications you have been prescribed or have taken. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes all Documents Concerning Your annual physical examination. To the extent you do not seek such damages in this action, please confirm so in writing.

It’s put up or shut up time for Mr. Trump.

Lawsuit seeks to end routine use of chemical weapons outside Portland ICE facility

2 Replies

Will the fedaral courts be protect the rights of residents whose lives have been upended by the routine and unnecessary use of chemical weapons deployed by federal agents against peaceful protesters on the street outside their building?

A lawsuit filed last week against the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies and officials by the management company and several residents of an apartment building across the street from Porland, Oregon’s ICE detention center alleges the indiscriminant use of tear gas, smoke grenades, pepper balls, and other chemical agents in a “cavalier manner” has deprived the building’s residents of their basic rights to “life, liberty, and property.”

The problem, according to the plaintiffs, is that the chemical agents deployed against lawful protests outside the ICE facility enter their residences across the street and have created health issues and related problems for those living there.

Gray’s Landing is six-story nonprofit building with over 200 affordable apartments for households earning 60% of median family income, with 42 units targed to veterans. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Reach Development, the company that manages the building; Reach B49 Partners L.P.; and several residents.

The complaint alleges “officers use these weapons without regard to crowd size, to the presence or absence of violence, or to basic safety….Defendants appear to have used these chemical munitions at times, not to address any real danger, but to put on a show for conservative “influencers” whom Defendants invited to the ICE facility to film the protests for propaganda purposes.”

“During a trial on the Trump administration’s attempt to deploy National Guard troops to the ICE facility, Portland police supervisors testified that they witnessed federal officers using disparate and unnecessary force by firing tear gas, pepper balls and other less-lethal munitions at largely non-violent protesters after federal officers already had pushed protesters away from obstructing the building’s driveway,” according to the Oregonian newspaper and its website, OregonLive.com.

The 44-page complaint was filed in Federal District Court for the District of Oregon.

The full complaint appears below.

Miske forfeiture proceeding delayed again

1 Reply

The government’s forfeiture lawsuit against the estate of the late crime boss, Michael J. Miske, Jr., has been delayed again by mutual agreement of attorneys representing the government, the Miske trust, and several lenders. The parties agreed earlier this month on an additional three-month delay to allow settlement negotiations to continue through the holidays. This is on top of an earlier 5-month continuance that expired on November 9.

The agreement puts off a scheduling conference in the case until March 1, 2025. This is a hearing that will establish a timeline for the case, including deadlines for discovery, pre-trial motions, and setting future trial dates.

In a November 5 court filing, attorneys said the additional delay “would be beneficial in allowing the parties to work on a stipulated resolution of this matter that would avoid formal discovery (there are several terabytes of discovery), contested motions, and court intervention.”

The parties also disclosed their intention to hold an in-person settlement meeting, apparently their first face-to-face contact, in December or January.

The case will eventually determine who will get the property Miske owned at the time of his death. The government has identified 26 specific items targeted for forfeiture, including $4,274,497 in cash and checks, real estate appraised for tax purposes at $8.8 million, several vintage cars with an estimated value of $400,000, a 2017 Ferrari F12 Berlinetta purchased on May 30, 2020, for $219,000, and some miscellaneous works of art.

Miske’s most valuable asset is an 8,206-square-foot luxury home boasting five bedrooms and seven bathrooms on a lot overlooking the ocean on Lumahai Street in Portlock, which is appraised for real property tax purposes at $7.5 million, but could sell for substantially more.

The Miske properties have previously been estimated to be worth upwards of $13 million.

The sole beneficiary of Miske’s trust appears to be his granddaughter, identified in court records only by her initials, N.M., because she is a minor.

It has taken 10-months to complete basic tasks, identifying the parties, appraising assets, determining the amounts owed on outstanding loans, and simply “digesting the underlying facts of a case of this breadth” in order to engage in meaningful settlement negotiations.

Attorneys also said they are working on an “agreeable procedure” for sale of Miske’s 37-foot Boston Whaler, Painkiller, and his collection of cars, including a 2017 Ferrari F12 Berlinetta, a 1970 Ford Bronco, and four vintage Volkswagens (1951, 1956, 1957, 1961). The law allows sale of assets that “perishable or at risk of deterioration, decay, or injury” during the pending proceedings, or where the cost of maintenance is “disproportionate” to the market value. Proceeds of any sale would be held pending distribution as part of an overall settlement.

A federal jury convicted Miske last year following a 6-month trial on 13 criminal counts including racketeering conspiracy, murder, kidnapping and assault. The jury then decided his properties should be forfeited to the government because the were obtained, in whole or in part, with proceeds of his racketeering enterprise. However, the entire case, from the indictment to the convictions and forfeiture order, was vacated after he was found dead in his cell in December 2024, a month before his scheduled sentencing, forcing the government to proceed by filing its civil forfeiture lawsuit seeking staking its claim to the same properties.

Also see:

“Miske To Forfeit More Than $20 Million In Assets To Government, Jury Rules,” Civil Beat, July 24, 2024.

“The Case Against Mike Miske Could Be About To Disappear As If It Never Happened,” Civil Beat, December 10, 2024

“Miske’s Trust: A Look At His Moves To Control His Fortune From The Grave,” Civil Beat, May 16, 2025.

“With sound mind….” iLind.net, May 16, 2025.

“Miske Case: Prosecutors Agree To Negotiate Settlement Over Asset Forfeiture“, Civil Beat, June 11, 2025.

“The future of Miske’s fortune remains unsettled,” iLind.net, October 20, 2025.

Judge issues rare rebuke of federal prosecutors in criminal case against former FBI director

Leave a reply

A story today NY Times reporter Alan Feuer described a remarkable development in the government’s criminal prosecution of former FBI director James Comey.

A federal magistrate judge said on Monday that the criminal case against James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, could be in trouble because of a series of apparent errors committed in front of the grand jury by Lindsey Halligan, the inexperienced prosecutor picked by President Trump to oversee the matter.

The remarkable rebuke of Ms. Halligan came in a 24-page ruling in which the magistrate judge, William E. Fitzpatrick, ordered her to give Mr. Comey’s lawyers all of the grand jury materials she used to obtain the indictment and raised the question of whether “government misconduct” in the case might require dismissing the charges altogether.

Grand Jury materials almost always remain confidential.

Judge Fitzpatrick’s order recognized that full disclosure to the defense is “an extraordinary remedy,” but explained that “given the factually based
challenges the defense has raised to the government’s conduct and the prospect that government misconduct may have tainted the grand jury proceedings, disclosure of grand jury materials under these unique circumstances is necessary to fully protect the rights of the accused.”

The 27-page memorandum opinion, which is attached below, spells out in detail just how badly the government appears to have botched this case, beginning with its failure to properly execute search warrants in 2019 and 2020 in an unrelated matter to either avoid seizing evidence beyond the scope of the warrants, and identify and separate items the would be covered by attorney-client or other legal privileges.

The prosecutor who presented the proposed indictment to the grand jury was Lindsey Halligan, who President Trump named as the interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virgina because she indicated she would file criminal charges against Comey that had been turned down by her predecessor, who Trump fired due to his refusal to prosecute the case. At the time of her appointment, Halligan, an insurance attorney, had never prosecuted a case, had no experience as a prosecutor, but had served at one point as one of Trump’s personal attorneys.

At the bottom of page 20, Fitzpatrick ticks off eleven findings of fact that each provides “a reasonable basis” for Comey’s defense team to challenge specific points that could provide “ground[s]…to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury,” as provided by Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

I recommend reading through the opinion in order to appreciate the range of problems that Judge Fitzpatrick’s opinion itemizes. Non-lawyers can skim over the legalese sections and pay closer attention to factual findings of what happened and what the errors mean for the case.