Category Archives: Law

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.

Tenants caught in the middle after city cites downtown building owner for illegal residential rentals

1 Reply

Civil Beat’s recent coverage of horrendous living conditions in illegal residential rentals in a derelict commercial building in downton Honolulu caught my attention, so I decided to look at the situation. Maybe something useful will result, maybe not. You never know at this point. So come along for the ride.

The CB stories focus on the situation in Union Plaza, a 59-year old building at 1136 Union Mall.

Reporter Stewart Yerton first reported on conditions in the building last month (“They Signed Up For Co-Living In Honolulu And Got A ‘Hell Hole’“), and followed with a second story just last week (“‘Hell-Hole’ Building Tenants Gain Traction In Court As Conditions Deteriorate“).

In his first story, Yerton summarized the situation.

For the last year, dozens of people have been living in the office building without kitchens, air conditioning and proper ventilation — and limited access to showers, multiple current and former residents told Civil Beat. Despite complaints to city and state agencies, conditions for residents have deteriorated. A police officer noted the building was totally unsecured in April, the same month a tenant reported a teenager had been sexually assaulted in the family’s unit.

Then, as pressure mounted, the building’s owners shut down power and air conditioning, and issued eviction notices to everyone.

Screenshot

It seems those who have been paying to live in these squalid conditions are caught in a legal battle in which the building’s former owner and mortgage holder is seeking to foreclose and retake control of the building from a limited liability company that bought it last year.

The former and current owners are both real estate investers and developers.

Real estate records show the building was purchased for $6.5 million on April 8, 2024 by Union Mall Development Group LLC, which financed the purchase largely via a $5.2 million purchase money mortgage from the seller, real estate developer Tomoya Tsuruhara. That simply means that the seller accepted a down payment, and took back a mortgage in which the buyer promised to pay off the mortgage loan by a set date. The principals in Union Mall Development Group, Chad Waters and his partner, Scott Bingo, aslo provided personal guarantees that the loan would be repaid.

The mortgage required UMDG to make three payments–$200,000 due on October 8, 2024 an additional $450,000 that was due April 8, 2025, and a final payment of the outstanding balance due at maturity on April 8, 2026.

After the first payment was missed, UMDG was given written notice that it was in default on the mortgage, and that the plaintiff “reserved its rights and remedies against the Borrower under the Loan Documents, including, but not limited to, foreclosure of the Mortgage.”

The April deadline also passed without any payment, and a foreclosure lawsuit was then filed in First Circuit Court on June 9, asking that the court certify the amounts due and authorize sale of the building at a foreclosure sale, with Tsuruhara able to use the unpaid amount as credit to be bid in the foreclosure sale. The complaint put the total amount then due at $5,712,067.61, with interest and other costs, including legal fees, continuing to rise.

Waters, Bingo, and Union Mall Development Group responded that an allegedly undisclosed “subterranean encroachment that materially affects the property’s boundaries, use, and value,” created a cloud on the building’s title which blocked their attempts to refinance the mortgage loan.

Waters and Bingo allege that following their purchase, they were informed by a maintenance employee that portions of the driveway into the parking garage of the neighboring building at 1132 Bishop Street, including walkways and a utilities room, extended under a portion of their building at 1136 Union Mall. They claim they had been unaware of the encroachment, and allege Tsuruhara had been informed of the encroachment but did not disclose it prior to the sale.

For his part, Tsuhara has denied the allegations and said he “acted in good faith and in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and contractual obligations,” and raised a nunber of other defenses, including that the sales contract contained an “as is” clause, meaning that the property was being sold in its present condition.

On November 10, the same day Civil Beat published a follow-up on the plight of residents, Tsuhara’s attorneys filed a motion asking the court to appoint a receiver, attaching Civil Beat’s initial description of rapidly deteriorating conditions in the building to demonstrate “a legitimate concern exists as to the worsening condition of the Property.” And within days, a motion was filed to expedite a hearing on the request for appointment of a receiver due to the building’s continuing deterioration. That motion is pending.

A copy of the Civil Beat story was attached to the motion. Also attached is an email from Dawn Apuna, director of the city’s Department of Planning and Permitting, identifying multiple notices of violation and notices of orders issued to Chad Waters “for unpermitted construction, change of occupancy, and illegal short-term rentals (STRs).”

She says the city has not been able to serve Waters despite repeated attempts, perhaps indicating he is actively avoiding legal service.

A notice of violation (NOV) officially informs a property owner of a violation and provides a deadline to fix it. A notice of order (NOO) is issued when no corrective action is taken, including potential fines and the appeal process.

It appears that each of these violations could violate another provision of the mortage requiring Union Mall Development to comply with “all existing and future laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders, building restrictions and requirements of, and
all permits and approvals from, and agreements with and commitments to,” any government or legal authority.

Apuna’s email with the list of violations is included below.