'This court does not have the power': Trump attorneys flatly tell judge to back off inquiry into 'anti-weaponization fund'

Attorneys for President Donald Trump are telling a federal judge to back off her tentative attempts to look into the mechanics of a settlement that purported to create a controversial $1.776 billion "anti-weaponization fund" for the president's allies and supporters.

In January, Trump's original lawsuit against the IRS was filed in the Southern District of Florida. By the middle of May, however, the case was closed – on the plaintiff's own request – with the 45th and 47th president opting instead for a publicly subsidized fund that would reward pro-Trump stalwarts and others similarly situated.

Under the terms of the settlement, eligible claimants are people who were subjected to the "sustained use of the levers of government power by Democrat elected officials, political and career federal employees, contractors, and agents in order to target" them for "improper and unlawful political, personal, and/or ideological reasons."

In her order closing the case, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, a Barack Obama appointee, expressed a number of doubts about the finality of the process but seemed inclined to let things go – at least for a while. Meanwhile, at least four other lawsuits and/or claims were filed aiming to pump the brakes on what critics call a "slush fund."

One of those claims was filed by nearly three dozen former federal judges who implored Williams to disregard the "fraudulent nature" of Trump's voluntary dismissal, "reopen" the case, and look into "exactly what happened here," as Law&Crime previously reported.

While it was an open question whether Williams would consider reopening a case she dismissed with prejudice – or if the retired judges would be able to maintain their objections under the auspices of the original lawsuit – those questions were quickly answered.

"Here, the non-party movants advance grievous allegations that Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this litigation solely to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that 'was collusive from the start' and was only filed to provide the imprimatur of legality for an unlawful settlement," Williams wrote in a late May order.

The court's four-page order directed Trump's lawyers to respond to the former judges' objections by June 12 – and allowed the judges to reply by June 19. Now, motions practice looks to be right on schedule.

In their June 12 response, Trump's legal team chides the former judges for penning "a baseless motion to reopen a case that was lawfully and properly dismissed" and says their professional pedigree "only makes their frivolous motion all the more damaging to our rule of law."

The response goes on like this, at length:

Movants should be above making what is a transparently political filing intended to gin up press attention to a fully proper government settlement that they knowingly have no standing to challenge. Movants were not parties to any litigation with Plaintiffs; they had never expressed any interest in the case until they filed their motion; and they have no legally cognizable interest in it.

To hear Trump's side tell it, the settlement simply cannot be contested by the judges or overseen by the court.

The procedural vehicle used – under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – to dismiss the case is "self-executing [in] nature," according to the filing.

"The Court had no discretion to grant or deny the dismissal, no motion to weigh, and no adjudicative function that could have been corrupted," the response reads. "There was therefore no 'fraud on the court' within the meaning of the doctrine, and no basis for the Court to exercise any form of ancillary jurisdiction over an unfiled settlement agreement between private parties and the Executive Branch."

Second, Trump says the ex-judges "lack standing" to invoke their own chosen procedural attack on the settlement.

"Movants' alleged stake—their generalized interest in 'the administration of justice' and public 'confidence' in the courts—is the paradigmatic abstract grievance that does not support standing," the response continues. "Movants' generic concerns are plainly insufficient to confer standing to challenge such a settlement."

Finally, Trump's legal team says the court itself incorrectly invoked a rule in "an effort to manufacture nonparty standing where none exists."

Here, the response is referring to an issue raised by the court itself under another rule of civil procedure – which, on its own terms, "requires that an attorney or unrepresented party filing a pleading certify that the filing is not presented for any improper purpose."

In other words, Williams suggested the attorneys involved in the settlement might have engaged in "serious misconduct" rising to the level of having "abused the judicial process" if they did, in fact, "file a frivolous lawsuit for the sole purpose of forcing a settlement."

The attorneys say such an accusation must be raised by a party – not the judge – and that limited exceptions where a judge can raise such an issue do not apply.

"The Movants are not parties and could not satisfy the safe harbor," the response goes on. "The Court's own initiative fares no better: even a sua sponte sanction is barred here."

More Law&Crime coverage: Injunction against spending money on 'anti-weaponization fund' is just the beginning of Trump's legal troubles

Trump's response goes on to scold Williams for her efforts to inject the rule into the proceedings – and argues that she suffers from two incorrect assumptions.

Again, the motion, at length:

Stripped to its essence, any sua sponte theory that the Court might entertain reduces to two propositions, and neither supports the requested relief. The first is that the parties settled without submitting the agreement for the Court's review. But the Court had no authority to review or approve that settlement in the first place; a power that does not exist cannot have been evaded, and its non-exercise is neither a Rule 11 violation nor a fraud on the court. The second is that the litigation was collusive. It was not.

"There is, in short, no credible Rule 11 approach, and no credible fraud-on-the-court approach—only disagreement with an Executive settlement, which is not a basis for relief," the response continues.

The Trump response goes on to accuse the judges of lacking much of any legal argument and instead relying on "rhetoric" to make their case about collusion. The filing rubbishes those arguments as "bare-bones assertions."

"In sum, the Movants' position amounts to the assertion that because they disagree with the government's decision to settle, the settlement must have been collusive," the response concludes. "That is not a legal standard. It is a policy objection dressed as a fraud claim, and it does not warrant the extraordinary remedy of reopening a closed case, which, in any event, this Court does not have the power to do."