José Luis Villegas/AP
- A judge called an effort by Trump Org lawyers to slow an investigation “frivolous” and “vexatious.”
- The federal judge denied the bid for an injunction to stop the release of some materials.
- The NY attorney general accuses Trump of fraud and is trying to ban him from future business in the state.
A federal judge told former President Donald Trump’s legal team to lay off filing a “frivolous” and pointless lawsuits meant to slow down proceedings against the Trump Organization.
US District Judge Donald Middlebrooks on Wednesday denied a Trump team request for an injunction in the longrunning probe into his business.
Their specific request — to stop New York Attorney General Letitia James from accessing materials from his private trust — was knocked backed,
Middlebrooks said Trump did not meet any of the criteria for an injuncti, and wrote in a footnote of his ruling that his lawyers’ attempt “has all the telltale signs of being both vexatious and frivolous,” both damning legal terms.
His comments were first highlighted by Politico.
Middlebrooks also noted in his ruling that a New York court previously dismissed Trump’s efforts to try stop James’ investigation.
James accuses Trump of committing fraud with his businesses, and is trying to permanently ban Trump and his three oldest children from conducting business in New York.
Middlebrooks’ ruling came as part of Trump’s efforts to countersue James.
Trump announced in November that he was suing James, describing the Trump-Organization prove as an abuse of her power.
He accused her of waging “war of intimidation and harassment” on him, and that she was biased. He filed the lawsuit in the Florida State Circuit Court.
But the case faltered before it could be moved to federal court.
Middlebrooks threw out a separate lawsuit by Trump in September against Hillary Clinton and former FBI officials.
In that decision he accused Trump of putting forward “political grievances masquerading as legal claims.”
He noted that said “the courts are not intended for performative litigation for purposes of fund-raising and political statements,” The New York Times reported.