President Trump’s attorney today blasted the latest report filed by the court-appointed monitor who, much to the former president’s irritation, is overseeing the companies of the Trump Organization due to the civil fraud case brought by New York’s attorney general, Letitia James.      

“Further oversight is unwarranted and will only unjustly enrich the Monitor as she engages in some ‘Javert’-like quest against the Defendants,” defense attorney Clifford Robert wrote in a court filing on Monday. 

“This is truly a joke,” he wrote.

By comparing the monitor’s oversight to a “‘Javert’-like quest,” Mr. Robert invokes the fictional character, Javert, from Victor Hugo’s classic “Les Misérables,” later adapted into the Broadway smash. The former prison guard turned police inspector, Javert, fanatically pursues the protagonist in an effort to catch and punish him for his crimes. In his book “Faith without Illusions,” author Andrew Byers describes Javert as “one of the most tragic legalists in Western literature.”

The “tragic legalist” Mr. Robert refers to in this case is a retired federal judge, Barbara Jones, who was appointed as an independent monitor and ordered to review financial statements within the 415 business entities held within the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust and their “disclosure of financial information to third parties.” Both parties, the defense and the state, agreed to nominate Judge Jones for the role. The judge presiding over the civil fraud case, Arthur Engoron, appointed her in November 2022, two months after Ms. James filed her lawsuit. 

Over the last year, Judge Jones issued reports, this latest one on January 26, at the request of Judge Engoron to assess and summarize the 14 months of her monitorship. Though Judge Jones found that the Trump Organization cooperated, implemented changes and issued corrections to financial statements; she writes that documents often lacked “completeness and timeliness.” 

“I have identified certain deficiencies in the financial information that I have reviewed, including disclosures that are either incomplete, present results inconsistently, and/or contain errors.” Yet, she continues, “it is important to note that the Trump Organization acknowledged the disclosure issues described after I brought them to its attention and has been open to recommendations to improve accuracy and transparency.”

Among the inconsistent disclosures, in a bombshell footnote, Judge Jones questions a loan agreement between “Donald J. Trump, individually, and Chicago Unit Acquisition for $48 million.” 

In her lawsuit, Ms. James accuses Mr. Trump, his two adult sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, former executives of the Trump Organization, and several of his companies of business fraud. Ms. James alleges that the Trumps falsified financial statements and exaggerated the value of their properties in a decades-long scheme to gain favorable bank loans and insurance policies. All defendants deny any wrongdoing, claiming Ms. James’s prosecution is political and that their relevant partners, such as insurers and lenders, have only benefited from the relationships.

The two-and-a-half-month long trial that ended in mid December 2023, heard more than 40 witnesses, including Mr. Trump and his three oldest children. On the day of closing arguments, Mr. Trump told the court that, “I am an innocent man.”    

Before the trial began, the judge found the Trumps liable for the first count, fraud, in a partial summary judgment. This pre-trial ruling also ordered the “dissolution” of the businesses. A higher court, the Appellate Division First Judicial Department, stayed that order, in effect pausing any dissolution until the merits of the appeal are decided. 

Six more allegations brought by Ms. James, including conspiracy and insurance fraud, remain to be decided by Judge Engoron. Also at stake is how much the Trumps should pay in damages. In her original lawsuit, filed in September 2022, Ms. James asked for $250 million, but she raised her claim to more than $370 million based on evidence presented during the trial. The judge, who can still change his previous ruling, has said he would attempt to publish a written decision this week. There is no jury. 

It is while both sides are awaiting the decision that Mr. Trump’s legal team erupted at Judge Jones. “Mere days before an expected decision,” the defense attorney fumed in his response, the oversight monitor claims to find discrepancies. According to Mr. Robert, her January 26 report, “has only two obvious purposes: (1) ensure the Monitor continues to receive exorbitant fees (in excess of $2.6 million to date); and (2) fill the gaping hole in the Attorney General’s case, namely, that there is no basis to support continued oversight.”   

A defense attorney, Christopher Kise, agreed. In a statement to ABC News, he wrote that “it is shocking that President Trump has been forced to pay millions for a Monitor to prove what he has said from the outset, namely, there is no financial reporting misconduct, no fraud and simply no basis for this abusive process to continue.” 

Judge Jones alleges, for example, that financial statements of the Trump Organization noted expenses for its property at 40 Wall Street to exceed $1 million, while simultaneously telling a lender these same expenses amounted to $100,000. 

“As the Monitor is of course well aware, expenses in a projected annual budget will of course differ from expenses in the actual final audited financial statements,” Mr. Robert explained to the court. “The actual management fees are based upon rent collected during the year, which cannot possibly be predicted with certainty when the annual budgets are prepared.”

Interestingly, Judge Jones places her most shocking finding into a footnote. It concerns a $48 million dollar loan and Mr. Trump’s Chicago hotel. She writes that she discussed “the springing loan previously disclosed as being between Donald J. Trump individually and Chicago Unit Acquisition (an entity related to the Trump Chicago Tower) with the Trump Organization several times.” According to Judge Jones, “recent discussions” with the Trump Organization “indicated” that the loan “never existed.”   

Mr. Robert provided an “Inter-Office-Memoranum” from the legal department of the Trump Organization, dated December 4, 2023, that confirms that “the above-referenced loan” has been paid, “no amounts are due or payable, such loan is of no force or effect, and no liabilities or obligations are outstanding.” 

Forbes reports that “Trump’s loan in Chicago has been a mystery for years,” and also cited legal experts, who told The Daily Beast that the former president could face more legal trouble, “either for making a false entry on his financial disclosures, or for tax evasion, if he were found to have invented a loan to avoid income taxes.”    

“Whether it’s Mother Jones or the Daily Beast,” a source close to Mr. Trump’s defense team told the Sun on Monday evening, referencing the two anti-Trump publications, “they don’t have all the facts in front of them.” The source added that, “they take a look at a Rorschach and discern a pattern, and that pattern is always dire and unflattering to Trump.”    

Ms. James requested that the monitor continue her oversight in the coming years. But Mr. Robert writes that the alleged discrepancies the monitor found are merely serving as a justification for Judge Jones to keep getting paid enormous sums by Mr. Trump. He states, “the Monitor desperately seeks to justify the continued receipt of millions of dollars in fees going forward.”  According to his court filing, Judge Jones has been paid over $2.6 million for her ‘work.’ 

In his conclusion, Mr. Robert cites an attached affidavit by a Senior Managing Director at the Ankura Consulting Firm, Jason Flemmons, who also testified during the trial. Mr. Flemmons states that Judge Jones’s findings are “based on subjective determinations devoid of standards or considerations of established frameworks”, and she “does not establish that any identified ‘deficiencies’ were material.” 

The court, the defense attorney argues, “must and should end this abusive and costly process.”  

If or how Judge Jones’s report will influence Judge Engoron’s decision, is to be seen in the coming days, when he publishes his highly anticipated ruling. The defense, anticipating what’s widely expected to be an adverse ruling, has from day one been carefully preparing for an appeal, having objected repeatedly to anti-Trump “bias” and fiercely criticizing Judge Engoron’s principal law clerk, Allison Greenfield, whom they repeatedly accused of “co-judging, passing notes” and rolling her eyes, until they were gagged by the judge.   

On Sunday Mr. Trump posted on his social media network Truth Social that the Trump Organization “is a great company that has been slandered and maligned by this politically motivated Witch Hunt. It is very unfair, and I call for help from the highest Courts in New York State, or the Federal System, to intercede.”