Judge Denies Trump DOJ as Epstein Deadline Hits...

0:00Michael Popok:Todd Blanchett, his Department of Justice are hell bent on continuing to hide Epstein files from the public and from survivors. In this case, for this hot take, the foreign language documents that they refuse to translate and produce or just produce pursuant to Judge Sullivan's order from over 90 days ago. He then reinforced his order about a week ago. and now Donald Trump and Todd Blanch are trying to get Judge Sullivan to stay or block his own order so they can take an appeal about the foreign language documents. And in breaking news, Judge Sullivan late on Monday night said, no, sir, not doing that.

0:39Michael Popok:Your motion for stay denied. You want to take it up to the court of appeals above me and see if they'll give it to you. I'll give you a couple of days to do that. I am not giving you your stay. And I think it's because of the four very good reasons that were laid out in Katie Fang's own filing, also from yesterday. See how timely we are in the moment in real time updates. I'll catch you up on what just happened and what I believe, honestly, is going to happen next here on the Midas Touch Network and on Legal AF. I'm Michael Popok. Take a minute, will you? Come over to the Legal AF YouTube channel.

1:14Michael Popok:And if you like what we're doing, join us and hit that free subscribe button. OK, this is about the continued fight by Donald Trump over categories of documents that make up part, only a small part of the Epstein files. Katie Fang's underlying lawsuit is about millions of pages of documents that haven't been produced and a process that she wants put in place, along with her Lawyers of Public Integrity Project to put a monitor, a court-appointed officer over the process, look back at what the FBI, the DOJ did and comment on it and critique it, and then look at documents that haven't been produced and decide whether they should be produced.

1:59But on the preliminary injunction side, there's five categories of documents that were at stake

2:06Michael Popok:in a preliminary injunction. One of them had to do with handwritten notes, about 40 pages of them, withheld by and hidden by Todd Blanche on behalf of Donald Trump, related to a person who claimed she was a victim at 13 of Donald Trump's sexual abuse. That issue is now up with Judge Sullivan, who is getting those documents, those handwritten notes for his own personal review in the next day or so, and then he'll decide whether to produce them to the public in a Katy Fang, and I believe if you will. This other major category of documents has to do with this cache, this hundreds of thousands of pages potentially of foreign language documents.

2:42Michael Popok:Yes, what it sounds like. Documents in a foreign language. In an international child sex trafficking ring run by two of Donald Trump's close friends, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. Sure, they should be translated. And as Katie Feng's own lawyers point out, and I'll read it to you from her filing, they have effectively, by their silence, the DOJ conceded that these documents need to be produced pursuant to the Epstein File Transparency Act. But they say, well, we don't have the personnel to do it. It's too hard for a first-line reviewer to do that. So we're not going to produce foreign language documents.

3:15Michael Popok:Three months ago, Judge Sullivan, in his preliminary injunction granted in Katie Fang's favor, said, you are to produce them, or first you are to show cause why you are not producing them. And then I'll issue a second order about it. Well, they entered their rationale. Well, we don't have to do it because we don't have to do it. I mean, it really was a tautology. Well, we don't have to do it because we told Congress that we didn't do it and they didn't seem to care. Yeah, no, the judge cares because the judge is enforcing the law, not Congress enforcing its own law. That's what the co-equal branches of government are all about, Todd Blanche.

3:50Michael Popok:That's what the judiciary branch is all about, interpreting law, right? Congress doesn't interpret its own law. The federal courts do. And then the judge issued a second order. And that's what they're trying to stay. And so Katie Fang reminded the judge, Judge, you, they waived it 90 days ago. You entered that order. That's when they should have taken a stay. They didn't take a stay or ask for a stay till now. It's too late. They're not asking for a stay of the underlying preliminary injunction in my favor, and so you should deny it. They also said fundamentally it should be denied because they violated a local rule, Rule 7M, like Mary.

4:31Michael Popok:7M in every jurisdiction, every court system has a version of this, requires under most circumstances that you, as an opposing lawyer, before you file your motion, you meet and you confer, usually by telephone, not usually by email. and you say, hey, I'm about to file a motion. Will you agree to it? And you have a discussion and you try to resolve it. And if you can't resolve it, then you tell the judge, we met, we conferred, we agreed on this or we didn't agree on anything and now we need your help. But you have to do that as a prerequisite to filing your motion. They didn't do it. And so the judge noting that said, I'm denying your motion for stay because you didn't comply with Rule 7M.

5:13Michael Popok:You didn't confer with Ms. Fang and her lawyers. you didn't talk to them but also while we're here i'm going to deny it on the merits as well here's what katie fang told the court the reason why i thought there were actually a number of really amazing um comments made by katie fang and her filing the first one and i don't want it to get lost here like the fog of war the fog of litigation it's a very good point on page one. Defendant conceded by his silence that foreign language documents are not exempt from the Epstein Files Transparency Act disclosure mandate. Meaning, you never argued that these documents are not responsive, that they're not relevant, that they're not required to be produced when you produce them.

6:03Michael Popok:You just told Congress you didn't think you had to review them. That's different. That's a very good point. That that inadvertent concession by the Department of Justice. Here's something most people aren't told about their credit score. It's not just like whether you pay your credit cards. It's when you pay them. Yeah, most people don't realize that like me. But smart credit data experts understand how credit bureaus operate. So they created something called the best paid down date built around how credit reporting actually works. So instead of guessing, you get a personalized strategy that shows you what to do and when to do it to help you maximize your score.

6:45And that matters because better credit can mean lower payments and more money in your pocket. And this is where it gets interesting. You can see your full credit picture in one place, your score, what's affecting it. And if something needs attention, you can take care of it right there. So before you apply for anything, a car, apartment, refinance, it makes sense to start with smart credit. Go to smartcredit.com slash legal AF and try it for just$1. You may be surprised to see how many points smart credit estimates you can gain. That's smartcredit.com slash legal AF. Results vary. Cancel anytime.

7:23time.

7:25Michael Popok:Here's the four reasons that Katie laid out on page two for why the motion for stay pending appeal on the issue of the foreign language document should be denied, which it ultimately was. One, they never sought a meet and confer. And on that rule alone, on that ground alone, it should be denied. And the judge agreed with that. Second, defendants seek to stay the enforcement order pending appeal, but not the underlying preliminary injunction order. What does that mean? That means the underlying preliminary injunction order is from 90 days ago. That's when he addressed the foreign language documents.

8:02Michael Popok:He just did a follow-on order now. You're too late. Third, defendant's request for a stay he incurred three months ago is untimely and inappropriate. Same argument. And fourth, he doesn't have the grounds for the extraordinary remedy of a stay pending appeal. And the judge, and we'll post this on Legal Layoff Substack as well, issued a five-page order, four and a half-page order late last night, and here it is. First, the judge says, I'm going to translate it. I'm not going to be stampeded. You gave the other side no notice. You didn't comply with the local rule about meet and confer. You put me under the gun to issue an order very, very quickly.

8:45Michael Popok:And so here's your order. here's your order very very quickly um he says on page one defendant seeks a stay of the portion of the order requiring him to initiate review and production of foreign language documents that may be subject to production and provide notice to the court that such review is underway no later than september 24th now side note they are not appealing at least for now and they haven't moved to stay, turning over those handwritten 40 pages of Trump victim notes to the judge. Very interesting. The judge says 7M of the local rules, you didn't meet and confer. I'm denying it on that ground alone.

9:26However, he says on page four, even if the court did not deny

9:31Michael Popok:the motion because of defendant's failure to comply with the duty to confer, the court would deny it on the merits. Assuming that my order is even appealable, he says, because of the fast approaching deadline for defendant to initiate review, the 24th, and notify the court, the court will temporarily stay that portion of its September 16th order so the defendant may file a motion for stay pending appeal with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That's the appellate court just above Judge Sullivan. So it's ordered that defendant's motion for partial stay pending appeal is denied, ordered that that portion of the court's order requiring him to initiate review and production of foreign language materials and provide notice to the court no later than September 24th is temporarily stayed.

10:23Michael Popok:Now, it doesn't have a date on it, but then the judge wants that the party shall file a joint notice with recommendations for further proceedings by no later than three days after the appellate court makes its ruling. even though it doesn't have a date in there, the judge actually has a date in there. Because if they don't get relief from the requirement by September 24th from a higher authority, they're in contempt and violation of this judge's order. So they're going to have to run like, I'm sure I'm going to update later today, a motion for stay has been filed. Now, let me tell you what's going to happen next.

10:58Michael Popok:A little bit of a viewing guide. Three judge panel will get assigned to this case randomly. There are several Trump-appointed judges who almost always rule in favor of Donald Trump. Judge Walker, Judge Katsas, and Judge Rayo. If they get assigned, I mean, there's others, but those are the three. If they get assigned, and God forbid two of them get assigned to the panel, the stay is going to be granted. And they're not going to have to produce or start reviewing and producing these foreign language documents. If only one or none are on the three-judge panel, I think the stay gets denied. And they're going to have to start that process in the next two days.

11:43Michael Popok:So watch for who gets assigned to this panel. One or two Trump, if it's two Trump judges, stay is going to be granted. If it's one or less, no stay is going to be granted. That's what's going to happen. So if you hear me report, the panel consists of rail and walker and blank, you know my next words out of my mouth are going to be, and the stay was granted. I mean, I hate to be so on the nose with my predictions. Put this in the time capsule. We'll open it in the next few hours after they file their motion, and I can report better about who the panel is. But that's the way that's going to work.

12:19Michael Popok:continue to follow everything here on Midas Dutch Network and on Legal AF until my next report, I'm Michael Popak can't get your fill of Legal AF, me neither that's why we formed the Legal AF Substack every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the Substack you'll find the court filing and the oral argument there including a daily roundup that I do call, wait for it Morning AF, what else? all the other contributors from Legal AF are there as well We got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got ad-free versions of the podcast and hot takes.

12:54Wear Legal AF on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe.