@heidilifeldman

Background:

Trump v. Internal Revenue Service (26-cv-20609) District Court, S.D. Florida, Document 94 "Reply in Support of Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order, or, in the Alternative, for Leave to Appear as Amici Curiae by Thirty-Five Former Federal Judges"

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72207870/trump-v-internal-revenue-service/

This lawsuit is the fig leaf used by Acting Attorney General #ToddBlanche to set about creating the #Jan6 #SlushFund fake "settlement" which in part purports to create a $1,776,000,000 "Anti-Weaponization Fund" to be administrated by people picked with little oversight to reward people (i.e. Trump stooges and cronies) with tax-payer money and to lift an estimated $100,000,000 in taxes and penalties owed by Trump and his businesses and shield them from additional investigation for the crimes and tax mistakes "we know of already."

District Judge Kathleen Williams already seemed suspicious (Doc 43) that Blanche's DOJ wasn't contesting things that needed to be contested when Trump moved to dismissed his own case "with prejudice" but without there being even mention of a settlement. (Doc 52)

35 Retired Judges cried foul (Doc 63) Judge Williams said "Let's hear it" (Doc 65), Trump's criminal defense/appellate issues lawyer signed on a response that was disingenuous and pugilistic (Doc 89) but somehow was filed with a date for the 35 Judges to reply that was *different* than the order by the Judge. Suspicious.

Today's filing (Doc 94) is a reply pointing out that Trump's lawyers are grasping at straws and wrong.

Update in Trump v. IRS, the case that was the fig leaf for #ToddBlanche to sign off creating the #Jan6 "Anti-Weaponization Fund" #SlushFund.

The 35 Judges have responded to Trump's less-clown-like for criminal defense and appellate issues who supplements this case with better sounding arguments for why the District Judge has no further role. (Doc 94)

In short, they're not having it.

> All of this misses the point. Here, where the same party controls both sides of the litigation; where an apparently collusive suit was employed to confer enormous benefits from the defendant United States to the Plaintiffs; where the parties took several steps to avoid judicial scrutiny of their actions; and where settlement terms have since been unilaterally abandoned, the settlement becomes relevant to the Court’s inquiry whether a fraud has occurred. ... Here, as the Court has already observed, Plaintiff has asserted complete control over the Defendants.

— Page 2

> Since Movants filed their motion, evidence of collusion and fraud on the Court has only gotten stronger. Just one week later, the Department of Justice claimed it would no longer create the $1.776 billion “Weaponization Fund.” That one “side” of the purported dispute could unilaterally scrap a material term without even so much as a revised written agreement makes it crystal clear that these parties were never adverse.

— Pages 3–4

Sometime in the last 100 minutes (actually hours now that I took the time to read it) the filing happened. So here it is, Doc 89 from #Trump v. #IRS and the #Jan6 #SlushFund fake #settlement by the #ToddBlanche #DOJ.

The motion title is preposterous as you only get so many bites at the apple.

The document is signed by Alejandro Brito and Daniel Z. Epstein Trump's run-of-the-mill Florida and D.C. lawyers. Also by Richard C. Klugh, Trump's muscle lawyer for criminal defense and appellate issues. I think I have an opinion as to who wrote most of this.

On the issues of #collusion / #trueAdversity

• The suit has merit (if you ignore the gap between requested relief and the statutory cap *and* the statute of limitations since the date Trump's own lawyer made public announcements about Littlejohn's leaks) (p. 18)
• The Biden IRS issued a press release saying *Trump's IRS* failed to prevent the leak and that security was improved , again on Biden's watch. (p. 18)
• It's really adverse since *some* of the plaintiffs (being Trump's family and business holdings) aren't even in government (p. 19)
• The claims, moreover, presented genuine legal complexity, so complex that the DOJ didn't bother to show up or argue (p. 19)
• Just because all parties agreed on one legal question, doesn't mean that there wasn't #trueAdversity, just no evidence of adversity. (pp. 19–20)
• Just because 35 retired judges and the present judge think there is every appearance of collusion doesn't mean you have evidence of collusion. Where's your evidence? (p. 20)
• They ignore that it has every appearance of a manufactured fake controversy and not a real one.

Also for today:

In Trump v. Internal Revenue Service (26-cv-20609) District Court, S.D. Florida https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72207870/trump-v-internal-revenue-service/ we have the deadline for #Trump, the #DOJ, the #IRS to explain the #Jan6 #SlushFund fake #settlement

> Plaintiffs shall file a response to the Motion (DE 63) on or before June 12, 2026, detailing their position on the matters set forth in the Motion, including (1) the charges of collusion and whether the Parties are truly adverse; (2) the assertion that the dismissal in this case was premised on deception by the Parties; and (3) the question of whether the case should be reopened because the Court was the “victim of a fraud.”

— Doc 65, 2026/05/29

It says file, yet according to the docket they have only 3 hours left. Tick. Tock.