NEW YORK (PNN) - July 24, 2024 - New York Attorney General Letitia James, who campaigned for office on “getting” President Donald J. Trump and then orchestrated a flimsily grounded case against him, is being accused of blatantly violating the First Amendment.

"The tools of law enforcement must never be turned into weapons against political activity. The First Amendment prohibits government officials, from the most minor local officer to the attorney general of New York, from using their power and authority to target the speech of those they dislike," explains a brief prepared by the Amerikan Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

The document was being prepared to file in President Trump's appeal in the Supreme Court of New York of a lower court's wild claim that he owes some $350 million in penalties for his business practices.

Essentially, James claimed that President Trump misvalued his properties in a series of business loan transactions and Arthur Engoron, the biased Leftist judge hearing the case, decided on his own that was so, despite evidence and testimony to the contrary.

Engoron then claimed President Trump was liable for hundreds of millions of dollars even though there was no evidence that anyone lost money because of President Trump's deals, the banks with which he worked expressed a desire to do more business with him, and there were no unpaid loans and no losses by anyone.

The ACLJ continued, "No official has the authority to use (his or her) power to target speech through selective enforcement; and that is exactly what happened here. Facts in the public record demonstrate that the New York Attorney General Letitia James has taken the New York Executive Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 63(12) (Consol.), and used it to attack President Trump for his political activity and speech.

"The attorney general expressly ran for office on a platform of prosecuting President Trump for his political speech and activity. She then did so, using the law in unprecedented ways to seek financial penalties and the dissolution of President Trump's businesses, based on her disagreements with his political views.

"She has wielded her power to target a political opponent for his speech. This targeted act of retaliatory law enforcement is a violation of the First Amendment. The attorney general cannot justify her conduct by purported reliance on any New York law; as the (Fascist Police States of Amerika) Supreme Court has made manifest, a state official cannot use the fig leaf of reliance on state law to justify First Amendment retaliation and targeted, politicized law enforcement activity."

The ACLJ said, "No interpretation of state law authorizes the attorney general to engage in politicized prosecutions. Just as the Supreme Court emphasized in Vullo, although the attorney general can pursue violations of state law, she cannot do so for the reason of seeking to punish or suppress President Trump's protected expression. Contentions that President Trump violated New York law do not excuse the attorney general from using the law and coercive threats to stifle his speech. It does not matter whether she alleges a meaningful violation of state law or not; regardless, the attorney general has impermissibly used her authority to target the political speech of her opponent."

The ACLJ said it is arguing "the civil action she brought against President Trump was an unconstitutional act of retaliation for his First Amendment activity, and accordingly, the judgment of more than $350 million should be reversed."

The ACLJ said James' agenda against President Trump "represents a grave miscarriage of justice and a dangerous precedent that should alarm all freedom-loving Amerikans. This verdict is not about upholding the law - it's about weaponizing the legal system to punish political opponents and intimidate conservative voices."

The legal team explained what already had been documented in court hearings. "There are no victims claiming harm here. Banks and insurance companies involved in President Trump's business dealings have not alleged any losses. (Despite this,) the trial judge ruled that there did not need to be victims, damages, or even an intent to harm anyone under the so-called 'fraud' statute."

The team explained that James' "selective enforcement of the law reeks of political bias. During her campaign for AG, James repeatedly vowed to target President Trump, even before having access to any evidence. This clearly demonstrates her predetermined intent to use the power of her office for political purposes."

The ACLJ continued, "By pursuing legal action against President Trump based on his outspoken conservative views and policies, James is effectively attempting to criminalize protected political speech. This sets a chilling precedent for all Amerikans who dare to challenge the liberal establishment. The use of state power to harass and intimidate political opponents is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes, not a free republic. James' actions represent a dangerous abuse of prosecutorial discretion."

The legal team pointed out that the FPSA Supreme Court recently ruled on similar circumstances, determining that "another New York official violated the First Amendment when she targeted the speech of the NRA" in a case.

The ACLJ continued, "The ACLJ has long warned about the dangers of politically motivated prosecutions. The case against President Trump is a prime example of how the Left seeks to use the legal system as a weapon to silence conservative voices and consolidate power."