In a legal dispute involving the Mar-a-Lago documents case, co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira have accused the U.S. government of engaging in “highly prejudicial” tactics. Their attorneys filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, arguing that the government’s recent actions reflect a deliberate attempt to bypass judicial rules and processes. The core issue centers around the U.S. Department of Justice’s effort to release special counsel Jack Smith’s final report, which includes two volumes: one concerning Trump’s alleged efforts to undermine the 2020 election and the other related to the mishandling of documents by Trump, Nauta, and de Oliveira.
The government filed a motion late on Friday morning, styled as a “notice” of its intent to appeal a previous ruling by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon. This ruling temporarily blocked the release of Smith’s report. The defense attorneys claim that this notice is an improper attempt to revisit past appellate court decisions and relitigate matters that have already been settled. They argue that the motion improperly seeks to challenge the district court’s protective order, which temporarily prevents the release of the report.
Despite this, the 11th Circuit declined to issue an immediate order preventing the release of Smith’s report. The court allowed Judge Cannon’s order to remain in effect for an additional three days. The defense’s filing criticizes the government’s notice, calling it procedurally improper because it presents arguments that had already been raised in opposition to the injunction sought by Nauta and de Oliveira.
Furthermore, the defense alleges that the notice was filed by attorneys not affiliated with Smith, but instead by the current U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. This, they argue, is an attempt to bypass the appropriate legal channels, as the U.S. Attorney’s role in this case is not to challenge the protective order but to prosecute the remaining criminal defendants. The defense contends that the U.S. Attorney’s involvement in seeking the release of the report undermines the defendants’ due process rights and shows an inappropriate use of government resources to advance political objectives.
The defense further highlights that the current U.S. Attorney’s term is set to end on January 17, due to his resignation, which adds to their argument that his involvement in this matter is unwarranted. They assert that his actions are politically motivated and intended to disrupt the ongoing criminal case against Nauta and de Oliveira, potentially causing harm to their legal defense.
In their motion, the defense requests that the court take action to ensure the orderly progression of the case and prevent any further attempts by the government to manipulate the situation. They argue that the government’s actions are a blatant disregard for the judicial process and the defendants’ constitutional rights, and they ask the court to strike the government’s notice or deny any relief it seeks.
