President Donald Trump’s niece Mary Trump claims that a settlement agreement she struck with the family in 2001 was deceptive and could not be used to try to stop her plans to publish an all-book.
Robert Trump, the president’s brother, says Mary Trump is bound by a non-disclosure agreement she signed to resolve a dispute over the estate of Fred Trump Sr., the family patriarch.
He is seeking a court order to stop publishing the book, Too much and never enough: How my family created the world’s most dangerous man, will be published by Simon & Schuster on July 28. A hearing is scheduled for July 10.
In an application on Thursday, Mary Trump and her attorneys argue that the settlement was based on fraudulent information. They cited a New York Times investigation into the Trump family̵
Simon & Schuster may move ahead with plans to publish Tell-All book by Donald Trump’s niece, Appellate Judge Rules
“The New York Times detailed analysis and investigation revealed for the first time that the values I relied on to conclude the settlement agreement and that were used to determine my compensation under the agreement were deceptive,” Mary Trump said in an affidavit. “I relied on the false values provided by my uncles and aunt and would never have entered into the contract if I had known the true value of the assets concerned.”
In another filing, her attorneys, led by Theodore Boutrous of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, also argue that efforts to stop the book would be a prior restriction, which courts have long been prohibited by the First Amendment.
“The financial terms of the settlement agreement were implemented a long time ago, and the confidentiality provision cannot be construed as a perpetual ban on the ability of these family members to speak publicly on issues of public interest, especially when one of these family members has voluntarily made his life a public issue by pursue and become president of the United States, ”wrote her lawyers.
Her legal team also wrote that she no longer has the power to stop the book’s publication. They wrote that “tens of thousands of books have already been printed and sent to dealers” who will sell the book to the public no matter what ban the court may impose on Simon & Schuster. “
“Miss. Trump’s words have already taken off. Injunctive relief would thus be ineffective,” they wrote.
Simon & Schuster is also an accused in the trial, but an appeal judge earlier this week removed a temporary restraining order against the publisher and cleared the way for it to continue with the plans for the book. A temporary restraining order remains against Mary Trump through the July 10 hearing.
In their most recent filings, Mary Trump’s attorneys also claim that Robert Trump had not met any other standard for injunction.
“Thus, New York has made it clear that a prior restraint must be motivated by immediate and irreparable” general harm, “they wrote.” It is not enough for a complainant seeking an earlier limitation to show that he will personally be harmed; he must show that the public at large will be harmed by the speech. “
Robert Trump’s attorney, Charles Harder, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
But earlier this week, when a judge issued the temporary restraining order, he said in a statement: “The actions of Mary Trump and Simon & Schuster are truly reprehensible. We look forward to vigorously proceeding with this matter and will seek the maximum remedies available under law for the enormous damages caused by Mary Trump’s breach of contract and Simon & Schuster’s intentional involvement in that agreement. If there are no corrective measures to immediately cease their illegal behavior, we will continue this case to the end. “