Steve Bannon has been avoiding payment of the half-million dollars he owes his former lawyer for the past two years. This unwillingness to settle his debts has now put him and his current attorney at risk of facing possible sanctions.
“Bannon and his counsel have been intentionally stalling and delaying the enforcement of the plaintiff’s valid money judgment for months,” expressed the law firm that previously represented him in a letter to a New York state judge. Their frustration was clearly evident as they underlined their statement.
Steve Bannon, the former White House chief strategist under Donald Trump, finds himself in a challenging situation. He is currently a convicted individual seeking to evade a four-month prison sentence for disregarding a congressional subpoena related to his involvement in the January 6th coup attempt. Additionally, in May, he will face trial by the Manhattan District Attorney for deceiving nativist donors who wished to contribute to the construction of a privately-funded border wall between the United States and Mexico.
However, he is exacerbating the situation for himself.
It has been seven months since a judge in New York ordered the right-wing political agitator, who spreads conspiracy theories, to pay the defense lawyer he had previously refused to pay, a sum of $484,197.
According to court filings, Bannon has been evading the ordered judgment and disregarding subsequent subpoenas. This has forced the New York City law firm of Davidoff Hutcher and Citron to request the judge’s intervention once again. They referred to Bannon’s actions as “a last-ditch effort concocted by Bannon to manipulate this court.”
The law firm made efforts to assess Bannon’s personal finances and his ability to settle the bill by requesting his testimony under oath and issuing subpoenas to gather information about his businesses and the contents of his personal bank accounts. According to emails, Bannon’s new attorney, Harlan Protass, initially agreed in November to arrange a deposition and provide relevant documents, on the condition that a “simple and straightforward” confidentiality agreement be signed first.
However, as time passed, there were no significant developments.
In January, Bannon unexpectedly resisted and asserted his inability to answer questions or provide bank records. He argued that doing so might expose evidence of fraud, which could jeopardize his efforts to overturn his federal conviction and potentially strengthen the Manhattan DA’s case.
According to court filings, Protass expressed concern that DHC’s decision to conduct post-judgment discovery on Mr. Bannon could potentially jeopardize his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
On February 6th, the law firm representing Costello was taken aback by an unpleasant surprise. They informed the judge that Protass had been playing games with them and attempting to delay the proceedings. Joseph N. Polito, a senior counsel at Costello’s firm, expressed his frustration by stating that the excuse provided by Protass was illogical and feeble.
In a bold move, Polito requested that New York Supreme Court Justice Arlene P. Bluth impose $10,000 sanctions on the right-wing influencer and his lawyer. This aggressive approach was taken due to their intentional dilatory litigation tactics.
According to Polito, Bannon’s deliberate and dishonest behavior has forced the plaintiff to take legal action and request civil contempt and sanctions. If this relief is not granted, there is a risk that Bannon will become even more confident in employing delaying tactics, which have already caused significant harm to the plaintiff’s efforts to fulfill the outstanding monetary judgment.
However, Polito took it a step further, requesting the judge to also include the expenses he had to bear “for dealing with Bannon’s thoughtlessness.” This clever jab describes the time he wasted pursuing the conservative media personality.
Protass has not responded to a request for comment, but it is anticipated that he will file a formal reply in court records later this week. Polito, on the other hand, did not reply to an email seeking information about the case.
