'Fails to fully comply with the Court's Order': Mar-a-Lago judge chides Trump valet — again — for not explaining himself after prior sanctions threat for 'overdue' filing

Left: Judge Aileen Cannon (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee); Right: Donald Trump, (AP Photo/George Walker IV, File)

The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago documents case just issued an exceedingly rare order by criticizing a co-defendant in the case for the second time in as many weeks.

On May 30 , the same day the 45th president became a convicted felon for 34 counts of fraudulent business records-related crimes in New York City, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon took Trump’s valet, Waltine “Walt” Nauta, to task in a terse order for missing a court-imposed deadline in the Southern District of Florida. The judge, who is widely viewed as sympathetic to the defense, also warned that failure to comply with corrective measures “may result in sanctions.”

Now, with the deadline bearing down upon the defendant, the tardy filing made its way to the court, but one corrective measure required by Cannon — a document explaining why the original document was not submitted on time — appears to still be missing.

The judge, for her part, was clearly not happy but treaded lightly.

“The Court is in receipt of Defendant Nauta’s Notice of Filing … which attaches the overdue redacted filing … but fails to fully comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause,” the Monday paperless order reads. “Defendant Nauta is reminded that, on or before June 3, 2024, he must ‘show cause, in writing, why he failed to comply with the Court’s instructions by the original deadline of May 28, 2024.'”

The atypical tongue-lashing coupled with the relatively gentle reminder comes amid evergreen redaction and sealing issues that have weighed down the classified documents case from the start.

Earlier in May, the court unsealed several older documents filed earlier this year related to a once-secretive clash between Trump’s lawyers and special counsel Jack Smith over defense allegations of “prosecutorial misconduct” and due process violations.

As part of the unsealing order, Cannon also directed Nauta to “publicly file” a redacted version of a motion he filed ex parte in September 2023. That motion had asked the court for permission to reference discovery in a sur-reply to the government about a conflicts hearing.

The hearing was called by the government because Nauta’s lead defense attorney, Stanley Woodward, both previously and at the time had represented several other people interviewed by federal prosecutors during the course of the Mar-a-Lago investigation — and apparently intended to call some of them as witnesses during trial.

More LawCrime coverage: Judge Cannon sets deadline for Trump as special counsel Jack Smith insists gag order is needed to protect law enforcement, trial witnesses

Before that hearing, the defendant had some specific — and kept under wraps — information he wanted to share with the court.

Cannon wanted Nauta’s public version of the hitherto unseen motion to leave out “names of potential witnesses, ancillary names, and personal identifying information.” The filing was due by May 28. That deadline went by, however, with no filing or explanation.

“Defendant Nauta has not complied with that Order, and the deadline to do so has passed,” the judge observed in Thursday’s order.

The court imposed a June 3 deadline to turn in both the late filing and the explanation for why the filing was late.

On Sunday, Nauta filed the heavily-redacted document .

Some of the extensive redactions from a late filing submitted in the Mar-a-Lago case (Court filing)

More Law&Crime coverage: Court that rebuked Mar-a-Lago judge over Trump special master trashes ‘orchestrated campaign’ to remove her after fielding ‘over 1,000’ complaints

In that filing, Woodward accuses the prosecution of hinting that the defense attorney “improperly influenced his former client [redacted]” during March 2023 grand jury testimony.

The filing goes on, at length [emphasis in original]:

To that end, the Special Counsel’s Office unnecessarily highlighted its interactions with defense counsel to include advising the Court, the public, and Mr. Nauta that “upon advising defense counsel that his concurrent representation of Trump Employee 4 and Mr. Nauta raised a potential conflict of interest, that defense counsel advised that ‘he was unaware of any testimony that Trump Employee 4 would give that would incriminate Nauta and had advised Trump Employee 4 and Nauta of the Government’s position about a possible conflict.: In its Reply. the government elaborated on its allegation. selectively quoting from defense counsel’s submission under seal in the conflicts proceeding before the United States District Court in the District of Columbia. In summary. the Special Counsels’ Office advised the Court: “On July 5, 2023. Trump Employee 4 informed Chief Judge Boasberg that he no longer wished to be represented by Mr. Woodward and that going forward, he wished to be represented by the First Assistant Federal Defender. Immediately after receiving new counsel, Trump Employee 4 retracted his prior false testimony and provided information that implicated Nauta, De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage, as set forth in the superseding indictment.

“What the Special Counsel’s Office failed to disclose to the Court is that Trump Employee 4 did not advise the Chief Judge of the District Court for the District of Columbia that be no longer wished to be represented by defense counsel, but rather that he desired the representation of the First Assistant Federal Defender for purposes of his negotiations with the Special Counsel’s Office: that those negotiations ultimately culminated in the Special Counsel’s Office offering Trump Employee 4 a Non-Prosecution Agreement in exchange for his ‘cooperation’ with the Special Counsel ‘s Investigation: and that when asked in his subsequent grand jury testimony, Trump Employee 4 confirmed that he [redacted] and that [redacted],” the filing goes on.

Nauta’s explanation for why the filing was submitted late has yet to be filed as of this writing.

The post ‘Fails to fully comply with the Court’s Order’: Mar-a-Lago judge chides Trump valet — again — for not explaining himself after prior sanctions threat for ‘overdue’ filing first appeared on Law & Crime .