In February, former President Donald Trump and his business were hit with an outrageous $454 million and growing civil fraud judgment by a New York judge who sided with the dubious claims of alleged financial wrongdoing in a lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Trump's attorneys have now formally filed an appeal of the matter and urged New York's Appellate Division to overturn the decision rendered by Judge Arthur Engoron as deeply erroneous and unconstitutional, according to the Washington Examiner.

The summary judgment, which was issued in September before the trial even began, has since ballooned to more than $470 million with the daily accumulation of interest, and in addition to that sum, Trump, his two adult sons, and other Trump Organization executives are barred from doing business in the state for several years while AG James has threatened to seize and liquidate assets to cover the claimed amount owed.

NYAG and the judge were wrong

"In this case, the New York Attorney General seeks to unwind and penalize complex, highly successful transactions between Appellants and
sophisticated Wall Street banks that left all parties deeply satisfied and had no impact on the public interest," the 95-page filing asserted. "This unauthorized, unprecedented power-grab exceeds NYAG’s statutory authority under Executive Law § 63(12). It violates centuries of New York case law holding that NYAG cannot sue to vindicate alleged violations that are purely private in nature -- and, in this case, do not exist at all."

The trial court, which never should have heard the case to begin with, "wrongly decided" the matter and ignored the appellate court in multiple instances, and those "erroneous decisions," if allowed to stand, "would bestow upon NYAG limitless power to target anyone she desires, including her self-described political opponents," which could cause businesses to flee and create an economic "disaster" for the state.

The filing argued that there were no crimes committed or even any complaints, that there were "no victims and no losses," and that if the alleged "conduct constituted 'fraud' under § 63(12), then that word has no meaning, and NYAG’s power to seize and destroy private businesses is boundless --
and standardless."

Trump's attorneys further assessed that, contrary to the claims of AG James and the judgment of the court, the declared value of various assets was actually lower than reality and not inflated higher, and a complaint was lodged against the "draconian financial sanctions" imposed against the former president, his sons, and his business.

Multiple reasons why judgment should be overturned

The appeal from former President Trump went on to outline seven different reasons why the trial court's decision should be overturned, including that the court misapplied the wrong legal doctrine and statute.

It was also argued that the "disgorgement" penalties were not only wrongly imposed, since there was no evidence of any "ill-gotten gains," but also that it was an unconstitutional and "grossly disproportional" violation of the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment and the New York Constitution's Due Process Clause.

"In sum, this politically motivated prosecution attempts to penalize purely proper and lawful conduct by illegally and unconstitutionally applying § 63(12). NYAG’s assertion of boundless authority to target her political opponents would render the statute unconstitutional. The Judgment below must be reversed," the filing stated.

AG James dismissive of Trump's appeal

NBC News reported that former President Trump's attorney Chris Kise said the appeal "seeks reversal of the trial court's legally bereft decisions which ignored the undisputed facts, refused to follow the binding mandate of the Appellate Division, imposed draconian, unlawful, and unconstitutional penalties, and willingly allowed a reckless, politically motivated Attorney General to meddle in lawful, private, and mutually profitable transactions."

Unsurprisingly, AG James' office rejected Trump's filed appeal in a dismissive statement released through a spokesperson.

"Once again, the defendants are raising arguments that they were already sanctioned and fined for. We won this case based on the facts and the law, and we are confident we will prevail on appeal," the spokesperson said.

The Examiner reported that James' office is due to respond to the filing next month and the appellate court will consider the appeal's arguments by the end of September.