New York Attorney General Letitia James is pushing the judge in former President Donald Trump’s civil fraud case to void the $175 million bond that Trump previously posted to appeal his New York civil lawsuit.

In her 26-page filing obtained by Fox News Digital, James questions whether the insurance company has sufficient funds to back it up.

Trump’s bond was posted by California-based Knight Specialty Insurance Company (KSIC), but James argued that the insurer was “not authorized” to write business in New York, stating it is a small insurer that is not authorized to write business in New York and is not regulated by the state’s insurance department, had never before written a surety bond in New York or in the prior two years in any other jurisdiction, and has a total policyholder surplus of just $138 million.

The company has a total policyholder surplus of just $138 million, the filing states. According to New York state law, smaller businesses like KSIC are not permitted to expose themselves to liabilities, like a bond, or any potential loss greater than 10 percent of their surplus.

NEW YORK AG TAKES VICTORY LAP AFTER TRUMP FRAUD RULING: ‘JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED’

“Based on KSIC’s policyholder surplus in its most recent annual financial statement of $138,441,671, the limitation of loss on any one risk that KSIC is permitted to write is $13.8 million,” the lawyers wrote. “The face amount of the bond exceeds this limitation by $161.2 million.”

James also wrote in the filing that “KSIC is not qualified to act as the surety under this standard because its management has been found by federal authorities to have operated affiliated companies within KSIC’s holding company structure in violation of federal law on multiple occasions within the past several years.”

“KSIC does not now have an exclusive right to control the account and will not obtain such control unless and until it exercises a right to do so on two days’ notice,” the filing read.

James also wrote that the Court should not rely on KSIC’s financial summary attached to the bond as evidence that KSIC has sufficient capacity to justify writing a $175 million bond.

“That is because KSIC sends 100% of its retained insurance risk to affiliates in the Cayman Islands, where lax regulations allow KSIC to use this risk transfer to reduce the liabilities it carries on its books in a way that artificially bolsters its surplus, a practice New York regulators have dubbed “shadow insurance” and about which they have sounded the alarm,” the filing read. 

For these reasons, James writes that the Court should deny the Motion and require Defendants to post a replacement undertaking within seven days of the Court’s ruling.

NY AG LETITIA JAMES BOOED AT FDNY CEREMONY WITH CHANTS OF ‘TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!’

Democrat New York Attorney General Letitia James and former President Donald Trump. (Getty Images)

In September, Judge Arthur Engoron ruled that Trump and the Trump Organization had committed fraud while building a real estate empire by deceiving banks, insurers and others by overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making deals and securing financing.

The judge also prohibited Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or legal entity in New York for two years. 

The former president has repeatedly slammed the case against him and denied any wrongdoing, calling it a “witch hunt.” 

James brought the lawsuit against Trump, accusing Trump and the Trump Organization of fraudulent business practices. James claimed Donald Jr., Ivanka, and Eric, as well as his associates and businesses, committed “numerous acts of fraud and misrepresentation” on their financial statements.

Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts. 

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The judge is expected to hold a hearing Monday to discuss the issues raised by the attorney general’s office. The hearing is set to run in conjunction with opening statements in Trump’s New York criminal trial.

Fox News’ Brooke Singman and Timothy Nerozzi contributed to this report.

Just a few years ago, California’s budget was overflowing with a record high surplus, spurring the creation of a slew of programs reflecting the state’s liberal ideals.

Democrats who control the state Capitol funded pilots to test new ways to support foster youth, help oil workers transition to cleaner industries and prevent more Californians from becoming homeless — just some of the ambitious ideas that became reality when the budget was flush.

Now, as the state faces an enormous budget deficit that the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office predicted in February could be as much as $73 billion, some of those programs could come to a screeching halt.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic lawmakers are considering significant cuts to some of the very initiatives they recently helped launch while promising to “protect our progress.”

It’s both a reflection of California’s wild budget fluctuations and what can happen in a one-party state known as a progressive policy trailblazer when financial times are good.

For Republicans, it’s an “I told you so” moment.

“The surpluses were absolutely abnormal. They should have put much more money into the budgetary reserve than they did,” said Sen. Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks), vice chair of the Senate Budget Committee.

Newsom’s budget last year included record reserves of nearly $38 billion, but for those in the minority party like Niello, more could have been put away in lieu of creating costly new programs.

“Let’s not get too crazy with these huge revenues,” is the approach Democrats should have taken, Niello said.

Organizations such as the California Budget Policy Center, which advocates for low-income residents and policies that curb inequities, argue there’s nothing wrong with trying out new ideas when the money is there.

“The state needs these opportunities to experiment and practice innovation because you can improve the efficiency and effectiveness during those periods of time,” said Chris Hoene, executive director of the center. “The deficit is forcing them to pull back on a significant share of programs but … if there are better revenue periods ahead, they have said they will continue to make those investments.”

Reducing or altogether eliminating newer programs that are still being tested is better than cutting long established programs that Californians rely on, said H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for Newsom’s Department of Finance.

“These clearly are proposals that wouldn’t be put forward were [it] not for the fact that we’ve got a substantial shortfall,” Palmer said. “It is understandable that people would have objections to these proposals. The question then becomes: What alternatives would people want to put forward, if you choose not to do these measures, that would provide us a like amount of savings to close the shortfall?”

Sen. Dave Min (D-Irvine) put it more bluntly during a legislative budget meeting held at the Capitol last week: “I’ll just be honest, this sucks.”

Newsom signed into law this week a budget agreement made with lawmakers that reduces the deficit by $17 billion, though it’s only a first step toward closing the yawning gap in the state’s spending plan.

As negotiations continue leading up to the June 15 deadline for lawmakers to pass a budget, here are some of the pilot programs Newsom has suggested scaling back or eliminating:

Support for public defenders and eligible prisoners

Prisoners who can’t afford to pay private attorneys and are eligible to have their sentences shortened could potentially stay behind bars longer due to one proposed funding reduction.

In 2021, a public defense pilot program was created to help attorneys cope with a backlog of cases involving prisoners eligible for earlier release under the state’s latest progressive resentencing laws.

Under the program, county public defender offices have received $100 million, collectively helping free more than 8,000 people in the program’s first six months, according to the California Board of State and Community Corrections. Many of those beneficiaries were charged with murder because of their involvement in a felony that led to a death, even if they were not the actual killer — a remnant of a law that California overturned in 2019.

The program now faces a $40-million reduction — a move proponents say could render some of California’s resentencing laws useless because understaffed and overburdened offices won’t be able to adequately assist those eligible.

A representative for Newsom said the funding given so far “still provides data for the evaluation of the results” of the program. But Ricardo Garcia, public defender for Los Angeles County, says it will hamper the state’s efforts to “right some of the mistakes of the past.”

In Los Angeles County, the program has led to the release of more than 100 prisoners, representing 685 fewer years of total potential incarceration, according to Garcia. The program has allowed Garcia’s office to hire more public defenders, social workers and support staff as they represent more than 800 eligible clients who await resentencing.

“Having all these statutes in place … isn’t very helpful if we don’t have the resources to implement it and to really make them effective,” Garcia said.

Help for struggling foster kids

Since 2019, thousands of foster kids — and some of their caretakers — have been able to call a 24/7 hotline for help with everyday conflicts and receive expert support.

The urgent response system was prompted by concerns about “placement disruptions” that can lead to instability and possibly homelessness for the already vulnerable youths.

The hotline annually serves about 5,000 foster children and caregivers, according to state data.

Child welfare advocates are calling on the governor and lawmakers to reconsider a $30-million proposed reduction — a cut they say will shutter the program entirely.

Foster placement changes in California decreased by 16% since the launch of the hotline, according to the data, and advocates say that’s no coincidence.

“We’re certain cutting it will lead to serious negative outcomes for foster children, including increased hospitalization and criminalization,” Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, said.

Funding for low-income housing

In 2023 alone, more than 100,000 Californians had to move because the owners of their homes fell behind on their bills, according to the Community Landtrust Network.

The foreclosure intervention housing preservation program was launched as a way to prevent displacement of renters. It offers grants to residents and nonprofits so they can buy properties at risk of foreclosure and keep them available as homes for people with low incomes.

Proponents of the program called it an “unprecedented” solution to the state’s homelessness crisis because it allows at-risk renters to stay where they are instead of potentially being forced onto the streets or into shelters.

Newsom proposed cutting $248 million meant for the program over three years — about half its total budget. Advocates are urging him to change his mind, as the funding has not even yet been disbursed.

“The need for the program is too great and both [the California Department of Housing & Community Development] and other key stakeholders have sunk too many resources into this pioneering housing strategy to hobble it now,” the Community Landtrust Network said in a statement.

A slew of climate friendly programs

Low-income Californians at the highest risk of wildfires destroying their homes, and oil and gas workers at risk of losing their jobs, are among those who could feel the brunt of climate programs now on the chopping block.

Funding reductions are proposed for a home hardening initiative, a program that helps workers find new jobs as the state moves away from fossil fuels, and a program that promotes composting in local governments.

The proposed reductions have environmental activists concerned, even as the budget draft maintains billions in investments to curb climate change and California is considered an international leader on the issue.

“The state needs to accelerate its efforts to prepare, not pull back — especially in vulnerable and underresourced communities,” Zack Cefalu, a legislative affairs analyst for the League of California Cities, said.

An appeals court dismissed charges against a Michigan election worker who put a USB flash drive into an electronic poll book and downloaded the names of voters at the close of a primary election in 2022.

The court’s conclusion: James Holkeboer’s conduct was improper but not a crime.

He was charged with election fraud. But Holkeboer’s lawyers pointed out that the state law used by prosecutors only bars acts that change the election record.

CALIFORNIA SUES BEACH CITY OVER VOTER ID LAW BACKED BY MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS

“The prosecution had to demonstrate that Holkeboer fraudulently removed or secreted the election list of voters such that the information was no longer available or altered,” the court said in a 3-0 opinion Thursday.

“Here, no evidence was presented that election information was altered or made unavailable” to local election officials, the court said.

Holkeboer’s acts did not affect the results of the 2022 primary election. He was working at a polling place in Kent County’s Gaines Township, south of Grand Rapids, for the first time.

Holkeboer, a Republican, told investigators that he downloaded information about voters because he wanted to compare it to lists he was seeking under a separate public records request, according to a summary of the case.

Kent County Clerk Lisa Posthumus Lyons, who oversees elections, said she’s in favor of an appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.

“This breach of public trust must be addressed,” she said.