Eric Trump needed help with the Trump Organization's finances after the company's chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg was removed from his role following his indictment in 2021, according to Trump Hotels executive Mark Hawthorn.

According to Hawthorn's testimony, the company relied on an outdated and inefficient approach to bookkeeping, including authorizing only three individuals -- Weisselberg, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump -- to write checks for the Trump Organization until as late as 2021.

Weisselberg signed most of the company's disbursements, leaving Eric and Don Jr. in uncharted waters once Weisselberg was removed, Hawthorn said.

"He had a stack of checks [on his desk] to sign that was very high," Hawthorn recalled regarding a summer 2021 meeting during which he said Eric Trump requested Hawthorn's help applying his experience running Trump's hotel division.

"Mark, how do you do this in the hotel division?" Eric asked, according to Hawthorn.

"We don't do it like this," Hawthorn said he replied.

The meeting, according to Hawthorn, prompted him to begin an effort to revise the Trump's Organization's bookkeeping policies to replicate his work in Trump's hotel division, which he ran as its chief operating officer. Following Eric Trump's request, he imposed a standardized paperless approach to bookkeeping, so entities could be compared on an "apples to apples basis," Hawthorn testified.

Two current Trump Organization executives are scheduled to return to the witness stand today as part of the defense's case as the trial resumes following the Thanksgiving holiday.

Mark Hawthorn, Trump Hotels' chief financial officer, initially testified for the state's case in October. State attorney Andrew Amer used his testimony as an opportunity to highlight that the Trump Organization had a qualified accountant who could have worked on Trump's statement of financial condition, instead of the top executives who had less accounting experience.

"If any of them had asked you to work with them on preparing Mr. Trump's statement of financial condition, would you have had the knowledge and experience to do so?" Amer asked.

"Yes," Hawthorn responded, adding he was never asked to assist with preparing the statements that are at the center of the attorney general's case.

Patrick Birney, an assistant vice president at the Trump Organization who also testified in October, offered some of the only testimony that supports the attorney general's allegation of a conspiracy to inflate Trump's net worth.

"Did Allen Weisselberg ever tell you that Mr. Trump wanted his net worth on the statement of financial condition to go up?" state attorney Eric Haren asked Birney.

"Yes, I think that happened in Allen Weisselberg's office," Birney said, prompting an objection from Trump's lawyers.

An attorney for Judge Arthur Engoron also filed in support of the gag order in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial, arguing that violent threats have increased since the gag order was lifted.

The limited gag order, which prohibited Donald Trump and his attorneys from publicly commenting about Engoron's staff, was issued by the judge last month after Trump posted about the judge's law clerk on social media. Judge David Friedman of the appellate division's First Department stayed the order on Thursday, citing constitutional concerns over Trump's free speech rights.

Engoron's filing includes a report from Charles Hollon of the Judicial Threats Assessment Unit of the New York State Court System's Department of Public Safety. According to the report, Engoron and his principal law clerk, Allison Greenfield, have been inundated with credible, violent and antisemitic threats since Trump began criticizing Greenfield.

"The threats against Justice Engoron and Ms. Greenfield are considered to be serious and credible and not hypothetical or speculative," Hollon wrote in the report.

Greenfield has been the victim of daily doxing of her personal email address and phone number, receiving dozens of calls, emails and social media messages daily, according to Hollon. Approximately half the harassing messages have been antisemitic, according to Greenfield.

In the report, Hollon wrote that Engoron was the subject of credible threats before the trial had started, but Trump's Oct. 3 Truth Social post directed at Greenfield exponentially increased the number of threats directed at her.

The report included multiple examples of voicemails that were left on the telephone in Engoron's chambers.

Hollon said the messages have created an "ongoing security risk" for Engoron, his staff and family, but that the gag order had been effective in lowering the number of threats.

"The implementation of the limited gag orders resulted in a decrease in the number of threats, harassment and disparaging messages that the judge and his staff received," Hollon said in the report. "However, when Mr. Trump violated the gag orders, the number of threatening, harassing and disparaging messages increased."

Engoron's lawyer, Lisa Evans, said the threats detailed in Hollon's affirmation justify the gag order, which functions as a reasonable limit on free speech.

"The First Amendment does not prohibit courts from limiting speech that threatens the safety of the court's staff," Evans wrote.

Trump's reply to the filing is due on Nov. 27, after which the First Department will decide whether to fully lift the gag order.

A lawyer for New York Attorney General Letitia James, in a court filing Wednesday, argued in favor of maintaining the judge's limited gag after an appeals court temporarily lifted the order last week.

The limited gag order, which prohibited Donald Trump and his attorneys from publicly commenting about Judge Arthur Engoron's staff, was issued by the judge last month after Trump posted about the judge's law clerk on social media. Judge David Friedman of the appellate division's First Department stayed the order on Thursday, citing constitutional concerns over Trump's free speech rights.

James' court filing Wednesday alleges that Trump and his lawyers continue to harass Engoron’s law clerk "as part of an improper tactic to disrupt trial and undermine the proceedings."

James said the gag order is a necessary and "exceedingly limited restraint" to protect Engoron’s staff, and Trump’s lawyers failed to prove that attacks on judicial staff during a trial are protected by the First Amendment.

"A speedy denial is necessary to ensure the safety of [the] Supreme Court's staff and the integrity and the orderly administration of the proceedings through the end of the trial," James wrote, describing Trump's attacks as "extraordinary and dangerous."

Arguing that Trump has engaged in a "pattern" of attacking civil servants involved in proceedings against him, James cited his attacks on the former lieutenant governor of Georgia, as well as officials in his federal election interference case. She also mentioned Trump’s renewed attacks against the clerk over the last week since the gag order was lifted, including calling for her prosecution, sharing an article suggesting she engaged in drug use, and describing her as "crooked and highly partisan."

Trump's lawyers have defended such attacks as constitutionally protected speech and argued that Engoron failed to articulate how the attacks present a "clear and present danger" to the clerk.

Trump personally sued Engoron last week using a provision of state law called Article 78, which is generally used to challenge New York government agencies. Trump unsuccessfully attempted to use an Article 78 proceeding on the eve of the trial to delay the proceeding; however, his most recent attempt successfully resulted in a temporary stay of the gag order.

Trump's reply to the filing is due on Nov. 27, after which the First Department will decide whether to fully lift the gag order.

Ivanka Trump must appear to testify at her father’s fraud trial, Judge Arthur Engoron decided from the bench Friday morning.

“I want to see her in person. That is how we prefer testimony,” Engoron said after denying Ivanka Trump’s motion to quash the trial subpoenas she was served.

While Ivanka Trump was not in attendance at Friday's hearing, her lawyer Bennet Moskowitz argued that the state’s justification for bringing Ivanka to the courtroom “falls on its face.”

Characterizing the state’s argument as “a bridge too far,” Moskowitz reiterated that Ivanka neither lives nor has done business in New York since 2017.

State attorney Kevin Wallace defended the subpoenas by arguing Ivanka Trump was a former Trump Organization executive who was the main contact with lenders for Trump’s Washington D.C. Old Post Office hotel. Wallace added that Ivanka Trump still owns properties in New York and operates business here.

Ruling from the bench after a short break, Engoron found that the state presented sufficient evidence to prove that Ivanka does business in New York.

“Ms. Trump owns property in New York and has done business in New York,” he said.

Engoron added that her testimony should not be scheduled before next Wednesday to allow her lawyers to appeal his ruling.

“A trial is a search for the truth, and the law is entitled to every person’s evidence,” Engoron said.