Even though President Donald Trump has been ordered to pay more than $5 million to E. Jean Carroll, the woman he was found liable for sexually abusing in 1996, the Republican politician is using an old trick — filing frivolous litigation — to try to wriggle out of his legal responsibilities.After U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied President Donald Trump's latest legal filing to delay paying E. Jean Carroll, “Trump's attorneys filed a notice of appeal, previewing an effort to stop the $5.77 million disbursement by pleading with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,” wrote Law and Crime’s Colin Kalmbacher on Wednesday. He explained that Trump has technically exhausted his legal options, having gone through the lower courts all the way up to the Supreme Court, but is prolonging the action in the hope he can delay paying what he owes Carroll.“In a memo for the plaintiff, Kaplan argued the high court's denial of Trump's petition for a writ of certiorari was ‘a final outcome that, as the Parties agreed and this Court expressly ordered, entitles Carroll to 'collect any moneys owed by Defendant to Plaintiff,’” Kalmbacher wrote. “Not so, says Trump in his Tuesday filing.”Kalmbacher explained that “to hear Trump tell it, Carroll's request to disburse the funds misreads a three-pronged section of the stipulation agreement as a disjunctive series of events, wherein one condition being met will allow the defamation verdict award to be unlocked and paid out.” In order to get around that, Trump is arguing that Carroll can only access the more than $5 million owed to her after “the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issues a mandate, the Supreme Court declines the case, and the Supreme Court issues a final order, according to Trump. And, though all of those events occurred, Trump quickly filed a petition for rehearing with the nine justices.”He continued, “Adding a further wrinkle, Trump's petition for rehearing refers to another case between himself and Carroll — and could very well form the basis for the nation's high court to eventually reconsider.”In her lawsuits against Trump, Carroll argued that he defamed her by denying an incident in which he sexually abused her inside a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in 1996. Trump has since tried to discredit Carroll and her lawyer by claiming she knowingly misrepresented that her legal fees were being covered by LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman. Notably, he has never alleged that Carroll perjured herself by saying that Trump sexually forced himself on her in the dressing room."But here's the thing: you notice how they're not going after her about the substantive testimony she provided about the sexual assault that she was victimized by Trump, right?" prominent lawyer Katie Phang recently observed. "They're not going after that. They're not going after the underlying facts of what she has alleged happened to her at the hands of Donald Trump. That is the tell."