Rudy Giuliani, in a bid to avoid being held in contempt, made a plea to a federal judge in a series of documents filed on Christmas Eve.
As part of the ongoing legal battle in his defamation lawsuit against two former Georgia election workers, the former New York City mayor is actively involved in the judgment phase.
Giuliani has lost the fight at the district court level. He is now liable to pay a total of $148 million to Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss. This is a result of Giuliani defaming them with a series of completely false statements about the 2020 election.
The defendant is now striving to maintain ownership and control over specific properties within his family, all the while attempting to evade any backlash or penalties from the judge presiding over the case.
Related Coverage:
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman scheduled a civil contempt hearing for January 3. During the hearing, various motions filed by both parties will be addressed in an omnibus meeting.
In October and November, Freeman and Moss lodged accusations against Giuliani, claiming that he violated multiple court orders. They sought sanctions and contempt charges against him. The alleged violations include disregarding discovery requests and failing to meet associated deadlines. Additionally, the plaintiffs contend that the defendant has refused to hand over specific personal belongings that could potentially be utilized to partially repay the substantial debt owed.
Giuliani, on the other hand, contends that Freeman and Moss cannot legally claim any of his property due to their failure to file the required oath as mandated by the rules governing lawsuits in the Empire State.
The latest motion extensively refers to the rule.
Oath. A temporary receiver, before entering upon his duties, shall be sworn faithfully and fairly to discharge the trust committed to him. The oath may be administered by any person authorized to take acknowledgments of deeds by the real property law. The oath may be waived upon consent of all parties.
According to Giuliani, he did not waive the oath requirement, and he claims that neither Freeman nor Moss asked for a waiver.
According to the motion, the receivership has not officially or legally commenced. The motion states that Plaintiff Ruby Freeman and Plaintiff Wandrea’ Moss, who were appointed as receivers, were required to sign an Oath and have it administered by a person authorized to take acknowledgment of deeds under the real property law of New York State. This Oath should have been filed with the Court before the Plaintiffs took on their duties as Receivers. However, the Plaintiffs failed to file the Oath, suggesting that they have never been authorized to act as receivers. It appears that they have not taken, signed, notarized, or acknowledged the required oaths and filed them with the Court as mandated.
According to the Court docket, the current status appears to be the absence of an oath, as mentioned in the recent filing by the former federal prosecutor.
According to the motion, it is stated that Plaintiff Ruby Freeman and Plaintiff Wandrea’ Moss should not and cannot act as receivers at this time or until they properly execute and file oaths with the Court. The motion further asserts that only after the execution and filing of these oaths, as required by applicable law, should Plaintiff Ruby Freeman and Plaintiff Wandrea’ Moss be allowed to act as court-appointed receivers.
The motion uses previous examples to support its argument.
The Second Department of the New York Appellate Division has held that a receiver is not entitled to receive rents until “qualified.” See, e.g., 570 Kosciusko Realty Corp. v. Kingdale Estates, Inc., 256 A.D. 997, 10 N.Y.S.2d 700 (2d Dept 1939), appeal denied, 280 N.Y. 811; Manufacturers’ Trust Co. v. Sadenet Realty, Inc., 234 A.D. 893, 254 N.Y.S. 428 (2d Dept 1931). To this date, Plaintiffs have not “qualified” as receivers because they failed to file oaths required by CPLR § 6402.
The filing also sends a clear message about the court’s conduct: “The Court should not have ordered the Defendant to hand over any property to the Plaintiffs as receivers until they file oaths under CPLR § 6402 to act as such.”
The defendant argues that the court should not consider any requests for contempt or sanctions due to the alleged lack of receivership authority. They claim that the receivers have not been in compliance with New York civil rules.
According to Giuliani, he has indeed fulfilled several discovery requests despite his lawyers being replaced in November.
Judge exposes Rudy Giuliani lying about why his attorneys quit in defamation case from election workers
The motion argues that after Defendant’s previous counsel withdrew on November 26, 2024, the current counsel made sure to comply with almost all of the court orders that were capable of being complied with.
In December 2023, Freeman and Moss secured a $148 million default defamation verdict after Giuliani launched a campaign falsely accusing them of fraud and voter deception during the 2020 presidential election.
They have been engaged in various forms of litigation to protect their monetary interests against the former federal prosecutor. This includes a recent series of Requests for Production of Documents (RFPs) to obtain relevant financial information.
The plaintiffs claim that Giuliani has not been forthcoming, despite two consecutive orders from Liman regarding those requests.
The court issued two orders on October 28 and November 22. The initial order instructed the defendant to promptly respond to discovery requests and established deadlines for these responses. When the first deadline was not met, the court set another deadline for Giuliani to provide an explanation and avoid being held in contempt. However, Giuliani missed this second deadline as well, prompting Freeman and Moss to request Liman’s intervention.
According to Giuliani, the plaintiffs have not experienced any significant losses despite the existing schedule, regardless of the deadlines.
The motion argues that there has been no delay in the instant case. The trial is scheduled to take place on January 16, 2025, and the discovery process has been ordered to be expedited. The Defendant has not caused any delays that resulted in the Plaintiff incurring additional costs or pursuing the action. Therefore, the motion asserts that no sanctions should be applied.
Let’s get involved in the conversation.
