Rudy Giuliani faced intense scrutiny in a New York City courtroom recently regarding his failure to comply with a defamation judgment owed to two Georgia election workers, Ruby Freeman and Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss. The judgment, which amounts to $148 million, stems from Giuliani’s false claims about the two women in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, a period marked by widespread misinformation and conspiracy theories. These claims led to significant harm to Freeman and Moss, both of whom were subjected to harassment and public vilification.
During a court hearing, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman made it clear that he was growing increasingly frustrated with Giuliani’s attempts to avoid fulfilling his financial obligations. The case centered on Giuliani’s failure to surrender valuable personal property, including a 1980 Mercedes-Benz SL500, which had been specified in an earlier court order. The plaintiffs’ legal team had accused Giuliani of deliberately concealing assets by moving them out of his Manhattan apartment in the weeks leading up to a deadline for turning over certain items.
The plaintiffs’ legal team revealed that when they were granted access to Giuliani’s apartment, they found it almost completely emptied, leaving behind only a few items of furniture, rugs, and some small, inexpensive objects. This discovery raised suspicions that Giuliani had purposefully hidden the more valuable items that were to be seized as part of the judgment. The court had ordered Giuliani to provide an inventory of these assets, but the plaintiffs alleged that he had evaded complying with the order.
Giuliani denied these allegations, maintaining that his apartment had been filled with items until he was forced to vacate it. He claimed that everything that was meant to be turned over was available and suggested that any issues were the result of misunderstandings. He even questioned the legitimacy of the plaintiffs’ claims, accusing them of dishonesty and asserting that they were lying about the contents of his apartment. Despite his objections, the court was unconvinced by his explanations.
At one point during the proceedings, Giuliani’s attorney, Ken Caruso, argued that a request for Giuliani’s 150-year-old grandfather’s watch was “vindictive,” suggesting that it was an overreach by the plaintiffs. However, Judge Liman dismissed this argument, pointing out that it was common practice for family heirlooms to be used to satisfy court-ordered debts. The judge emphasized that the law required Giuliani to comply with the order and deliver the specified items, regardless of their sentimental value.
Giuliani’s legal team also argued that some of the items, like the Mercedes-Benz, were not subject to the court’s order because they had not been in New York. Giuliani himself reiterated this point to the media, claiming that the car had never been in the state and had only ever been in Florida. However, the court remained skeptical, noting that the car was explicitly mentioned in the order and that it was required to be surrendered as part of the judgment.
Judge Liman expressed increasing impatience with Giuliani’s defense, remarking that the notion that he did not know the whereabouts of certain assets was “farcical.” The judge also made it clear that there was no ambiguity in the original order and that Giuliani was under a clear and unqualified obligation to deliver all of the assets to the court-appointed receiver. He warned that if Giuliani continued to obstruct the process, he could face sanctions.
As the hearing concluded, the judge set a hard deadline for Giuliani to comply, ordering him to turn over the Mercedes-Benz and other specified items by Monday of the following week. The court also demanded that Giuliani provide the title and keys for the car without delay. Giuliani’s attorney assured the court that they would comply promptly, but Judge Liman’s response left little room for further excuses.
The hearing and the judge’s stern remarks reflect ongoing tensions surrounding Giuliani’s legal troubles, which are rooted in his role in promoting false claims about the 2020 election. These claims have led to multiple defamation lawsuits and serious financial repercussions for Giuliani. As the legal battles continue, it remains to be seen whether Giuliani will fully comply with the court’s orders or if further legal consequences will be necessary to ensure his compliance. The case also highlights the broader implications of defamation in the digital age, where misinformation can lead to significant harm, both to individuals and to the public trust in democratic processes.
As the deadline looms for Giuliani to turn over his assets, including the Mercedes-Benz, the pressure on him to comply is mounting. The courtroom drama has underscored the seriousness with which the court is treating the defamation case and Giuliani’s apparent attempts to avoid his obligations. Whether or not Giuliani will fulfill the court’s orders remains uncertain, but the judge’s message was clear: Giuliani has no choice but to comply, and failure to do so could result in further legal consequences.
