![\"Rudy](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/GettyImages-1229684330-300x200.jpg?resize=300%2C200&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/p>\n(Photo by Drew Angerer\/Getty Images)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Rudy Giuliani is trying to get himself held in contempt of court. There is no other explanation for his reckless, bizarre behavior in Judge Lewis Liman\u2019s courtroom.<\/p>\n
In the defamation suit brought by Atlanta poll workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, Giuliani got defaulted thanks to his total failure to cooperate with discovery. Now they\u2019re trying to collect on the judgment, and Rudy\u2019s up to his old tricks. He\u2019s currently got two contempt motions pending against him \u2014 one for failure to turn over his property to pay his debts, and one for refusing to comply with discovery.<\/p>\n
On top of that, he created a whole new problem for himself Thursday with his response to the court\u2019s order to show cause why he shouldn\u2019t be sanctioned in the discovery matter. Rudy\u2019s bright idea was to blame his former attorneys Ken Caruso and David Labkowski.<\/p>\n
\u201cI relied upon my prior counsels, Kenneth Caruso, Esq. and David Labkowski, Esq. to timely respond to the Plaintiffs\u2019 discovery demands with my input as they needed, and to avoid disobeying any of this Court\u2019s orders or discovery demands,\u201d he wrote in his declaration<\/a>, adding that he \u201cdid not intentionally or willfully disobey or violate any orders or demands.\u201d<\/p>\n The problem is that the court knows that to be untrue<\/em> because on the way out the door Caruso and Labkowski told the court why they were leaving in a heavily redacted motion to withdraw<\/a>. And so on Friday Judge Liman gave<\/a> Giuliani 24 hours to explain why he shouldn\u2019t unseal part of Caruso and Labkowski\u2019s declaration, since Rudy effectively invoked the advice of counsel defense and waived the privilege.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s cartoon ninja lawyer<\/a> Joseph Cammarata, submitted his own filing<\/a> last week suggesting that prior counsel got so overwhelmed by the plaintiffs\u2019 motions that they \u201ccould not take it anymore, and they had to withdraw.\u201d As that was not a sworn declaration, the court magnanimously disregarded it. Cammarata is still aiming for the stars, though, and on Saturday he responded to Judge Liman\u2019s order with an admonition that the judge had no one but himself to blame for the pickle they were all in.<\/p>\n See, if Judge Liman had just allowed the substitution of counsel without requiring an explanation from Caruso and Labkowski, the lawyers would never have gone on the record and said whatever it was<\/em> that proved Rudy was lying.<\/p>\n Had the Court signed the routinely filed Consent Order Granting Substitution of Attorney at the bottom which form states \u201cThe substitution of attorney is hereby approved and so ORDERED\u201d, then the Court would never have considered the Defendant\u2019s prior counsel Kenneth A. Caruso, Esq. and David Labkowski redacted motions to withdraw as counsel and declaration in support thereof (Dkt. No. 109 and 110), because the motions to withdraw should have been rendered moot once the Consent Order Granting Substitution of Attorney, was filed with the Court on November 15, 2024 as Dkt. No 119, had the Court just signed the bottom of the form that stated \u201cThe substitution of attorney is hereby approved and so ORDERED\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Cammarata insisted that the attorneys\u2019 parting declarations should be treated as moot, and\/or Giuliani had the right to withdraw them. It does not seem to have occurred to him that the privilege waiver wasn\u2019t limited to the document itself \u2014 by invoking the advice of counsel defense with respect to his discovery violations, Rudy waived privilege as to the issue of whether he really did<\/em> rely on his lawyers to turn over his stuff.<\/p>\n Cammarata finished by begging the court to delay any unsealing order to give Rudy time to appeal, on the theory that \u201cunsealing the Sealed Documents would not be in anyone\u2019s best interests, except that it would provide more news for the press to write about, which is what has been ongoing with this case nearly each time that either the Plaintiffs or Defendant makes a filing on the dockets of this case in this Court.\u201d<\/p>\n But this is not a New York state court where interlocutory appeals are the norm, and anyway, Judge Liman could think of one or two reasons<\/a> why prying off the redaction bars might be in someone\u2019s<\/em> best interest. Because allowing Rudy to defend himself against the contempt charges by blaming his lawyers would constitute a fraud on the court if not outright perjury.<\/p>\n The declarations, if credited, undermine any notion that Defendant relied upon Prior Counsel in connection with discovery. The two state that Defendant informed them that he would not participate in discovery in this action and that he would not identify or provide access to his electronic devices for purposes of discovery. He did so against the advice of counsel.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In fact Giuliani specifically told his lawyers that he did not intend<\/em> to cooperate with discovery. Here\u2019s the sentence that got unsealed yesterday:<\/p>\n Defendant has informed us that he will not participate in electronic discovery in the Homestead Action. Specifically, he has informed us that he will not identify or provide access to his electronic device(s) for imaging by an electronics-discovery vendor, which we have identified. We have a fundamental disagreement with that position. Defendant\u2019s position also constitutes a failure to cooperate with us in the representation and renders it unreasonably difficult for us to carry out our employment effectively.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n WHOOPSIE!<\/p>\n As Judge Liman notes, Giuliani could have backed away from his lie about why his lawyers left. Instead he insisted that it was his right to repeat it, including on the stand at his contempt hearing on January 3, without waiving privilege.<\/p>\n \u201cTo permit Defendant to claim that he had instructed his lawyers to comply with all court orders including those requiring electronic production and that it was Prior Counsel who were responsible for the misdeeds that have plagued this case, while sitting on declarations in the court file that belie those claims, would permit him to make a \u2018mockery\u2019 of the court and its proceedings,\u201d Judge Liman wrote incredulously, adding that the court \u201ccannot under the law ignore the declarations of Prior Counsel and pretend that they did not exist. And it cannot consider those declarations without making them available to opposing counsel and to the public who have a right to know how the Court reaches its decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n The court\u2019s order leaves four paragraphs still redacted. It also contains this ominous footnote:<\/p>\n The Court found that the redactions of certain paragraphs were justified as containing privileged information. See Dkt. No. 78 at 2. The Court has no occasion at this time to revisit that conclusion or to consider whether, in fact, any privilege might have been vitiated by the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In a certain light this might be read as a warning to Giuliani and his lawyer \u2014 a suggestion by the court that they ought to think hard before allowing Giuliani to say anything on the stand which might contradicted by whatever remains behind those redaction bars.<\/p>\n Whether these two geniuses are smart enough to read the signs remains to be seen, however.<\/p>\n Freeman v. Giuliani<\/a>\u00a0[Docket via Court Listener]<\/p>\n Liz Dye<\/a>\u00a0lives in Baltimore where she produces the Law and Chaos\u00a0substack<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0podcast<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It’s a bold strategy, Cotton. The post Rudy Giuliani Defends His Right To Lie To The Court appeared first on Above the Law. (Photo by Drew Angerer\/Getty Images) Rudy Giuliani is trying to get himself held in contempt of court. There is no other explanation for his reckless, bizarre behavior in Judge Lewis Liman\u2019s courtroom. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":98494,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-98493","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law","category-legal_matters"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/GettyImages-1229684330-oE6Tiq.jpeg?fit=594%2C396&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98493","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=98493"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98493\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/98494"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98493"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98493"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98493"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n
\n
\n