Judge Denies Giuliani’s Appeal in Defamation Case, Criticizes Former Mayor’s Conduct

Judge Denies Giuliani’s Appeal in Defamation Case, Criticizes Former Mayor’s Conduct

A federal judge in New York has rejected Rudy Giuliani’s attempt to appeal a $146 million defamation judgment against him, condemning his “troubling attitude” towards the legal proceedings. Giuliani, former Mayor of New York and personal attorney to Donald Trump, faced this judgment for defaming two 2020 election workers. The ruling was reported by Law&Crime.

On Tuesday, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Sean H. Lane denied Giuliani’s motion to appeal, criticizing his behavior throughout the case. Giuliani’s failure to meet court deadlines and adhere to rulings significantly hindered progress, Judge Lane noted. The judge expressed his frustration, stating, “I could use a lot of less kind adjectives” regarding Giuliani’s conduct, which he found “disturbing.”

Rachel Strickland, attorney for election worker Ruby Freeman, accused Giuliani of evading financial responsibilities, claiming he spent funds on personal expenses instead of addressing his bankruptcy obligations. Strickland argued that Giuliani’s legal team had not initiated settlement discussions or asset sales to satisfy the judgment.

Giuliani’s attorney admitted inaccuracies in reporting his finances but assured the court that proceeds from Giuliani’s home sale would be placed in escrow for creditors. The bankruptcy proceedings followed a significant defamation judgment won by Freeman and Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss, whom Giuliani falsely accused of election fraud during the 2020 presidential election.

Despite being debunked, Giuliani’s allegations, echoed by Trump and his supporters, led to widespread threats against Freeman and Moss. Giuliani continued to repeat these claims on his radio show, prompting a new defamation suit. Judge Lane scheduled a hearing for Thursday to address Giuliani’s continued defamation of Freeman and Moss.

Giuliani’s default loss in the Freeman case was due to his “willful shirking of his discovery obligations.” He declined to testify in his defense, stating outside the courthouse that his testimony would eventually prove his claims true, despite his absence in court.