Judge scolds Giuliani for not turning over assets to two women, including car he's driving

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: CBS News

Updated on: November 7, 2024 / 3:43 PM EST


Trump ally and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani got a tongue-lashing Thursday in federal court after missing a deadline to turn over valuables to two election workers he defamed, including one asset, a vintage Mercedes, that he took for a drive to vote in Florida. He owes the women, Ruby Freeman and daughter Wandrea Moss, millions in damages.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman, upon being informed that Giuliani is the only person listed on a document who has knowledge of his assets — and that he wants his name removed — called the request "farcical." "My expectation is you're going to answer that question truthfully and fully," Liman said, adding that someone else "in the world" must have knowledge of Giuliani's various assets.

Hearings in the matter were being conducted remotely, but Liman ordered Giuliani to appear Thursday in person after learning that Giuliani had not met his obligations to the two women. Lawyers for Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Wandrea Moss, said they went to Giuliani's Manhattan apartment last week and discovered that it had been emptied out, frustrating their efforts to catalog and obtain his assets.

"That's the one piece of property sitting here in Manhattan that can't be moved. Everything else has been game playing," said Aaron Nathan, a lawyer for Freeman and Moss. "We've asked over and over where this stuff is, and the defendant has refused to answer," Nathan said.

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rudy-giuliani-bankruptcy-fight-valuables/

[SoCalDavidS]

1. OOOOHHHHH!!!! A SCOLDING!!!!

What's next, a harshly toned letter?

[3Hotdogs]

8. Yeah... the poor, old bastard.

He shouldn't have to put up with that. I'm gonna write a letter to that judge.

[kirby]

2. Oh no! A scolding! n/t

[Vinca]

3. The judge should order federal marshals to accompany Rudy to wherever he's got his stuff hidden

and confiscate it. If he doesn't produce it all, they should be ordered to arrest him for contempt and take him to jail.

[Irish_Dem]

11. Judges are usually nice to white rich males.

[LiberalLovinLug]

4. If this is the kind of enforcement of a judgement he's going to get

He'll just ride it out until Jan 20th. Then it will magically disappear

[Irish_Dem]

12. This appears to be the plan.

[Evolve Dammit]

5. Judge Liman- You are weak, timid and not doing your job. Rudy is laughing in your face. Resign already.

[RockRaven]

6. Hey judge, jail him for contempt until you are satisfied with his compliance, or

STFU. Spare us the pretense of being stern while actually being made into a clown by this guy.

[JoseBalow]

7. Bailiff, whack his pee-pee!

[Autumn]

9. Scolding are such cruel and unusual punishments.

[2naSalit]

10. He's such a...

Shriveled up, disgusting, evil little troll.

[moniss]

13. So the judge gave him another deadline

which I'm pretty sure will be respected by Ghooliani like he has all other court orders and deadlines in all of his cases.

[moniss]

14. For anybody worried about the Orange Ruski giving Ghooliani

a pardon in this case, I did some research about criminal matters versus civil and here is what I found from the Brookings website: "Settled law: The scope of the presidential pardon

With President Trump’s history of controversial pardon decisions and with expectations that numbers of additional pardons will issue before his term ends, the presidential power to pardon is attracting unprecedented attention. The exact dimensions of this power are for the Supreme Court to determine, and Court majorities have in recent years often been unshackled by precedent in resolving politically fraught issues. However, certain aspects of the presidential pardoning power are so well-established that it is unlikely that any Court, conservative or liberal, will revisit them. For starters the power is extremely broad; it is vested by the Constitution in the president, and there is little that Congress can do to
Settled law: Limitations of the presidential pardon

Although the president’s power is broad, it is not without accepted limitations. Perhaps the most important is that the president can only pardon federal offenses; he cannot interfere with state prosecutions. Also, the pardoning power only extends to criminal offenses; it does not preclude civil actions. Thus, in one case, despite a strong separation of powers argument to the contrary, the Supreme Court held that the president could pardon a person jailed for criminal contempt of court. It noted, however, that had the charges been for civil contempt, an appeal to the president’s pardoning power would have been unavailing."

So it looks like they might try and then drag it into the appeals process but eventually the matter seems clear. Unless Cash and Carry Clarence feels otherwise.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/presidential-pardons-settled-law-unsettled-issues-and-a-downside-for-trump/#:~:text=Perhaps%20the%20most%20important%20is%20that%20the%20president,criminal%20offenses%3B%20it%20does%20not%20preclude%20civil%20actions.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. Well the SCOTUS pretty much declared

"stare decisis" dead and buried. There may be enough broad intent in the power to blow off the "only criminal" expectation from the past, at least from some on this current SCOTUS.

The literal text from Article II says this - Article II

Article II

(snip)

Section 2.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

(snip)

[moniss]

17. The full Brookings article

covers that highlighted language and goes into some of the cases. Also remember that there is no precedent for the pardon being used in civil cases. Going into the civil arena opens things up to a President doing things on the level of divorce judgements etc. whereas the the case law considers the word "offences" to mean crimes. There is however criminal defamation and civil defamation with the important distinction of knowledge and intent. Defamation that includes intent to harm and knowledge beforehand of the statements being false is looked at more seriously and is considered a harm to society (against the United States by definition) and can be prosecuted as criminal by a US Attorney, District Attorney etc. The case is US v or State of v etc. and the defamed party might be a witness but is not the plaintiff. The purpose and penalties in the case is for punishment of the defamer and might include fines and jail time. The criminal action is not about paying damages to the defamed party.

The civil case on the other hand is brought by the defamed party as the plaintiff and is for compensation for harm/damages caused to the defamed party. The case of Ruby Freeman and her daughter is civil and one could argue that it could have been criminal but because it wasn't filed that way by a prosecutor it's too late now.

https://www.jsrohilla.com/difference-between-criminal-and-civil-defamation/

[BumRushDaShow]

19. Oh I know what they are asserting

and I try not to be as alarmist or defeatist as some on DU. But we seem to be in an era where "fringe" legal theories are being promoted by at least 2 Justices, one such "theory" having been cited as justification for throwing out a classified documents case by the RW loon Loose Cannon.

So I wouldn't completely rule out the further use of "fringe" ideas that could be proffered to justify including "civil" judgements.

[moniss]

20. That's why I included the mention of Cash and Carry Clarence. nt

[Old Crank]

16. Scolded?

He needs to be jailed for contempt of court.

[moniss]

18. The judge will have the choice of criminal contempt

or civil contempt if Ghooliani fails to comply. People might think it's odd that contempt could be criminal in a civil case as opposed to civil contempt but it has to do with the severity and circumstances of the contempt. The nice thing about the criminal contempt is that it is part of a permanent criminal record. Civil contempt is more like getting a reluctant party to file a required form etc. But if someone has been openly disrespecting a court the judge can go criminal contempt. It's very much up to the judge and how serious he views the conduct and pattern if any.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/criminal-contempt-of-court.html

[travelingthrulife]

21. Well, tow it away! What is the problem here?

n/t

[republianmushroom]

22. "scolds", how about jail time for non-compliance ?

No man is above the law. What a sham. Chuckle, chuckle.

[tonekat]

23. Hey, According to SCOTUS,

Joe could order a Hellfire missile to target Rudy's Merc next time he's out and about, giving the finger to the law.

Then give the plaintiffs the equivalent worth of the car, which will now be in a crater with Rude-y.