(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’s
courtroom.
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’re
trying
to
collect
on
the
judgment,
and
Rudy’s
up
to
his
old
tricks.
He’s
currently
got
two
contempt
motions
pending
against
him
—
one
for
failure
to
turn
over
his
property
to
pay
his
debts,
and
one
for
refusing
to
comply
with
discovery.
On
top
of
that,
he
created
a
whole
new
problem
for
himself
Thursday
with
his
response
to
the
court’s
order
to
show
cause
why
he
shouldn’t
be
sanctioned
in
the
discovery
matter.
Rudy’s
bright
idea
was
to
blame
his
former
attorneys
Ken
Caruso
and
David
Labkowski.
“I
relied
upon
my
prior
counsels,
Kenneth
Caruso,
Esq.
and
David
Labkowski,
Esq.
to
timely
respond
to
the
Plaintiffs’
discovery
demands
with
my
input
as
they
needed,
and
to
avoid
disobeying
any
of
this
Court’s
orders
or
discovery
demands,”
he
wrote
in
his
declaration,
adding
that
he
“did
not
intentionally
or
willfully
disobey
or
violate
any
orders
or
demands.”
The
problem
is
that
the
court
knows
that
to
be
untrue
because
on
the
way
out
the
door
Caruso
and
Labkowski
told
the
court
why
they
were
leaving
in
a
heavily
redacted
motion
to
withdraw.
And
so
on
Friday
Judge
Liman
gave
Giuliani
24
hours
to
explain
why
he
shouldn’t
unseal
part
of
Caruso
and
Labkowski’s
declaration,
since
Rudy
effectively
invoked
the
advice
of
counsel
defense
and
waived
the
privilege.
Trump’s
cartoon
ninja
lawyer
Joseph
Cammarata,
submitted
his
own
filing
last
week
suggesting
that
prior
counsel
got
so
overwhelmed
by
the
plaintiffs’
motions
that
they
“could
not
take
it
anymore,
and
they
had
to
withdraw.”
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’s
order
with
an
admonition
that
the
judge
had
no
one
but
himself
to
blame
for
the
pickle
they
were
all
in.
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
that
proved
Rudy
was
lying.
Had
the
Court
signed
the
routinely
filed
Consent
Order
Granting
Substitution
of
Attorney
at
the
bottom
which
form
states
“The
substitution
of
attorney
is
hereby
approved
and
so
ORDERED”,
then
the
Court
would
never
have
considered
the
Defendant’s
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
“The
substitution
of
attorney
is
hereby
approved
and
so
ORDERED”.
Cammarata
insisted
that
the
attorneys’
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’t
limited
to
the
document
itself
—
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
rely
on
his
lawyers
to
turn
over
his
stuff.
Cammarata
finished
by
begging
the
court
to
delay
any
unsealing
order
to
give
Rudy
time
to
appeal,
on
the
theory
that
“unsealing
the
Sealed
Documents
would
not
be
in
anyone’s
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.”
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
why
prying
off
the
redaction
bars
might
be
in
someone’s
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.
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.
In
fact
Giuliani
specifically
told
his
lawyers
that
he
did
not
intend
to
cooperate
with
discovery.
Here’s
the
sentence
that
got
unsealed
yesterday:
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’s
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.
WHOOPSIE!
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.
“To
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
‘mockery’
of
the
court
and
its
proceedings,”
Judge
Liman
wrote
incredulously,
adding
that
the
court
“cannot
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.”
The
court’s
order
leaves
four
paragraphs
still
redacted.
It
also
contains
this
ominous
footnote:
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.
In
a
certain
light
this
might
be
read
as
a
warning
to
Giuliani
and
his
lawyer
—
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.
Whether
these
two
geniuses
are
smart
enough
to
read
the
signs
remains
to
be
seen,
however.
Freeman
v.
Giuliani [Docket
via
Court
Listener]
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.