Last week, the legal landscape briefly hinted at the potential emergence of an unparalleled legal drama titled Rudy Giuliani: Pro Se Litigant. Unfortunately, this captivating narrative was abruptly halted when Joseph Cammarata, a divorce attorney hailing from Staten Island, stepped in to represent Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss in their collection action against the former Mayor of New York. This unexpected turn of events has left many legal enthusiasts disappointed, as the show would have showcased the intricacies of courtroom battles.
Giuliani’s current legal representatives, Ken Caruso and David Labkowski, are attempting to extricate themselves from the case, fearing they may be compelled to present misleading statements before Judge Lewis Liman. Interestingly, their ethical concerns seem to dissipate when it comes to Rudy’s ongoing appeal in the DC Circuit regarding the defamation case brought forth by the Atlanta poll workers. Their dilemma highlights the challenges lawyers face when navigating complex legal waters while maintaining professional integrity.
“Representing a client during an appeal is entirely different from making claims about the client’s circumstances,” they assert, emphasizing the legal intricacies involved. This statement is followed by several redacted lines, likely outlining the fabrications Rudy wishes to convey regarding his assets and residency in Florida, particularly concerning the homestead exemption applicable to judgment collections. The tension surrounding these representations illustrates the high stakes involved in this legal saga.
Interestingly, Cammarata appears to lack familiarity with federal procedures, as evidenced by his missteps in filing since he took on this case. In the week following his appearance, he has made errors in three separate filings, including a notably flawed appeal that was deficient in multiple respects. These missteps raise questions about the effectiveness of his representation and could have serious implications for the case’s progress.
Freeman and Moss have indicated they do not oppose the change in legal representation, provided it does not result in any delays to the trial scheduled for January 16. However, Cammarata seems intent on postponing proceedings, having requested a 30-day extension for all deadlines, along with a trial delay so Giuliani can indulge in festivities in Washington, D.C., during the week leading up to inauguration. This request raises concerns about the integrity of the trial timeline and the potential for further complications.
Judge Liman responded firmly, stating, “Defendant’s request for extensions of deadlines prior to November 26, 2024, is denied. All deadlines will remain as scheduled.” He further clarified that any requests beyond the scope of substitution of counsel must be formally motioned and would not be entertained. This decisive ruling underscores the court’s commitment to maintaining the trial schedule amidst ongoing legal maneuvering.
Cammarata took the opportunity to address the court, outlining perceived errors in its previous rulings, even suggesting that compelling Giuliani to relinquish his possessions without an appraisal—something Caruso and Labkowski never requested—has infringed upon his statutory and constitutional rights. This assertion raises significant questions about the legal standards governing asset seizure and the protections afforded to defendants in such proceedings.
In a separate development, Rudy’s associates have been embroiled in disputes over subpoenas. During a tumultuous bankruptcy process, his girlfriend, Maria Ryan, adamantly denied receiving service of a subpoena, confidently asserting to Akin Gump’s counsel, “I think you’ve been duped! If you paid money for this service, I would demand a refund!” Her claims were made despite an affidavit from the process server, complete with photographic evidence of Ryan at the time of service, highlighting the chaotic nature of this legal entanglement.
Currently, Ryan, along with Giuliani’s associates Ted Goodman and Ryan Medrano, in addition to a shell company named Standard USA LLC, have finally responded, albeit partially, to subpoenas demanding detailed financial disclosures. For instance, the subpoena stipulated that Rudy must provide comprehensive information regarding any transfers of funds to himself, including parties involved, identities of properties transferred, amounts, dates, and relevant banking details. Such extensive demands underscore the depth of scrutiny involved in this case.
Cammarata’s response on Rudy’s behalf to these demands has raised eyebrows among the plaintiffs’ legal team, who are weighing their options for further action.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs’ attorneys at Willkie Farr & Gallagher have a history of strategic legal maneuvering and have recently communicated to Judge Liman their decision not to pursue compliance against FakeAss LLC, Ryan, Goodman, or Medrano. Instead, they plan to assess these responses and may seek further judicial relief if necessary, potentially including sanctions for non-compliance. This decision suggests a tactical approach to navigating the complexities of the case.
This afternoon, the plaintiffs’ team submitted a letter to the court detailing Giuliani’s apparent attempts to obstruct asset collection, including social media posts from an individual known as “Joe the Box.” He operates the America First Warehouse in Ronkonkoma, where Rudy allegedly relocated his possessions after vacating his Manhattan residence. This individual has publicly vowed to film the plaintiffs’ counsel as they attempt to inventory the property, which adds another layer of complexity and spectacle to this ongoing legal drama.
#istandwithrudy @RudyGiuliani @robertfcoffman @IvanRaiklin @realDonaldTrump @RealAmVoice pic.twitter.com/c9ZIhsG5gs
— The America First Warehouse (@americafirstwh) November 20, 2024
Given these developments, the receivers have stated they will not return to the [Warehouse] Facility as initially planned, citing safety, efficiency, and practicality concerns due to the ongoing obstruction. Their legal team has articulated their apprehensions regarding the situation, emphasizing the need for a secure environment to proceed with inventory and collection efforts.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs’ attorneys have expressed significant concern regarding Cammarata’s recent actions:
On Wednesday morning, Mr. Giuliani’s new attorney held a press conference outside the New York City offices of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, representing the receivers. Cammarata, a member of the New York Bar, is presumably well-acquainted with professional conduct rules and has a suitable office for press events. It raises questions as to why he chose to target the receivers’ counsel with a press conference at that location. During this event, Cammarata made a series of allegations against the proceedings, the receivers’ legal team, and the underlying judgment, which could have serious ramifications for the case.
Judge Liman has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday to address the various issues that have emerged. It appears that Caruso and Labkowski may face further challenges in securing their position in this contentious legal environment.
Liz Dye, a legal commentator based in Baltimore, produces the Law and Chaos substack and podcast, offering insightful analysis on current legal issues.
Stay updated on the latest trends in litigation, regulation, deals, and financial services by subscribing to Finance Docket, a collaborative initiative between leading publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
