When individuals become entrenched in a serious collection of contempt findings, the inclination is often to push boundaries to the extreme. This idea, inspired by the provocative words of Hunter Thompson, evolved into a guiding principle for former mayor Rudy Giuliani. Just like the legendary author, Giuliani seems to have navigated through legal challenges with a unique blend of audacity, managing to settle a contentious case after compelling both the court and the opposing parties to endure prolonged delays.
Currently, Giuliani faces contempt rulings from two separate courts, specifically from Judge Lewis Liman of the Southern District of New York and Judge Beryl Howell of the District of Columbia. In a bold move, he opted not to attend his scheduled in-person trial before Judge Liman this morning, raising eyebrows and questions about his commitment to legal proceedings.
View the original article to see embedded media.
Giuliani was expected in court for a crucial trial focused on whether he could classify his Florida condo as his primary residence. This strategy aimed to prevent him from forfeiting the property to meet the staggering $148 million judgment owed to Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, two Atlanta poll workers whom he falsely accused of election fraud against Donald Trump in Georgia. Following these accusations, Freeman and Moss became targets of aggressive harassment, while Giuliani seemingly pursued a futile campaign to deny the legitimacy of the election.
Since losing the defamation lawsuit to Freeman and Moss, Giuliani’s narrative has taken a dramatic turn. He has publicly claimed bankruptcy, yet simultaneously attempted to retract that declaration, raising eyebrows about his financial situation. In the midst of these challenges, he initially listed his primary residence as his New York home, only to realize that claiming Florida as his primary residence could offer him significant legal advantages. Today, Judge Liman was prepared to oversee a limited bench trial to determine whether Giuliani could successfully navigate this legal maneuver.
However, in an unexpected twist, Giuliani simply did not attend the trial.
As time passed, it became clear that Giuliani was already nearly two hours late for the trial. During this time, he made a public comment that revealed he was instead enjoying his time at Mar-a-Lago, choosing leisure over legal obligations:
Vinny loves hanging out at Mar-a-Lago, but he's ready to spend a lot more time in Washington, D.C. over the course of the next four years in support of his favorite President—Donald J. Trump! pic.twitter.com/ygO3Rmzj4w
— Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) January 16, 2025
At approximately 1:30 PM, Judge Liman announced that the trial would be postponed, with Giuliani still unaccounted for. The trial is now set to reconvene on Tuesday, likely with additional contempt hearings anticipated in the near future.
In a surprising turn of events, it seems that Giuliani’s situation may have shifted in his favor:
“I have reached a resolution of the litigation with the Plaintiffs that will result in a satisfaction of the Plaintiffs’ judgment. This resolution does not involve an admission of liability or wrongdoing by any of the Parties. I am satisfied with and have no grievances relating…
— Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) January 16, 2025
This narrative suggests that what transpired may have been a significant misunderstanding, portraying Giuliani as being engaged in serious settlement discussions with Freeman and Moss all along, while neglecting to inform Judge Liman to postpone the trial during these negotiations. However, this perspective contradicts the fact that the plaintiffs’ legal representatives were present and prepared for trial this morning, while Giuliani appeared to be preoccupied with filming videos of his dog, seemingly flouting the court’s authority.
Furthermore, a joint letter sent to Judge Liman by the parties involved indicates that the settlement agreement was reached only after the trial had been postponed to the following Tuesday.
To clarify, this agreement in principle is expected to lead to a “full satisfaction” of the matter by the end of February. However, given the history of this case, there is a distinct possibility that we could find ourselves back in court on February 25.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
For more of the latest in litigation, regulation, deals and financial services trends, sign up for Finance Docket, a partnership between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
