Rudy Giuliani Rebuked by Federal Judge Over Defiance of Court Order.

A federal judge sharply criticized Rudy Giuliani, 80, for providing a "farcical" explanation regarding his failure to comply with a court order to surrender personal assets to former Georgia election workers whom he defamed after the 2020 presidential election. U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman made the comments during a court session in New York, expressing skepticism over Giuliani's claims about the uncertainty of the location of his valuables.

The case stems from Rudy Giuliani’s defamation of Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, two Georgia election workers, when he falsely accused them of election fraud following the 2020 election. As a result of those false allegations, a court issued a defamation judgment against Giuliani, requiring him to transfer specific personal assets—cash, jewelry, and other valuables—to Freeman and Moss as part of the $146 million ruling.

Giuliani Ordered to Relinquish Valuables

As part of the defamation ruling, Judge Liman had previously ordered Giuliani to hand over specific items by October 29, including a signed Joe DiMaggio jersey, luxury watches, and various pieces of jewelry. However, attorneys representing Freeman and Moss argued that Giuliani had failed to comply with the order, prompting a hearing on Thursday to address the issue.

Attorney Aaron Nathan, representing Freeman and Moss, revealed that when he visited Giuliani's New York residence last week, many of the items outlined in the court order were missing. Among the missing items were the signed DiMaggio jersey, luxury watches, and various pieces of jewelry. Nathan also pointed out that a real estate advertisement for the $5.7 million apartment Giuliani was required to surrender showed the DiMaggio jersey prominently displayed in the living room, even though it was missing when they later visited the apartment.

Giuliani's "Farcical" Defense

In court, Giuliani's attorney, Ken Caruso, argued that the missing items were either misplaced or difficult to locate, and that Giuliani was uncertain where some of the assets were. Judge Liman was not impressed by this explanation. “The notion that your client doesn’t have any knowledge of where his assets are located is farcical,” the judge told Caruso.

Giuliani, a former personal attorney to President Donald Trump, had previously disclosed the whereabouts of the items during bankruptcy proceedings earlier this year. Nathan contested Giuliani's claims, calling them “stunning” and pointing out that Giuliani had made earlier statements regarding the location of the items, including residences in Palm Beach, Florida, and New York, as well as a storage facility in Ronkonkoma, Long Island. Giuliani’s defense team contended that the storage facility was currently inaccessible to him.

Disputing the Surrender of Family Heirlooms

During the hearing, Caruso also attempted to argue that two specific items— a 1980 Mercedes-Benz that was once owned by actress Lauren Bacall and a watch that belonged to Giuliani's grandfather—should not be included in the assets to be surrendered.

Giuliani spoke to reporters before the court session, asserting that the law did not entitle Freeman and Moss to some of the items in question, specifically the grandfather’s watch. "For example, they want my grandfather’s watch. It’s 150 years old. That’s a bit of an heirloom,” Giuliani stated, framing the request as part of a "political persecution."

However, Judge Liman rejected this argument, noting that he frequently oversees cases where debtors are required to surrender family heirlooms to satisfy financial obligations. “If they owe a debt, they have to pay a debt,” the judge remarked. “It doesn’t matter if it was handed down.”

The Mercedes-Benz and Other Assets

Caruso also argued that the Mercedes-Benz should not be surrendered, suggesting that it was worth less than $4,000. However, the judge ruled that Giuliani must surrender both the car’s title and keys within the next few days. Judge Liman emphasized that Giuliani’s failure to comply with the court’s order could lead to a contempt ruling.

“The entirety of the property must be relinquished to the receiver, and failure to comply will result in a contempt ruling against him,” the judge stated.

Giuliani’s Commitment to Complying with the Court Order

After the court session, Giuliani told reporters that he would comply with all legal obligations related to the turnover of property but expressed frustration with the "ambiguous" instructions. Attorneys for Freeman and Moss pointed out that both the car and the watch had been specifically referenced in the judge’s order dated October 22.

Giuliani has yet to fully back down from the election fraud claims that led to the defamation case. Despite the court ruling, he maintains that he did not defame Freeman and Moss. “I did not defame them,” Giuliani told reporters after the hearing.

Rudy Giuliani’s insistence on the uncertainty of his asset locations, along with his claims about the Mercedes-Benz and grandfather’s watch, have been rejected by the court, which has ordered him to fully comply with the ruling. As the case moves forward, it remains to be seen whether Giuliani will comply with the court's demands or face further legal consequences.

Related: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Giuliani for $1.3 Billion