We had previously reported that someone, or a bunch of someones, had offered to pay what is likely a princely sum — on behalf of the broke Mr. Giuliani — to make this all “go away”. That is happening, as we speak — the two defamed Georgia women are likely very wealthy, now. Not that it makes anything before… “right” — but this is how it all goes, in American litigation.

This afternoon though, we are learning that once again, Mr. Giuliani’s inability or fecklessness or negligence are all working together, to lead to a bad outcome: he’s failed to pay a $200 a day fine, and — to this moment, has NOT filed his SWORN affidavit on the public docket, with the court, that (effectively) he lied — over and over again — about these two fine women (thus endangering their very lives).

He’s failed to admit what the jury found: he’s a damn dangerous liar. And so the capable Judge Howell is ordering him to file that affidavit, on the public docket — tuit suite. See below, for the full text:

…MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART defendant’s [46] Motion to Defer Compliance (“Def.’s Mot.”) with January 10, 2025 Order.

To date, defendant has failed to comply with the Court’s [41] January 10, 2025 Finding of Contempt and Conditional Order (“CONTEMPT ORDER”) requiring him to file a sworn declaration, by January 20, 2025, acknowledging, inter alia, that the veracity of his unsworn statements about plaintiffs are directly contradicted by both sworn testimony of eyewitnesses and a Georgia investigation report. Id. at 3-4. That declaration served to mitigate the harm to plaintiffs of defendant’s past false statements about plaintiffs’ conduct in connection with the 2020 presidential election — and his potential future statements — by demonstrating that those statements are fabrications unsupported by evidence. See Potter v. District of Columbia, — F.4th –, No. 23-7124, 2025 WL 310525, at *3 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (“[T]he purpose [of civil contempt] is remedial.” (alteration in original) (quoting McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 191 (1949))); id. at *4 (noting civil contempt proceedings are remedial and coercive in nature). As a result of defendant’s lack of compliance, defendant has failed to purge his contempt, has accrued for nine days a $200 per day fine, and remains in contempt.

Now, belatedly, defendant seeks to defer compliance with the CONTEMPT ORDER until February 25, 2025, so that defendant may execute a settlement agreement with plaintiffs. See Def.’s Mot. Plaintiffs carry the onus to seek additional sanctions to coerce defendants compliance and do not oppose this request, according to Def.’s Mot. See Potter, 2025 WL 310525, at *2 (“[C]ivil contempt vindicates the rights of private parties.”); id. at *4 (“[T]he parties chiefly in interest in [civil contempt proceedings’] conduct and prosecution are the individuals whose private rights and remedies they were instituted to protect or enforce.” (quoting Bessette v. W.B. Conkey Co., 194 U.S. 324, 328 (1904))). Accordingly, defendant’s motion is GRANTED insofar as the $200 per day fine will not accrue between the date of the motion’s filing, January 30, 2025, and the date of “deferred compliance” requested by defendant, February 25, 2025.

The CONTEMPT ORDER is MODIFIED to allow plaintiffs to move to seek more severe sanctions for defendant’s noncompliance on (or any date after) February 25, 2025, despite, in light of this ruling suspending the accrual of the $200 per day fine, that fine will not have accrued for 30 days by that point.

See CONTEMPT ORDER at 5 (“[I]f the $200 per day fine has accumulated for over 30 days without payment, the Court may, upon plaintiffs’ motion, reconsider the more severe sanction recommended by plaintiffs.”).

Defendant’s belated motion is DENIED, to the extent he requests retroactive absolution of his nine days of noncompliance and the associated $200 per day fine that has already accrued….

Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on January 31, 2025….

Now you know — these guys are all… face-planting, on the regular.

They simply seem unable to understand the adult consequences of federal court orders… pertaining to them [Musk and Tangerine 2.0, here plainly included].

And we should note that another woman has sued Giuliani (she is herself a lawyer) in the NY state courts, alleging endless sexual demands from him, for the three years he employed her. What a pig. Out.

नमस्ते