Welp. It could be that the able USDC Judge Liman in Manhattan will rule… that Rudy G. cannot hide what his client, presumably Donald J. Trump… ordered him to do, in regard to defaming the Georgia election workers, in the last (2020) cycle — if he is (preposterously) asserting that set of orders, as a basis for not paying (actually — not surrendering the DiMaggio No. 4 Yanks jersey, the World Series rings, the baby blue Mercedes… and the NYC Co-Op contents, and same from the Florida condo).

There are now two “no permission” briefs on file this morning, in Judge Liman’s courtroom. They are sealed from public, and even opposing counsels’ view (for the moment). I will confidently predict we will see at least redacted versions in a few weeks. The right of the people — and press — to monitor what the courts do, in their names… is nearly inviolate, so long as national security, etc. is not at stake.

And, after all, Rudy has already lost repeatedly on the merits: several courts have ruled he lied in defaming the election workers — and that he knew in real time he was lying about the actual outcome in Georgia (and elsewhere). [For this he’s been disbarred, in fact.] So do stay tuned, but here’s a bit of what Rudy’s lawyer tries to argue before Judge Liman this morning, to avoid placing the briefs on the public docket:

…Judicial documents, such as the Proposed Documents, are subject to a common-law, presumptive right of public access. A court will determine the weight of the presumption, which varies, in the particular case, over a “continuum[,]” depending on “the role of the materials at issue in the exercise of… judicial power[.]” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onandaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995)). The court will then “balance competing considerations against [the presumption,] such as the privacy interests” of the parties who propose sealing. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119-20 (cleaned up).

Here, the Proposed Documents do not go “to the Court’s core role in adjudicating a case[,]” Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 50 (2d Cir. 2019), or “determin[ing] litigants’ substantive legal rights[.]” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121. They go, rather, to an exercise of judicial authority that “is ancillary to [that] core role[.]” Brown, 929 F.3d at 50. Accordingly, the weight of the presumption is “somewhat lower[,]” and the reasons for sealing “usually need not be as compelling as those required to seal[,]” for example, trial evidence or summary judgment filings. Id.; see Broidy v. Global Risk Advisors LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151536, at *10-11 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2023) (involving motion to disqualify and citing cases involving discovery motions; holding that the presumption “is close to the ‘modest’ end of the spectrum[]” where motion “is not likely to affect the outcome of the case[]”)….

We respectfully submit the following: The Proposed Documents disclose confidential information within the meaning of Rule 1.6(a)—information that counsel has a duty to protect. Cf. Broidy, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151536, at *16 (law firm satisfied Professional Rules by filing under seal). That conclusion, we believe, will be readily apparent to the Court when it reads the Proposed Documents. Counsel, however, stand ready to provide additional information or argument on the point, if the Court deems that necessary or helpful, or to have an ex parte/in camera conference with the Court. And, of course, counsel will make whatever disclosures or public filings that may flow from the Court’s ruling(s)….

Onward, grinning. What a mess Rudy has willingly let Tangerine make — of his personal, and professional, life. Tangerine destroys every honorable person he captures under his thrall (not that I am convinced Rudy was ever… honorable — after about 1984). Justice has taken… a very long time in, catchin’ up — to old Rudy (and his targeted selective prosecutions of largely innocent people of color in NYC from about 1985, onward). Wow.

नमस्ते

I think a grin is in order. Let us all laugh at the disgrace Rudy Giuliani has become: disbarred; indicted; broke and fleeing the foreclosure orders of various receivers, on the $148 million judgment (for libeling and defaming a pair of mother/daughter Georgia election workers, from last time around — 2020-21!).

We offer this letter/exhibit below in full, in which it turns out Rudy took all the furnishings out of his NY Co-op — despite an explicit federal court order that all that property belonged now to the plaintiffs… and then was reached by phone, by the judge — in the Mercedes, headed to vote in Florida, yesterday… and yep — that same Mercedes must be turned over in Manhattan federal court tomorrow (along with the Mercedes keys).

Rudy had tried to tell the judge he would miss court, because he had “a radio show” to do with Tangerine, tomorrow. The judge simply (and forcefully) told Rudy he could come to Manhattan tomorrow morning, or the US Marshals would come arrest him in Florida at his radio gig, for failure to appear on a standing order of civil disgorgement (now in default). Hilarious. Now it looks fairly likely that the two fine women in Georgia will get title to both the NY Co-op, and the Florida (Miami) condo (as well as the Mercedes!):

…Notably, despite Mr. Giuliani’s apparent assumptions to the contrary, Mr. Giuliani’s “alternative” New York homestead claim and his Florida homestead claim are not two sides of the same coin: one is not automatically triggered if the other fails. Instead, to establish the factual predicates for a homestead claim as to each apartment, Mr. Giuliani must address different facts and a different relevant time period, and it is possible that both efforts will fail. In the parallel declaratory judgment action, either the undisputed facts or the trial record will demonstrate that Mr. Giuliani did not establish a homestead at the Palm Beach Condo prior to the undisputed date of Plaintiffs’ lien on August 8, 2024. Meanwhile, in this proceeding, to the extent Mr. Giuliani’s waiver will be forgiven and he will be given another chance to carry his burden to demonstrate an entitlement to the New York exemption, the revelation that Mr. Giuliani recently vacated the New York Apartment sometime in late September or early suggests that he may be disqualified from claiming the New York homestead exemption under CPLR § 5206(c).

Stated differently, while an individual cannot simultaneously maintain two homesteads, in this situation, it is possible and even likely that Mr. Giuliani both did not have a homestead claim at the Palm Beach Condo before August 8, 2024, and did not have a homestead claim at the New York Apartment when he sought to claim it here — and that consequently, both of Mr. Giuliani’s homestead claims will fail….

Now you know. These are “only the best people” — according to Tangerine. And, to be clear, the $148 million is ALSO a civil state law determination — so Tangerine cannot let/get Rudy off the hook, even if he wanted to. Onward, grinning — a sardonic grin.