LOTS OF POSTS IGNORED BY BLOGGER.....

ALL POSTS ARE AVAILABLE ON 

MIDDLEBORO REVIEW AND SO ON

The Invisible Ten Co-Conspirators

Ten possible co-conspirators sit buried beneath DOJ redactions, protected not by innocence but by silence, delay, and a Justice Department terrified of naming names.

Michael Cohen and MeidasTouch Network Dec 24

Guest article by Michael Cohen. Remember to follow him on Substack for more by clicking here. Michael just hit 500,000 subscribers on YouTube! Subscribe today for free here and let’s keep the momentum going!

I’ve seen enough cover-ups in my lifetime to recognize one blindfolded, hands tied behind my back and locked in a Trump Organization conference room. This latest Epstein file release isn’t transparency; it’s evidence laundering. It’s what happens when the government technically complies with the law while aggressively betraying its purpose.

They call it The Epstein Files. What they released is more like The Epstein Mad Libs, where the most important nouns have been ripped out and fed to a shredder.

Buried. Buried in the newly released documents is a quiet but explosive admission: the Department of Justice identified at least ten possible co-conspirators connected to Jeffrey Epstein after his 2019 arrest. Not gossip. Not speculation. Not “people he once shared a cocktail napkin with.” Co-conspirators. That word has a meaning in the legal world. It means you think these people helped commit crimes.

And yet, years later, the American public is apparently too fragile to know who they are.

Chuck Schumer, who rarely sounds alarms unless the building is already on fire, finally said what any sentient adult can see: protecting possible co-conspirators is not transparency; it’s obstruction wearing a flak jacket. Schumer is now pushing to sue the Justice Department for blowing past a clear congressional deadline. Because when Congress orders a full release and the DOJ responds with a blackout poem, that’s not compliance. That’s contempt.

The redacted emails show federal agents actively trying to contact these potential co-conspirators after Epstein’s arrest. Most names are blacked out so aggressively they look like CIA torture diagrams. Three names remain visible: Ghislaine Maxwell, now serving time; Jean-Luc Brunel, who conveniently died in jail; and Leslie Wexner, who insists, through lawyers—always through lawyers—that he wasn’t a target.

That leaves seven others floating in legal purgatory. Seven ghosts. Seven people apparently too powerful, too connected, or too politically inconvenient to name.

And if you’re wondering how we got here, allow me to reintroduce the Trump Justice Department, now starring Pam Bondi, whose approach to accountability has always been “minimum disclosure, maximum confusion.”

Remember February 27? When fifteen right-wing media figures were summoned to the White House and handed white binders theatrically labeled The Epstein Files? It was meant to placate Trump’s conspiracy-hungry base. Instead, it backfired spectacularly. There was little new information. The binders were more branding than substance. Even the true believers felt played.

So Trump reversed course, grudgingly, and signed a bill mandating full disclosure by December 19. Then the DOJ pulled the oldest trick in Washington: a Friday afternoon document dump right before Christmas, when the country is distracted, exhausted, and mildly drunk on eggnog.

Thomas Massey—yes, even Thomas Massey—called the release a gross failure to comply with the law. When you lose Massey on a transparency issue, you’re not just wrong. You’re exposed.

What is visible in the files is chilling. Epstein’s homes look less like residences and more like institutionalized abuse centers: massage tables, oils, walls of nude art, framed photos of adolescent girls. One law enforcement list labeled “Masseuses” is fully redacted except for the numbering, which climbs to 254. Two hundred and fifty-four. No names. Just proof of scale.

There are also receipts of catastrophic government failure. Maria Farmer reported Epstein to the FBI in 1996. 1996, for possessing nude images of her underage sisters and threatening to burn her house down if she spoke. The FBI did nothing. Zero. Zilch. Silence. Epstein continued abusing girls for nearly another decade while institutions looked the other way.

By the time authorities pretended to notice, the abuse was so normalized it fit on Post-it notes. “I have a female for him.” Or, written in bubbly handwriting: “Cannot come at 7 PM tomorrow b/c of soccer.” That’s not negligence. That’s moral bankruptcy.

Trump himself doesn’t appear frequently in the released files, but absence isn’t innocence, especially when records are selectively redacted. There are photos. There are witness complaints. There is a legal filing describing Epstein introducing a 14-year-old girl to Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago like he was showing off a new watch. Trump’s long opposition to releasing these files doesn’t tell you everything you need to know, but it sure says a lot.

Bill Clinton, meanwhile, appears repeatedly, photographed with Epstein and young women. If the DOJ hoped dumping Clinton images would politically offset Trump’s exposure, they misunderstood the assignment. Democrats are not required to defend anyone connected to Epstein. Clinton’s reputation was already a house with bad wiring. No tears here.

But don’t let partisan finger-pointing obscure the real scandal: ten possible co-conspirators remain hidden. Ten people the DOJ once deemed worthy of investigation, now protected by black ink and bureaucratic cowardice.

The Epstein saga isn’t fading because it isn’t just about Epstein. It’s about how power insulates itself. How elites protect elites. How accountability evaporates when the accused have the right friends, the right lawyers, and the right leverage.

A decade ago, Donald Trump rode popular anger at this corrupt elite straight into the White House. The Epstein files reveal what many of us already knew: he wasn’t fighting the rot. He was standing inside it, pointing outward. This time it’s different.

Because no amount of redaction can disguise a Justice Department that knows exactly what it’s hiding and is praying that accountability never reads past the blackout ink.

Meidas+ is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 

Contemptible

Joyce Vance Apr 17

Today, James Boasberg, a federal judge in the District of Columbia, issued an order following a hearing he held in his courtroom almost two weeks ago. That case involved the two planeloads of people the Trump government spirited out of the country, Venezuelans who are allegedly members of the Tren de Aragua gang. We don’t know for sure whether they are. We know ICE has made mistakes because CECOT, the El Salvador prison where the deportees were sent, rejected some of those the United States sent, including women—it’s an all-male prison.

But that wasn’t the issue Judge Boasberg took up today. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Trump administration can continue deportations for now as long as deportees are provided with due process, that is, notice of deportation and the opportunity to contest it before it happens. Today, the Judge ruled that there was probable cause to believe the government was in criminal contempt of court for disobeying the Judge’s order that it discontinue deporting people who had been denied due process on the day those flights took off.

The Supreme Court has already set aside the temporary restraining order (TRO) the government allegedly violated and cases refiled in other jurisdictions per that Court’s orders. But Judge Boasberg explained, as we’ve discussed here, that contempt is still appropriate: “One might nonetheless ask how this inquiry into compliance is able to proceed at all given that the Supreme Court vacated the TRO after the events in question. That Court’s later determination that the TRO suffered from a legal defect, however, does not excuse the Government’s violation. Instead, it is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order ‘must be obeyed’ — no matter how ‘erroneous’ it ‘may be’ — until a court reverses it…. If a party chooses to disobey the order — rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process — such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order.”

Judge Boasberg wrote that not only does this make sense but it also explains why a contempt finding is essential when a party disobeys a court order, even an order that is subsequently reversed on appeal. “The rule ‘reflects a belief that in the fair administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case,’ no matter how ‘exalted his station’ or ‘righteous his motives.’… The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it.”

And so, the Judge has embarked on this uncertain process that is certain to make him even more of a target than his initial ruling against the Trump administration did. That ruling set off a wave of calls for the impeachment of federal judges, including a semi-coherent one from Trump himself:

There are a lot of twists and turns ahead. The government is unlikely to agree to prosecute the contempt, but it is almost certain to delay announcing a decision for as long as possible (unless Trump demands it) in order to keep other proceedings from beginning. Judge Boasberg wrote that if the government declined to prosecute the contempt, he would use a process that permits the appointment of private prosecutors to move the matter forward. Anticipating that might be the case at the time he held the hearing, we discussed how this might work a couple of weeks ago. There is a specific federal rule of criminal procedure that permits the courts to do this.

In his order, Judge Boasberg suggested he would take the following steps next:

• Give the government the opportunity to cure the contempt.

• If it doesn’t, identify the individual(s) responsible for the “contumacious conduct by determining whose ‘specific act or omission’ caused the noncompliance. That process could include “hearings with live witness testimony under oath or to depositions conducted by Plaintiffs.”

• Give the government the opportunity to prosecute, but be prepared to appoint an outside attorney if necessary.

It’s an interesting question, who exactly the Judge would hold in contempt. It’s not clear who gave the order that kept the planes in the air after the Judge ordered they be turned around. If the government is smart, it will cure the contempt to avoid that inquiry. The Judge gave the administration the option of keeping the deportees in El Salvador but taking formal custody of them so they could seek relief in American courts. But Trump does not seem inclined to back down on these issues, and that could lead to some interesting fact finding to determine who issued the order to defy the Judge’s TRO and continue the deportations. Today, the government said they would again appeal the order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from CECOT. Trump seems determined to take these cases to the Supreme Court over and over again.

One final note: Even though the Supreme Court dismissed the Judge’s TRO and some of the plaintiffs have filed actions in jurisdictions where they are being held (which is not in Washington, D.C.) per the Court’s order, the plaintiffs filed a notice today that may resurrect at least some parts of the case. One area where they argue the court still has jurisdiction is over claims regarding “Habeas. Plaintiffs will amend their Complaint to reinstate their habeas claim to seek relief for the class of individuals who were removed to El Salvador under the [Alien Enemies Act] on March 15, as well as potentially a class of individuals held in U.S. criminal custody. A slightly longer schedule is proposed below for litigating the habeas action.”

Habeas corpus, as we’ve previously discussed, is a legal action challenging a defendant’s confinement. A bastardized translation of the Latin is, as federal judges like to say, “Bring me the body,” meaning they have the ability to order the release of someone who is wrongfully being held. The plaintiffs intend to amend their complaint so they can argue that for people who are not being held in CECOT in El Salvador, the District of Columbia is the proper place to file suit. This case may move forward, even as Judge Boasberg refers the contempt for prosecution.

These cases are about making sure that, American citizen or not, criminal or not, peoples’ right to have the day in court that the Constitution guarantees them is honored. That’s all. But it’s everything. It’s the rule of law—the rule of law that Donald Trump and the people in his administration took an oath to uphold and are now utterly rejecting. It’s contempt, and it’s contemptible.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

 

Contempt

Joyce Vance Mar 22

In July of 2007, I was the appellate chief in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in North Alabama when Judge William Marsh Acker, may he rest in peace, requested that my office prosecute Dickie Scruggs for criminal contempt. Scruggs was a well-known Mississippi lawyer with a civil case before Judge Acker, involving allegations of insurance fraud that impacted Hurricane Katrina victims. Judge Acker believed Scruggs had violated the terms of an injunction entered that required Scruggs to turn over documents in his possession.

Judge Bill Acker

The then-U.S. Attorney in Birmingham declined to prosecute. That didn’t end the matter, though. And what happened next is instructive for those wondering how Judge James Boasberg might handle a similar situation in the Alien Enemy Act case, where the government seems disinclined to provide factual information regarding contempt allegations the Judge is reviewing.

In our situation, Judge Acker did what he was entitled to do under the Federal Rules: He appointed three attorneys in private practice to act as special prosecutors in the case, pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. He directed them to file charges. The case moved forward in front of Senior Judge Roger Vinson after Scruggs was charged with violating the terms of the injunction.

Although Judge Vinson ultimately dismissed the contempt charges against Scruggs, it wasn’t because of the unusual move by Judge Acker to appoint private lawyers to prosecute the case. In fact, Judge Vinson expressly noted that was proper in footnote 6 to his order: “The Supreme Court has authorized the use of special prosecutors for criminal contempt … Scruggs attempts to get mileage out of the fact that the U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute, but that is exactly what Young and Rule 42 contemplate … (‘[A] court ordinarily should first request the appropriate prosecuting authority to prosecute contempt actions, and should appoint a private prosecutor only if that request is denied.’); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(2) (‘The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government. . . . If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.’).”

That option would be on the table for Judge Boasberg too, if he were to refer the matter for contempt proceedings, and the Justice Department, as it almost certainly would, declined to play ball.

Criminal contempt is designed to “protect the institutions of our government and enforce their mandates.” To prove contempt, prosecutors have to establish that the court entered a reasonably specific and lawful order that was willfully violated by the person being charged. Judge Boasberg’s oral order (no, they don’t have to be in writing to be enforceable court orders) included a directive to turn planes around if necessary and if, as it appears is the case, that some government functionaries knowingly violated that order, then the Judge might want to vindicate the court’s interest in having its orders obeyed with a prosecution.

One caveat: Because this type of contempt is criminal, there is some possibility Donald Trump could use the pardon power to give a pass to anyone charges are brought against. He could even issue a pardon early on, to prevent a full inquiry. However, in a recent letter to Trump regarding the importance of complying with court orders, Congressman and constitutional law scholar Jamie Raskin noted that “the President may be unable to pardon a federal employee if found in contempt pursuant to the court’s inherent authority because such an offense may not qualify as an ‘offense against the United States’ [under] U.S. Const. art. II. § 2, cl. 1.” That means that there would at least be litigation over the extent of the pardon power in this unusual situation. That would mean a full airing of the facts and exposure of the Trump administration employees involved in pushing for the deportations, which we are now learning included women and people who weren’t gang members despite the administration’s claim they were all violent criminals.

There is also the prospect of the court imposing civil sanctions. The Pardon Clause does not apply to civil sanctions, which could also be imposed.

The courts are not entirely paper tigers when it comes to holding the White House and the executive branch of government accountable. They may not have armies, but they do have contempt powers. As Raskin also noted, “Judges can even impose terms of imprisonment or confinement [on federal employees or officials]. In fact, in a 1997 brief to the D.C. Circuit, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. acknowledged that imprisonment of agency officials was a viable option to ensure executive branch compliance with the law.”

This situation feels familiar. It’s more of Trump against the rule of law. The government not only appears to have flouted Judge Boasberg’s temporary restraining order, it’s also stonewalling him as he tries to get to the truth of that matter.

Of course, this is only an early procedural skirmish. As we have seen frequently with this administration, judges are using TROs, meant to only last a few days or a couple of weeks at most, to prevent the government from doing damage that cannot be undone while the court gets a baseline on the case. It’s easy to see why that is so necessary—here, there are hundreds of people in an El Salvadoran hell-hole prison who had no due process to ensure they were, in fact, deportable before the government herded them onto planes.

But whatever the outcome here, the case will continue to a decision on the merits. The government is likely to lose. The Alien Enemy Act applies only when the United States are at war, and we are not currently in a declared war with any foreign country, let alone a Venezuelan gang. This early procedural issue is a test for what’s to come: whether the Trump administration will comply with court orders.

It is truly remarkable that we are asking that question and a measure of how lawless this administration is. But it is a necessary question. So far, the administration has at least paid lip service to the notion of appealing instead of disobeying. Forcing the administration to comply with judicial review may not seem like a lot, but right now it is everything. The more pushback there is against the view that judicial decisions that run contrary to this administration’s policies are illegitimate, the better. And there has been far too much talk of impeaching judges simply because their decisions interfere with Trump’s agenda than a democracy can tolerate.

Democracy, we are being reminded as protests crop up across the country, is a participatory exercise. If you want one, you have to work at it. As some people begin to gear up for early April protest marches, others are attending town halls thrown by their Congress members or others, as well as holding “empty suit” meetings with members who refuse to face their electorate. Still others are calling Congress, creating their own ads to make a point on social media, and continuing to engage in civil discourse with the people around them. What we are learning is that it has the potential to work, that we can step in for the absent guardrails in the White House and Congress, that we can support federal judges who are under attack, and that we can unite with people who we may not agree with on policy issues to defend democracy itself.

It’s a very uncertain and difficult time. But the outlook is not entirely bleak. We have each other.

Thank you for being part of Civil Discourse. Your support makes the newsletter happen, and your questions, ideas, and suggestions are the inspiration behind it. So now, I have a favor to ask. If you aren’t already, will you consider becoming a paid subscriber? For $6 a month or $50 a year, you can contribute towards the resources it takes for me to research and write the newsletter.

I really appreciate that you’re here with me at Civil Discourse. As Americans, we’re all trying to answer the question, “What can we do to save our democracy?” right now. My hope is that Civil Discourse helps provide you with the information you need to be a part of answering it. More than 595,000 people subscribe to Civil Discourse, and that number grows every day.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

Rudy's Filing CORPORATE MEDIA IS NOT REPORTING THIS INCOMPETENCE & INSANITY!

 

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Rudy's Filing

This week, Harry Dunn and I covered a response to one of three contempt motions against Rudy Giuliani, but you really need to see it in all its stupid glory.

MuellerSheWrote Dec 27

Over the years, I have read a LOT of court filings submitted by Trump and his allies, but this past week, a response to one of Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss’ multiple contempt motions against Rudy Giuliani takes the cake. It’s got everything! Bad grammar, misspellings, and incoherent run-on sentences. It’s so very bad, I just had to write about it.

First, there are currently three contempt motions against Rudy Giuliani in multiple cases surrounding his defamation against Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss. One of them is a motion for contempt for his failure to hand over his assets to a receivership pursuant to the verdict against him for defaming the Georgia election workers. Another is a contempt motion filed by Freeman and Moss for Rudy’s continued defamation of the two women in violation of a court order. Then there’s the third - a contempt motion filed by Freeman and Moss over Rudy’s failure to hand over a single document in discovery for a trial coming up next month regarding Rudy’s Florida condo.

The Breakdown is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

What I’m about to break down for you is Rudy’s response to the contempt motion filed over his failure to produce discovery.

Some more background: the judge in the discovery contempt motion is trump-appointed Judge Lewis Liman in the Southern District of New York. The judge in the receivership contempt motion is also Lewis Liman, and the judge in the defamation contempt motion is Judge Beryl Howell.

It’s also important to remember that Rudy’s lawyers quit. They ditched him. Rudy and his new lawyer blame the judges for that, saying that no lawyer wants to go up against the politically biased judges. The real reason they quit is that Rudy refused to cooperate with his counsel to hand over discovery in the Florida condo case. So Rudy has a new lawyer - Joseph Cammarata. He’s the one that filed the response I’m about to cover.

Also, Rudy has to appear before Judge Liman on January 3rd for a hearing over the receivership contempt motion, and Rudy’s lawyer filed a couple of Christmas Eve responses arguing that Rudy has handed over his stuff - but I’ll go over those newer filings on the New Year’s Day episode of Cleanup on Aisle 45.

With that, let’s talk about Cammarata’s response to the Florida condo discovery motion for contempt - because it’s just so poorly written that it has to be shared. I’m not a lawyer, but if my lawyer handed me this response, I wouldn’t let him submit it. It’s not just epically bad. It’s astoundingly bad.

Rudy’s lawyer writes:

Plaintiffs’ memorandum of law states that “Mr. Giuliani has not produced a single document in response to Plaintiffs’ discovery orders in this matter notwithstanding multiple orders from this Court requiring him to do so…” (Plaintiff’s memorandum of law, page 1). That is not true and is false.

Did you get that? It is not true AND is false. Just in case you missed the “not true” part. As soon as I read that, I made a note to myself to keep an eye out for Rudy’s lawyer to mention how it’s not true and false. Generally, I see arguments like “Defendant has since produced approximately 40,000 pages of responsive material,” or “Defendant is currently using such-and-such software to search 3 terabytes of data for key words responsive to the discovery requests.” There are no such statements in this filing. Just a repeat of how unfair this all is for poor Rudy, and how the Florida condo is his primary residence (which is an argument you make at trial, not in a filing to show cause why your client shouldn’t be held in contempt for failing to hand over discovery.)

Defendant obtained new counsel, Joseph Cammarata, Esq., replaced Kenneth Caruso, Esq. and David Labkowski, Esq. on November 26, 2024. Defendant’s present counsel quickly began to review all of the Court’s orders and began to obtain all responses to the Plaintiffs’ discovery demands to comply with all of this Court’s orders and Plaintiffs’ discovery demands.

Setting aside the atrocious grammar, “began to obtain discovery demands to comply with discovery demands” is pretty vague. Sounds like he has “concepts of a plan” to comply.

As this Court should know, Plaintiffs obtained probably one of the largest judgments for defamation ever granted to a Plaintiff in the United States, the $145,969,000 plus interest Judgment against Defendant. Notwithstanding the fact that the Judgment in on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Defendant’s present counsel immediately began the process of causing the turnover of assets of the Defendant to the Plaintiffs who were appointed as the Receivers by this Court.

I mean, wow. Try this: “As this court is aware, plaintiffs were awarded $148M - one of the largest judgments for defamation granted in the US - a judgement defendant is appealing. Additionally, defendant’s present counsel is in the process of complying with this court’s receivership order.” Then perhaps a sentence or two about why the receivership case matters; is it taking away from the time you need to comply with the discovery orders in this case? Or are you just whining about the court’s orders in general? Make a point, my dude. Also, I can think of two recent defamation cases with larger awards: Fox News and Alex Jones. But whatever.

Next, Cammarata starts accusing the Trump-appointed judge of political bias:

Every human being has political beliefs, and no matter what the Court’s personal beliefs are, the Court should recognize that you have a Defendant here with an enormous judgment against him as the Plaintiffs were awarded a judgment now in excess of $145,969,000 which includes $75,000,000 in punitive damages, and this Court should recognize that Plaintiffs’ counsels are political and apparently are swayed toward the democratic party, and you have the Defendant who was a Republic Mayor and who was an attorney for former and future President Donald J. Trump, who was and is deeply rooted in republican beliefs.

“A Republic Mayor.” Awesome. Also, did you notice that entire paragraph is one sentence?

Next up is some shit I can’t figure out:

This Court should know that one or more of Plaintiffs’ counsels was partners with Hunter Biden as Boies Schiller Flexner LLC (at Boies Schiller Flexner?), President Joseph Biden’s son, and had been involved with, upon information and belief, Burisma Holdings and/or Ukrainian issues. These issues became very, very political and charged (politically charged?) during the 2020 Presidential Campaign and thereafter. One or more of the organizations of the Plaintiffs’ counsels are politically based organizations, such as the organization United to Protect Democracy, whose website states” “Protect Democracy is a… group dedicated to defeating the authoritarian threat… and protecting liberal democracy. Our experts and advocates use litigation, …. to stand up for… the rule of law…. and a better democracy for future generations”. No matter what anyone says, the truth and fact is that Plaintiffs are represented by those who believe in liberal democracy, and you have a defendant whose beliefs are the antithesis of the Plaintiffs’ counsel (Rudy is antithesis to the rule of law and a better democracy? Agreed!)

Rudy’s lawyer goes on to mention Hunter Biden eight more times in this filing. Including in this bonkers paragraph:

Plaintiffs and their counsel are seeking to take every asset of the Defendant before there is a change in administration from President Biden to President Trump. The fact is that this case evolved from the 2020 election, where Defendant worked for President Trump and while the Plaintiffs’ counsel was to believed to have supported President Biden; this is what this fierce prosecution of this case derives from. Defendant was very outspoken against Hunter Biden and the Hunter Biden laptop which many people said was Russian disinformation, when the truth eventually came out that the Hunter Biden laptop was authentic and real. At least one of Plaintiffs’ counsel has emails in the public domain with Hunter Biden on the same emails, and such counsel was Special Assistant to President Barak Obama and Associate White House Counsel . The fact is that this case is not really about the judgment that the Plaintiffs obtained in a ghastly sum, among the largest judgment ever against an individual for defamation in the United States. This is a battle between the left and the right and this is one of the last battles that exist from the 2020 election.

“was to believed to have”

“Barak Obama” (it’s misspelled again in the footnote)

GHASTLY SUM!

“among the largest judgment ever”

Rudy’s lawyer then complains that Freeman and Moss’ counsel worked pro-bono, and put thousands of hours into their case. That kind of implies that no one likes Rudy enough to work on his behalf for free, but whatever. Cammarata’s point is that Freeman and Moss are winning on technicalities because they have a robust legal team. He’s also really mad that the case is “going fast” - which it totally isn’t:

This Court has fast-tracked this case and it is perplexing why this rapid rocket docket approach has been utilized, but the fact is that the Plaintiffs want this case over by January 20, 2025 when President Trump takes office, because it’s not in Willkie Farr & Gallagher’s best interests to have this case proceeding once there is a new administration in Washington, as clients of Willkie Farr & Gallagher who would have to work with the new administration in Washington may be offended by the approaches taken by Willkie Farr & Gallagher with their manner of overly aggressive discovery tactics, designed to win, not on the merits, but on default or sanctions, because they cannot win based on the facts.

And this next paragraph kills me. He calls Liman “the honor judge” twice, and criticizes his appointment as political (without mentioning he was appointed by Trump):

This Court should try to avoid the politics involved in this case. When the Honorable Judge of this Court was nominated for the current District Judge position, no Democratic Senators voted against the nomination of the Honor Judge, but twenty nine (29) Republican Senators voted against the Honorable Judge. Hopefully, the Honor Judge will be able to be unbiased against Defendant. However, even subconsciously, a human being can have a political bias and the rapid rocket docket approach by this Court and entertaining so many of Plaintiffs’ motions and letters from the Plaintiffs’ counsel and ruling against the Defendant nearly 100% of the time is troubling.

Rudy’s lawyer then spends MULTIPLE pages arguing that Rudy’s primary residence is his Florida condo - completely irrelevant to whether he should be held in contempt for failing to turn over a single page of discovery. But that’s not all! He either lies to the court about why no discovery has been produced, or he was misinformed by Rudy about his previous counsel:

Defendant relied upon his prior counsels to respond to discovery demands in this case, but they were not served. When Defendant’s present counsel came into this case on November 26, 2024 when Defendant’s prior counsels were granted permission to withdraw as counsel, in the approximately three (3) weeks, there has been substantial compliance with all discovery and court orders.

He does not describe how he has substantially complied with discovery orders, but does tell that court that even if Rudy hasn’t produced anything, it shouldn’t matter because of the “rocket docket”, and because Freeman and Moss are out to get Rudy:

This Court should know that no matter what is provided to the Plaintiffs’ counsel, Plaintiffs’ counsel is and has been very unreasonable, because this is about Plaintiffs rushing to the finish line, getting all of the Defendant’s assets, getting the Defendant’s homestead condominium in Florida which is the Defendant’s only permanent residence and has been so, before a new administration takes office on January 20, 2025.

Next up is my favorite part. Rudy’s lawyer says he should get more time because Rudy is poor and everyone hates him:

The Honorable Judge once said that “The quality of our system of justice is measured by the service it provides to the poorest and most despised members of society” . There are many individuals who were against President Trump and as such, against Rudolph Giuliani, and many members of society despise Defendant Rudolph Giuliani and President Trump, however, the quality of our system of justice is measured by the service it provides to defendants like Defendant Rudolph Giuliani, who the Plaintiffs and their counsel apparently likely despise.

Then there’s this weird accusation about the judge’s father:

It is Defendant’s recent understanding that the Honorable Judge is the son of the late Arthur L. Liman, who it has been discovered passed away at a time when Defendant Rudolph Giuliani was the prosecutor as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and the late Arthur L. Liman was representing certain defendants in Drexel Lambert prosecution cases (Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky, Dennis Levine). Defendant hopes that Defendant is afforded every right under the law by this Court in light of the knowledge that the Defendant before this Court is the person who was prosecuting the Honorable Judge’s late father Arthur L. Liman clients when or around the time that the Honorable Judge’s late father Arthur L. Liman passed away.

He finally concludes:

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied in its entirety and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

There’s a lot more in this filing, but those are the standout moments. I, for one, look forward to covering the Christmas Eve filings by Cammarata on the next Cleanup on Aisle 45 podcast with Harry Dunn.

You can read the full filing here.

~AG

AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

The Breakdown is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

You're currently a free subscriber to The Breakdown.