Bankruptcy Judge ‘Disturbed’ Over Rudy Giuliani’s Lack Of Progress In Selling Assets To Pay $148 Million Defamation Judgement

The judge who oversees Rudy Giuliani‘s bankruptcy case has expressed deep concern over the lack of progress made in resolving the former New York City mayor’s finances.

In a court hearing, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane criticized Giuliani’s team for their inaction. “They have done nothing,” a lawyer for the debt holders said. “They sold nothing. They settled nothing.”

Giuliani declared bankruptcy in December 2022 after he was ordered to pay a $148 million defamation judgment to two former election workers, whom he had falsely accused of being involved in a conspiracy theory about the 2020 presidential election. Since then, Giuliani has failed to meet deadlines for filing financial disclosure reports and has yet to be able to sell his residences in New York and Florida.

Last week, Giuliani was suspended from his daily radio show on WABC after he repeatedly violated a ban on discussion of discredited 2020 election claims. Rachel Strickland, an attorney representing the election workers, accused Giuliani of deliberately getting fired to delay the bankruptcy proceedings.

The judge, who described himself as “disturbed” by the lack of progress, rejected Giuliani’s request to lift the automatic stay that has prevented him from appealing the defamation judgment. Creditors’ lawyers argued that allowing such an appeal would further delay the bankruptcy proceedings.

Attorneys for Giuliani claim that he has additional work lined up to bring in money, though they did not provide specifics. They also stated that issues have been ironed out, and the necessary financial filings will be made. However, the judge remained unconvinced and told Giuliani’s lawyers, “Tell your client to stop. It’s not complicated.”

The judge also addressed a request from the election workers’ lawyers to bar Giuliani from making additional defamatory statements against them. However, he deferred a decision on the matter and stated that there was already a court decision on the issue and that he would not allow the court to be “used as a place where parties can flout the requirements of the law.”