Rudy Giuliani and the Possibly the Worst Legal Document Ever Filed

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:00 Clip: You must never, ever give up or give in. You must keep the faith and keep your eyes on the prize. That is your calling. That is you mission. That is moral obligation. That is mandate. Get out there and do it. Get in the way. Change happens because people care. The people have the power to make this life free and beautiful. To make this live a wonderful adventure.

0:00:38 Clip: I still believe with all my heart, America can be a place where no child is left hungry, no community is left behind, and no one gets told they don't belong. Country is always worth it.

0:00:57 Thomas: And welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1120. I'm your host Thomas Smith and a fun one for you today. So interesting story behind today's episode, sort of. We had something else planned that we were going to do sort of a shorter thing about a thing. Then in the process of doing that, we realized that it is a major thing that we we want to do a massive thing on. And so very quickly it became clear that we needed to pivot. Fortunately we had the perfect pivot material because over on Gavelpod, patreon.com/gavelpod, we just did our usual end of the month, massive amount of release. I will say we have finished the Trump trial on Gavelpod. It's all done. We've covered the entire trial. We've gone through it from top to bottom. V. New York is done over on Gavelpod. That's not all because we also, because we all thought we needed a little bit of fun. We need a little Bit of, of, I don't know, not horrible in this time of horrible. Decided to go through the entirety of the worst piece of legal writing ever done, potentially, in Rudy Giuliani's legal proceedings. Now, we touched on this. We read from parts of it on this show. Folks, let me tell you, it not do it justice. It is so good. This was the most delightful thing that we've recorded in a long time. I thought it would be great to make it available to everybody here on Opening Arguments. A standalone. It's a nice long chunk of episode. To folks who are Gavel Gavel patrons, don't worry, this is an uncharged episode here on Opening Arguments because it was charged over on Gavel Gavel. So this is a not charged episode. You are a Gavelpod listener, this also gives you more time in your podcast diet to listen to the hours and hours of Trump trial that we just put out to finish it. So I hope that'll make everyone happy or at least leave no one too terribly upset. If you are not one of the very fine folks over on that Gavelpod patron, that means you haven't heard this. And that means you are in for a real treat because this is, I'm telling you, this is the worst thing ever done. And this is not like, oh, sovereign citizens. Oh, we're picking on some pro se litigants somewhere. This Oh is punching up. This is, this Is a real legal filing in the case of the former mayor of New York City, a one -time very prominent and important politician. It is so I cannot wait. And was kind enough to join us because she has very relevant experience. So with that, have I to say you're in for an absolute treat. I can't wait for you to hear it. It was so much fun. Take our usual break. Hey, please support the show. Avoid the ads at patreon.com/law. you so much to our patrons. Now I give you the on the worst legal brief ever submitted. You enjoy.

0:03:48 Thomas: And welcome to Gavelpod this is a bit of a special little treat for uh this so I'm so excited about this I'm Thomas that over there's real-life attorney Matt Cameron how you doing Matt and

0:03:59 Matt: I'm just hanging out in my homestead of Boston, Massachusetts and you can't prove otherwise

0:04:04 Liz: Wow, shots

0:04:04 Thomas: We've brought brought in the big guns as always Liz Skeen how you doing Liz

0:04:07 Liz: Fired. Hi, I'm doing really well. It's 31 degrees in New York today, and that feels balmy compared to the previous week. So yeah, I'm doing great.

0:04:17 Thomas: Fantastic

0:04:17 Matt: Hey, it's snowing here. Do you have snow?

0:04:19 Liz: We had snow earlier this week. I mean, it was like, it degrees all this week, and now apparently I'm used to 31. Like, 31, I am not kidding, feels balmy.

0:04:21 Matt: I'm having a good time Solid. Yeah, now we have the same experience the other day.

0:04:29 Thomas: Well you know what could cheer you up and warm you up is a nice cup of Rudy Coffee, which, sorry, I just watched a bunch of Rudy's coffee ads, and it's in my, it's, in my mind now, go to Rudy .koffee, it's just his voice is that all the time, it's like, oh, Santa said, Rudy, coffee, but this is, this is such a treat, we had a little taste, a little tastes of this filing on Opening Arguments, and I was, it just the few sentences we got were, were the best thing in the world, and I was so excited that we could you get Liz, someone who has perhaps some more direct experience. I just wanted someone who really can just tell us how dumb this is. Like just, just for sure. Just like know every, everything about how dumb it is.

0:04:39 Matt: Aren't they amazing? We gotta play some of that

0:04:41 Liz: My god. Oh.

0:05:12 Thomas: Can't wait.

0:05:12 Matt: Just so audience will know Liz as a superstar public defender but uh I've recently learned that she was also a superstar civil litigator what's your background there

0:05:20 Liz: Yeah. So in a, in a former life, I um, worked at a big law firm, um, for five and a half years, where an enormous part of my practice was, was civil litigation. Um, yeah, I've, I've done a number of, I was thinking through all the different types of clients I represented, like I represented a healing company, represent banks, obviously, because New York, I did a lot of actually pro bono, which gets brought up here repeatedly.

0:05:42 Liz: And we can talk about that. I've been in all phases of civil litigation from the beginning and to the very, very end. And mostly, most of civil litigation these days has been in discovery. So very familiar with discovery. And while was joking a little bit before with Matt and Thomas before saying I wouldn't call myself a bankruptcy lawyer, but I did handle a bankruptcy case that took two years. So I guess I'm kind of a bankruptcy lawyer. I'm a lawyer in my former life, too, which

0:05:43 Matt: Funny stuff there it counts that

0:06:06 Thomas: It's a lot.

0:06:07 Liz: Is relevant here.

0:06:08 Thomas: I haven't taken a lot of math classes, but I took one that was two years long and be like, well, that's, that'S a lot OF math. Unless it was just that you were are failing over and over you know it's I hope it's not the judge is like this case should have been over in a week and liz can't do her bankruptcy stuff over here oh

0:06:06 Matt: Counts there

0:06:24 Liz: Relevant, the stuff that we were dealing with in my bankruptcy case is very relevant to what I'm seeing here, which is to say we was a pro bono case, and we sued a very large commercial bakery for essentially not paying their workers. The bakery filed for bankruptcy and tried to hide a bunch of assets in order to to avoid having to pay us.

0:06:45 Liz: And that's, that's what Giuliani initially tried to do until his bankruptcy case got dismissed. So yeah,

0:06:45 Thomas: As you do as you do yeah wow fantastic and as you said we are talking about this uh particular amazing filing in the saga of rudy needing to give all his shit to the two people he defamed and continues to to fame and uh his efforts to I already met remind us what what is this it's so many little whiny things that he files I don't remember

0:07:13 Matt: Honestly, we could do a whole season of Gavelpod that is just these proceedings between D.C. and New York. And maybe we should do a few more of these, depending on how this goes, because these contempt hearings from what I'm reading now, he's been held in contempt twice this week by two different judges. Let's be clear about that. We are just reading from one of those proceedings. We'll not really be talking about D.C. But just to remind everybody, he did, in fact, defame Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, mother-daughter team of election workers in Georgia. We've already been over the allegations, but he was saying, of course, that they were passing around fraudulent election data on USB ports, whatever that means.

0:07:18 Thomas: That might be worth it yeah wow usb

0:07:42 Matt: That's right. Like they were crack cocaine. You know, not at all racist and totally normal thing to say about election workers. He got a $148 million judgment for his efforts. He also, just to be very clear about this, this is going to become relevant. In D.C., he decided he did not need to participate in discovery. He sort of just opted out. The judge didn't like that, held him in default.

0:07:41 Thomas: Ports I wish I could have done that can't

0:08:01 Matt: Isn't that a great one weird trick to not have to be in litigation?

0:08:05 Liz: Can I just say I had a case where I represented, a I plaintiff who was suing NYPD for among other things, denying him medical care and counsel for NYPD tried to argue that we just didn't have to do discovery. And I, I had to file a motion about that with the court and, you know, the court wrote this blistering response and, as much of a victory that as that was, it's just such a ridiculous claim and it really, I, again, I'm just getting a lot of, a lot of flashbacks to dealing with frankly, some, some shady people on the other side. So yeah, move.

0:08:36 Matt: There's a lot of shade on this one. And so we do not have time to go through the massive procedural history. And the procedural history, by the way, created mostly by a combination of Rudy's dodging the truth, incompetence, lies, and his attorney, his most recent attorney, Joe Camerota. His previous attorneys seem to have been pretty competent, which is why they're no longer his lawyers. To be clear, I'm sure we're going to get into why they are no longer as lawyers, but it is quite a story. So this to us in response to a motion that was put in by the plaintiff seeking contempt order and sanctions because once again, in New York, he is not complying. So again, just to be clear, I want to make sure before we dive into this, in DC, he was held in default because he didn't participate in the defamation discovery stuff. He had to go forward on a damages trial. He complained all the way through that he'd not been given a fair trial. He was never able to present his case, but of course he never got to make one because he Didn't participate In discovery meaningfully.

0:08:55 Thomas: Have that get out of here yeah they start off with do you want on a fair trial? No. And then from there on out, Hey, I didn't get a fair trial.

0:09:33 Matt: That's what you get for checking the no box. And so then in New York, he was being sued by the plaintiffs to enforce the actual $148 million judgment because he's just absolutely refusing to turn anything over. He says he does cash poor. He has two properties, one in Newark and in Palm Beach, which is going to be in the middle of this thing. And he's sort of doling out the stuff that he was supposed to have paid over, including, believe, a Mercedes-Benz that was owned by Lauren Bacall, to which he provided them the car, but not the title, and a whole bunch of furniture that he lists in one declaration I'm sure we'll get to. But the real thing at issue with all of this is that he claims that he is a resident of Palm Beach, Florida, when in fact, as we will learn, he was actually a resident of a completely different state, not New York or Florida.

0:10:16 Matt: Maybe I'll save that one. Uh extensive evidence uh he was not living in palm beach and the surprise witness that he's going to try to pull much deterioration yeah yeah he is going to try to put a surprise witness and I just I want to tease some of this because the surprise witness is indeed more surprising than any witness than we could possibly imagine uh it is not even the TikTok zookeeper that we talked about in away a few weeks ago that was a surprise surprise, you would not expect a TikTok zookeeper, but you would also not expect this witness to be as bad as he is given

0:10:17 Thomas: Third state. I think he's living in the state of decay, but I'm yeah. Oh yes.

0:10:19 Liz: Dum, dum. Yeah.

0:10:42 Thomas: Yeah. Oh

0:10:43 Liz: I mean, wow. Wow.

0:10:50 Matt: His job title.

0:10:50 Thomas: My I can't wait.

0:10:51 Matt: It's great. So all of that said, what we're about to read is, I think Liz and I agree at this point, the worst piece of legal prose that we have ever seen filed in any jurisdiction. We've both seen a lot of legal writing at this time in our lives. And this is from Joe Camerota, who is, as far as I know, mostly a divorce attorney. He's a litigator, but he's from Staten Island. He is a Rudy Giuliani absolutely loved the man.

0:11:01 Thomas: That's incredible. You'd have to be. Yeah, at

0:11:13 Matt: Yeah, since 9-11, he's been way into Rudy and is thrilled to represent him.

0:11:17 Thomas: This point, I'm more a fan of 9-11 than I am Rudy. Like Like, it's pretty much tipped the balance for me. Sorry.

0:11:23 Liz: That's fair.

0:11:25 Thomas: You know what? It's okay. You guys don't have to agree with my jokes. It's fine.

0:11:25 Liz: It is what it is. I know. I'm here.

0:11:26 Matt: You don't have to say that. But yeah, I will say that Joe Camerota's heart is definitely in this. I'll give him that. So Liz, do you know anything about Joe Camerota?

0:11:39 Liz: It's funny. Brought this up to me before when we were chatting prep this show, and I was like, no, I don't know anything about the shady -ass lawyer. I don't know quite a lot about the firm that's representing the plaintiffs here. I do know quite about the judge, actually. Um, yes, I know very little about this complete hack of an attorney.

0:11:46 Thomas: I hope not.

0:12:01 Matt: Well, can let his pros speak for him then. I think it might just...

0:12:03 Liz: Um. You know, he has an office in Staten Island and it does appear that he does a lot of divorce law. He also seems to just do a lot. I mean, he's a he's the plaintiff lawyer who I think know, can kind of slides himself in wherever he can. Apparently He represented Paula Jones in her lawsuit against Bill Clinton.

0:12:20 Thomas: I think he handled Giuliani's divorce from reality.

0:12:24 Matt: In progress.

0:12:25 Thomas: Reality got most of the assets in that one. I'm sad to say.

0:12:28 Matt: Docket, actually. I think we're still working through that one. We're in the damages stage.

0:12:32 Liz: No, a few other different, um, kind of high profile civil cases, which honestly I find to be truly shocking. Um no, I have don't. Never been so offended by a piece of legal writing than this. Like the things that I have to either I I could do 12 hours on how offended I am by this. But

0:12:38 Thomas: Are there cases where you don't have to write anything? Quote the great space jam uh there's the scene at the end where bill murray comes he's like all right here's what we're gonna do I'm gonna pay you pass me the ball and then they're like hey bill we're on defense he'slike oh I don't play defense I think that's this attorney with like filing anything he comes in I'm getting handle all the law stuff I get you want law I got law we got to file something nope don't do that I don t find someone else for that

0:13:12 Matt: Have to look out for our liabilities here, Liz. I'd hate to have to correct you, but Joe Camerota, this is actually very important. Not the same Joe Camerota that represented... No, this ist important because he actually put a statement on his website when this Joe Camerota started representing Giuliani, that I'm not this guy.

0:13:26 Liz: Oh my God. So please let me withdraw everything I said. Cause I couldn't understand how this person could be the same person. So

0:13:32 Thomas: Thank

0:13:32 Matt: He is not.

0:13:33 Thomas: Is that a big relief to you, Liz?

0:13:34 Liz: Withdrawn. Oh My God. No, this guy is cause his website also just says, you know, focuses on divorce law. So that makes some, okay. So it's a different individual from New York who also is named Joseph Camerota, but this guy, yeah.

0:13:46 Matt: From what I can tell, the other one is good.

0:13:47 Thomas: But might be a real lawyer.

0:13:48 Liz: The other one appears to be a real lawyer. Okay. I couldn't get that. Okay, that's right. So then this I've really never heard of this guy. I mean, he's some divorce lawyer in Staten Island who appears to have an office down the street from Tim Hortons. I don't know who, yeah, I don't know him. I don't know him.

0:14:04 Matt: Well, he's what Rudy could find at this point after burning through everybody else. So good. Liz, please share what you know about Judge Lewis Lyman, a Trump appointee who's overseeing this case.

0:14:13 Liz: Yeah. So a little bit about Judge Lewis Lyman. I mean he was a fairly, before he was appointed as a judge, I mean He was a very well -known attorney, um, in New York. Uh, Was a partner at Cleary Gottlieb, which is, you know, a top five or 10, uh, law firm, massive, big law firm. Uh. He also was an assistant U.S. attorney before that, at SDNY, that's a big kind of stepping stone to becoming a partner in big law in New York, when I worked as an associate at a law firm, I would say, you everyone I worked with on white collar and criminal matters, they were all former US attorneys, assistant US attorneys from the Southern District. That's his pedigree. And he was a well -known, very serious lawyer. And this is kind of common in New York. You know, there's oftentimes kind of legal dynasties. His father, who gets referenced here a few times, Arthur Lyman, was very, very famous as well, and was a partner himself at Paul Weiss, another massive, well -known New York -based law firm. He'd done a number of things. I mean, he was in charge of the counsels for investigating Iran-Contra. He investigated also the Attica prison riot. But he comes from... Lewis Lyman, very famous, very smart, well respected, comes from a legal dynasty. But yeah, He is a Trump appointee, but he's a Democrat

0:15:30 Liz: Because everyone in New York, except for Donald Trump, is a Democrat. And one of the things that's worth noting, I think, about the judiciary in New York is it doesn't suffer from, I would say, the Eileen Cannon problem. Whatever reason, and I don't know if he's going to be able to do this moving forward, but Chuck Schumer has always, and correctly, taken a really active interest in judiciary appointees for New York. And it's my understanding he cut a bunch of deals to make sure that New York got pretty good judiciary appointee under the Trump administration. So Lewis Lyman is a Democrat, a New York Democrat, right? Which means you could be quite a conservative Democrat.

0:16:06 Thomas: Was going to say, don't look at the latest election results, Liz, if you want to keep harboring under the delusion that everyone there is a Democrat.

0:16:14 Liz: Who wants to get ahead, I mean, you can't be a Republican to get appointed to the New York courts, I think. Even still now.

0:16:20 Matt: Yeah, same here.

0:16:21 Liz: Anyway, we'll see under Trump. But uh was a period where everyone is a Democrat you're right uh yeah but he's he really well respected he's the good judge he's real person um not an Eileen Cannon in any respect uh he is someone who is no doubt unbelievably if I am offended by reading this brief I cannot imagine how offended Lewis Lyman is because he was a partner in a big law firm. And if he someone, ever saw something like this come from anyone who he worked with,

0:16:19 Thomas: Thank God, yeah,

0:16:49 Matt: And audience for this brief, as is always the case. So it is written for an audience of one. It's now getting an audience. Quite a few. So I hope everybody enjoys this.

0:16:52 Thomas: At three, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I, I have a request, man. I know we read that little part about his dad. I we have to do it again though. Cause it's still, it's Still Haunting My Dreams. Just the syntax of it. Like I just, I can't. Okay, good.

0:17:03 Matt: We will. We absolutely will. There's

0:17:10 Thomas: Thank you.

0:17:10 Matt: So much syntax. Okay. All right. Right. Well, we should dig into this monster if

0:17:12 Liz: My God. I, I, uh, oh

0:17:15 Thomas: So, and, and apologies if I, in my non -lawyer brain just didn't catch it. What again, precisely was this a response to, or is it a thing? I'm not sure I caught that.

0:17:24 Matt: He has not been complying with anything as of this point. This was filed on the 19th of December, this thing. But it's in response to multiple requests for sanctions and contempt filed by the plaintiffs, very reasonably, who have been unusually patient given the fact that Julianne has been just completely failing on everything.

0:17:39 Thomas: They're driving around Lauren Bacall's car. They're like, we got, we got nothing but time.

0:17:44 Matt: And they should be living in Rudy's house, but we're not there yet. But it is so, so apparent that Rudy Giuliani does not live in Florida that at this point, his many attempts to dodge discovery and his many excuses and his many lies, like demonstrable lies, we'll talk about a few of them as we go here, including perjurious lies. There's no question at this moment that he has committed perjury in this case more than once. So actually, before we begin, though, we're going to be starting with the preliminary statement, which is a lot of this thing. What is a preliminary statement have been supposed to do under these circumstances?

0:18:13 Liz: My God, I mean, not, not this. Um, so a preliminary statement, um, When I was first learning how to write briefs in civil litigation, I had a very good colleague who is an outstanding lawyer. And what he said to me is, at the beginning of any preliminary statement, you want to have three to five sentences that explain what you want and why you want it, right? That summarize the entire document. That's not what this preliminary statement does. Other thing about a preliminary statement is it's supposed to be, I mean, what it sounds like. You're sort of like providing a summary of all of the things that you're going to be making arguments about in the actual brief. It's of lay out what you are thinking. You know, you're not supposed to put anything in the preliminary statement that doesn't really appear in the rest of the brief. Does that make sense?

0:18:42 Thomas: You signposting? Are you just kind of, yeah.

0:19:06 Liz: You are signposting.

0:19:07 Thomas: Here's the roadmap to the bullshit we're trying to file.

0:19:07 Liz: You that's it. You You're signposting, you're directing, you are providing like a summary, a lot of times actually stylistically, sometimes people actually don't put citations in the preliminary statement. The idea being that like actually later in the brief, right, yeah, it's the abstract, it's an abstract of the brief. It's not supposed to be whatever, I mean, this absolute garbage that is like, it is like half the brief at least, right? Right.

0:19:22 Thomas: It's like the abstract of the thing. Okay.

0:19:36 Matt: It's a personal essay, basically.

0:19:38 Liz: A personal essay and rant. And then it doesn't actually summarize their arguments. It's just a separate rant.

0:19:46 Matt: Question, Liz, actually, what we're talking about. Never actually filed a civil brief, full disclosure. Is the statement of facts? Should there not be any acknowledgement of facts because it seems like he does all the facts in the preliminary statement. Is that normal? Some acknowledgement of fact separately from the statement right okay well

0:19:58 Liz: I mean, it should just be and as I say, like, the preliminary statement is just supposed to be like an abstract, explain what you want and why maybe, brief writer would do the three to five sentence thing. I say upfront and then kind of maybe provide a few more paragraphs. It's not supposed to be, I've never seen so long of a preliminary statement. I've ever seen a preliminary statement that defies the terms, both, preliminary statement .I mean, it's just not, it I I mean, we haven't even gotten to the argument, but it's totally offensive to any notion of what constitutes brief writing.

0:20:29 Matt: Let's get into it let's see how it goes uh at the top

0:20:32 Thomas: Right. You want me to start at the top here? Just, okay.

0:20:34 Matt: Will direct yeah let's do it

0:20:35 Thomas: I can't do an accent, unfortunately. Defendant Rudolph Giuliani respectfully submits this memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiff's motion pursuant to federal rules of civil procedure 37 and the court's inherent authority for an order holding defendant in civil contempt and imposing sanctions. Plaintiffs seek to hold defendant in contempt of the court orders of October 8th. Blah, blah, blah. Skip the citation looking stuff and a sanction defendant accordingly, including pursuance to federal rule of civil Procedure 37. plaintiff's memorandum of law states that mr giuliani has not produced a single document in response to plaintiff discovery orders in this manner notwithstanding multiple orders from this court requiring him to do so that is not true and is false the

0:20:40 Liz: Thank

0:21:24 Matt: A great line that is not true and is false I'm

0:21:26 Thomas: Don't you lawyers write that crap all the time though you saying you're too good for that that particular nonsense.

0:21:27 Matt: Using that in every brief forever no that is Not True and is False pick a lane man don't say it's both it's such a stupid thing to say that is NOT True and Is False

0:21:39 Thomas: It's wrong. And I go so far as to say it's incorrect. The undeniable fact is that defendants prior counsel, Kenneth Caruso Esquire and David, it's not Lebowski. I keep wanting to say Lebowski, but it's like Lebkowski. It should be Lebowski David Lebkowsky EsquIRE were counseled to defend it until November 26, when the court permitted them to withdraw as counsel, which is amazing. But yeah, I was going to say, is that normal? No, we'll talk about it later. Defendant obtained new counsel. I just imagine this is him writing, right? He's like writing about himself. There I was, Joseph Camerota. He came into my office. Defendant obtained new counsel, Joseph Camerota, Esquire, replaced Kenneth Caruso and the Big Lebowski. Defendants present counsel quickly began to review all of the court's orders and began very good -lookingly to obtain all responses to

0:21:46 Matt: Sorry.

0:21:57 Liz: You. He really should. Oh,

0:22:04 Matt: That later. Yeah.

0:22:31 Thomas: The plaintiff's discovery demands to comply with all of this court's orders and plaintiff'S discovery demands.

0:22:37 Matt: Okay. So hold on. Note the implication of that last sentence that somehow previous counsel was not complying with discovery demands as if it was their fault that they were not compying with discovery commands. I just note how bloated this sentence is and so many of his sentences, this should have been like a five word sentence. But let's talk for just a moment before we go on about why his previous attorneys withdrew. We did talk about this on OA but I want to make sure that everyone is aware. His previous attorneys seem to be pretty decent, Kenneth Caruso and David Lebkowsky and one of the reasons they're decent is because they know when it's time to quit, when it is time to fold them, when you hit a client like this. So finally told the judge on the 13th of November that they'd had enough, that they had to withdraw and they did what lawyers are mostly required to do under these circumstances. They didn't say why. They just said that they'd had some ethical considerations that they needed to withdraw for.

0:23:24 Thomas: And we talked about that. It's like you don't want to blow up their spot. It's not like you want to be like, this guy is a total piece of shit and he did these things because that would kind of prejudice things going forward, right?

0:23:34 Matt: But at client starts making allegations about your representation, that starts to change. So the this filing, we're going to see some allegations about prior attorneys, and in his declaration in support of this filing Rudy Giuliani talks about.

0:23:47 Thomas: You keep struggling to call it something. Thing you're like of this uh words thing he

0:23:51 Matt: This thing that I'm looking at. Yeah. Let me just read, actually, just so you can understand just how intentionally bad this is. Looking at the declaration. We'll link to all these things, of course, but relied upon my attorneys to provide timely responses, objection, and production of responsive of materials to the plaintiff's counsel by required deadlines. I did not intentionally or willfully disobey or violate any orders or demands. Ultimately, I believe that all discovery was provided to the plaintiffs once I retained them and they were relieved of counsel. Again, he's just throwing it all on his previous attorneys.

0:24:21 Thomas: Thinks this is some weird trick you could do where you you comply with anything and then you get you're such an asshole or something that your attorneys leave and they're like those fuckers did it like that I wanted to do everything right and I thought they did but they didn't matt

0:24:35 Matt: Now, has to know that in support of their motion to withdraw, they filed an affidavit, which was mostly redacted because of course you don't want a public record about why you're withdrawing. And the judge sees sees this.

0:24:45 Thomas: How could he know that he's not a lawyer oh wait he was yeah it's true he's a not anymore he's a coffee salesman it's

0:24:49 Liz: He isn't.

0:24:49 Matt: So it's important to set this up because it's going to come up several times in this filing. And I just want to make sure we get it out. It is incredible because again, even though we mentioned this anyway, I have to have to tell you again, on the 23rd of December, this was filed on the 19th, the thing we're reading now, Lyman orders one line of the affidavit in support of the motion to withdraw to be unsealed. Exactly one line.

0:25:02 Thomas: Incredible I love that so much it's

0:25:17 Matt: It's so good.

0:25:17 Liz: That's so good. That's So Properly Petty.

0:25:20 Thomas: All he needs it's it's all he's like I can discredit you with most of my lines tied behind my back like I just just one one line will do it yeah

0:25:28 Matt: Court notes in a very understated sort of way, defendant's statements in his declaration and of law are contradicted by the declarations of Messrs. Caruso and Lebkowsky. Contradicted to point that one might think that the defendant is lying. He does not add.

0:25:44 Thomas: Who to trust in this situation situation yeah

0:25:46 Matt: That's what he says. The court hasn't reached a judgment as to which version of the facts to accept or whether there is yet another version that is true. The court is reached no judgment as whether defendant is in contempt or if so, which contempt sanctions to reach. Those questions await another day. They certainly will. Will. But So the unsealed sentences. Defendant has informed us that he will not participate in electronic discovery in the homestead action. Specifically, he has informed us that he will not identify or provide access to his electronic devices for imaging by an electronics discovery vendor, which we have identified. We have a fundamental disagreement with that position. I'm glad you do, because he's saying that he Will not participate in discovery. He will not provide any of his electronic devices as would be required so they can be imaged and searched and provided in discovery, so that's the only thing you can do as an ethical lawyer at that point when your client is just refusing like that.

0:26:28 Thomas: We had a disagreement we wanted to do the law and he was like no and so we're like well that's our whole job buddy we can't be here anymore end of relationship

0:26:38 Matt: So see ya. Right.

0:26:40 Liz: Cannot unilaterally terminate discovery.

0:26:43 Matt: So Rudy plays chicken and decides to just get out there and see if, the you judge will swerve. And he does. He unseals that part of the affidavit because he wants to make sure that everybody understands his lawyers got out because he was trying to be unethical and he didn't have to have that come out. He could have just said nothing.

0:26:56 Thomas: Point of that whole thing was the sentence was like, well, once I got in here, I had to start, you complying with it. And I worked really hard at it. I just, you now, as fast as I can.

0:27:00 Matt: Doing the work. Right, right, right. This is going to come up several times, so I just want to make sure. I want

0:27:08 Thomas: Know, plaintiffs obtained probably one of the largest judgments for defamation. I don't have time to even check because I'm over here just complying and stuff like as fast I can. But I would imagine probably one of the largest judgments for defamation ever granted to a plaintiff in the United States. The $145 million, that is a weird number, $969,000 plus interest judgment against defendant, notwithstanding the fact, yeah, shit.

0:27:30 Matt: Say Alex Jones would like a word. $1 billion, I think, is a little bit more than $145 million.

0:27:37 Thomas: One of, Matt, one of, the largest.

0:27:39 Matt: It's true. Okay.

0:27:41 Thomas: Notwithstanding, the fact that the judgment in on appeal appeal before the United. Is that that the judgment in on appeal? That missing a letter or word?

0:27:48 Matt: That's not a proper sentence. No.

0:27:51 Thomas: Notwithstanding that, because I don't want to be too quick.

0:27:53 Liz: You would have said the judgment on appeal. Oh,

0:27:55 Matt: I think he meant to say judgment is on appeal.

0:27:56 Thomas: Is in on. Yeah.

0:27:57 Matt: There's a lot of typos on this thing.

0:27:59 Thomas: OK. And hey, I it's entirely possible when I read, I skip 30 percent of the words. So I thought that was on me.

0:28:06 Liz: On appeal?

0:28:06 Thomas: Now, notwithstanding the fact that the judgement is in on appeals, what it probably probably should say, right? Or is on appeal.

0:28:12 Matt: Think he just says is,

0:28:12 Liz: I wouldn't have phrased it that way. You would just, you should say the judgment is being appealed.

0:28:16 Thomas: Is on appeal. Like maybe the N is supposed to be is.

0:28:17 Matt: But yeah. Yeah, I think that's right.

0:28:19 Thomas: Okay. See, when I had my little law thingy that was not for $146 million, felt like it, but it wasn't. We had lots of eyeballs, including mine, reading over everything to make sure that we didn't put any stupid typos in anything because it's court and it felt pretty important to me. But that's just me. Me I don't that's just just me

0:28:37 Matt: But mean, Rudy might be writing this. He doesn't have.

0:28:40 Liz: Mean back when, when Lewis Lyman was was a big law partner. Once again, if an associate ever did this would associate probably would have been executed and publicly pilloried. And like,

0:28:48 Thomas: Notwithstanding the fact that the judgment is on appeal we'll say before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit defendants 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 in

0:29:05 Liz: Let me just have, have a moment here. Just one other thing that's worth noting in terms of the posturing of this and, and what's actually happening here is that there, there is actually a whole separate branch or kind of like a subspecialty, I should say within civil litigation called asset chasing. I or, you know, colloquially amongst litigators referred to to is asset chasing, right? And the thing about that is that a is only as good as the paper that it's written on, right. So if there's a judgment against you, and you're Rudy Giuliani, you you're being told to pay $140 million. Sure, but you court police, the court can't force you per se, you know, they Court itself is not going to seize your assets, right, they're not going going to come to your home. What you need to do is if a a defendant judgment against you and the defendant isn't paying, is you just look around for all their assets and you commence civil litigation in all of those jurisdictions potentially, or any jurisdiction where you have appropriate venue to try to seize those assets. So that's what's happening here is the other thing to understand is that this is kind of like they have their judgment. Now they're trying to get Rudy to actually pay.

0:30:11 Matt: Is all pro bono, but there's a lot lawyer hours going in on both sides to try to get this to happen.

0:30:15 Liz: Yes. Asset chasing is really tough stuff. I mean, it's like a whole, as I say, that's the reason why it's a whole subspecialty. And it's the sort of thing, like if you've ever heard, you know, famously a number of years ago, Argentina had like a ship seized off the coast of like West Africa by some creditors, things like that.

0:30:18 Thomas: Sounds fun I want to do it

0:30:32 Liz: I for civil litigation, it is one of the more fun things to be doing because it's pretty fast moving and it involves like some some fun investigation and stuff like that. I agree. Oh,

0:30:38 Thomas: Nate I episode is brought to you by Rocket Money. Ever sign up for something because it's It's a free trial and then you forget that they're like, hey, it expired. We signed you up for the first time. For a decade of you're like that can't be right. That's Yeah, an exaggeration, but I've been signed up for a year of a thing because I forgot a trial before that's a painful mistake. You don't want to make and everything is a subscription now. Everything. Things that you didn't think could be are now subscriptions. And some of that's good. Others, I'll not so great. Others you forget about. Others are trials that you never meant to sign up for, but do you separate the the ones you want from the ones you don't want? Well, Rocket Money. Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps you find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions. It monitors your spending and helps you lower your bills so you can grow your savings. Something Something we all need right now with, you know, various and sundry trade wars that might be going on. Rocket Money, all of your subscriptions are in one place and you know exactly where your money is going. For those ones that that you perhaps forgot about, Money can even help you cancel them. Rocket money can even try bills for you. Automatically scan your bills to find opportunities to save, and then you can ask them to negotiate. They'll deal with the customer service. Crazy. Money has over 5 million users and has saved a total of 500 million in canceled subscriptions, saving members up to $740 a year when using all of the app's premium features. And with that savings, you can afford to buy a few more subscriptions. No, no. So unwanted subscriptions and reach your financial goals faster with Rocket Money. Go to rocketmoney .com slash opening today. Rocketmony .com slash opening. More time, rocketmany .com slash opening this

0:32:20 Matt: He's going to complain in the next period. I'm going to skip most of this about how about the supersedeas bond that would allow him because Because he's basically saying, I'm turning it over, even though this is on appeal. I don't know if we really need to give the law around this. We can just read the last sentence of that.

0:32:31 Thomas: I was gonna say we have to read the last sentence of that paragraph there was no possibly way for defendant to have obtained any bond due to the value of the judgment which on appeal it is anticipated will be reversed or the judgment amount will be greatly reduced no possibly way where nothing could possibly go wrong that's one of my Simpsons quotes that me and my brother have quoted for I don't know 30 fucking years or whatever issue in scratchy land where nothing think could possibly go wrong uh

0:32:47 Matt: No possibly way.

0:32:59 Liz: Size the typo there a little more context as to what's happening here, right? Is that, yeah, they're trying to appeal the defamation judgment. Do not have a right of appeal to any civil case, unlike actually in criminal cases, right. Because, you know, criminal involves taking your liberty, so on, so on. Civil is whatever, you're fighting about money. So there's no right of appeal. So if you are appealing a civil case, you have to basically show in some form or another by way of bond that you have the ability to pay the judgment if the appeal does not work out favorably for you, right? Because the courts don't want you to be using an appeal proceeding to be unnecessarily delaying the of this judgment.

0:33:40 Matt: Adding your assets, which he's definitely trying to also do in the meantime.

0:33:43 Liz: So idea there. Right. Is that, and, and again, once again, you don't have a right of appeal. So it's like, it is a privilege to be able to appeal it. And so if you're going to appeal, you got to put up this bond that if you lose your appeal, they it shows that, you know, basically they can immediately kind of execute on the bond.

0:33:58 Matt: But there's no possibly way he can do that. That's what we've learned.

0:33:59 Liz: They're giving me a heart attack. There is no possibly way that's

0:34:03 Thomas: But he's coming in here saying well this is so dumb that I we're not it's definitely not only can I appeal we're gonna win and it's gonna be zero so why would I even bother doing any of this law that doesn't apply to me. Well,

0:34:16 Matt: That's most of the brief. Yeah.

0:34:18 Liz: Yeah. That's honestly maybe even the better parts of the brief. I mean, mean it's so bad I'm

0:34:21 Thomas: We're getting to a really good part of the brief every

0:34:23 Matt: We're getting to the gold here. Let's do it.

0:34:24 Thomas: Human being has political beliefs and 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, sorry, an enormous judgment against them as the plaintiffs were awarded a judgment now in excess of $145 million, blah, blah, which includes $75 million in punitive damages. And this court, comma, and this court should recognise, yeah, we're still on the same sentence, I think. This whole, actually, this whole paragraph is almost, yeah.

0:34:28 Matt: Go on.

0:34:37 Liz: Having a heart attack I'm having a hard attack guys

0:34:49 Matt: Comma. Keeps going. Yep. Yep, I just want to point that out.

0:34:57 Thomas: There's, there's two sentences in this paragraph and this court should recognize that plaintiff's counsels are plaintiff's counsels, are political and apparently are swayed toward the democratic party.

0:35:08 Matt: Small d, Democratic Party.

0:35:09 Thomas: And you have the defendant, Liz, how many times you write you have, and I just went, all right, you have a case here in which you have.

0:35:17 Matt: We got here, Judge? Yeah.

0:35:18 Thomas: What are we doing here?

0:35:19 Liz: I'm not even kidding I was reading this and I saw the you have and I screamed I screamed and my and Walter came running over being like what's wrong and I was like they wrote you have I know sorry

0:35:25 Thomas: You have the defendant hold on we're not we're not done we're not done you have the defendant who was a republic mayor who the mayor of the Republic of New York I suppose or something I don't know a republic mayor and it's like yeah you hope that Rudy is writing this himself but if Rudy is writing and I think he would have remembered what he was a mayor or what maybe I don' t know I I don't know. Okay, here's what I'll say. It's more likely that a Rudy sycophant is so dumb that they would be like, yeah, Republic mayor, than it is that Rudy would forget. Well, maybe not. I don' t know. Never mind. As I said it, I don't know. And who was an attorney for former and future president Donald J. Trump, who wasn't, we're still on the same sentence, who was and is deeply rooted in Republican beliefs, period.

0:35:48 Matt: What party it was. I mean,

0:36:01 Liz: Don't know it's

0:36:02 Matt: This was written on the toilet, so. Okay, hold on. Just small d, Democratic, large r, Republic, small r, Republican, all in the same sentence. What is going on?

0:36:19 Thomas: Well, because Republic is a city. He was a Republic mayor. He was, I don't know, republic

0:36:24 Matt: And I guess, yeah, I don't know what's going on.

0:36:27 Thomas: Mayor. Do you want to hear the second and last sentence of that paragraph?

0:36:30 Matt: Yes, of course.

0:36:32 Thomas: There is no way, there's no way that this court cannot view this case as a political case because that is exactly what it is, or there would never have been such an astronomical judgment against the defendant. Independent.

0:36:31 Liz: Oh no. Oh

0:36:47 Matt: Plus.

0:36:49 Thomas: Do you find that argument, Liz? How did that legal reasoning?

0:36:54 Liz: My God. I mean, you know, I, I've broken. I'm, I mean first you really shouldn't insult, and this is not even close to insulting the judges. It gets much worse, but you shouldn't insult the judge in, in brief. So implying that the judge's political beliefs will sway him is just incredibly rude. But that's not even, I mean, this is the worst written sentence ever. Just to even address the arguments, there's nothing about, I mean there's litigation can be political. I mean it's not, but if there's a valence of politics to it, that doesn't mean that someone doesn't have a legitimate claim. I just, I don't understand, you know, like

0:36:59 Thomas: We've broken Liz, everyone. Yeah.

0:37:37 Liz: So what, who gives, who, no one has ever addressed me in a brief as to my political beliefs. So saying the that their counsels are political is not, there's doesn't matter. They're not bringing up. And I went through a bunch of the, of the filings by plaintiff's counsel. They're not bringing up their political beliefs. TheyRE just sticking to the facts and to the law that just just stick to the facts and to the law and apply the law to the facts. I just, it's insane. I, this was like the only bad thing in this brief, but we will go on to others. And I have been maybe, uh, my bachelor's in, uh anthropology, actually.

0:37:52 Matt: Not at all.

0:38:04 Thomas: We're not even close. Yeah, I

0:38:04 Matt: This is, yeah. Just a quick sidebar, Liz. What was your bachelor's in? Oh, so you had to do a lot of writing, I assume, in an anthropology degree. Agree.

0:38:13 Liz: I did do a lot of writing. I wrote a senior thesis that was 125 pages.

0:38:17 Matt: See, now this is a big thing of mine. I was an English major. So of course, that's the best one before you become a lawyer. I think that every lawyer should know how to write. It's really important to me. And I make sure that everybody in this office is trained as best they can to know how To write as well as they can. Because in some cases, the judge will never see your face or hear your voice. And this is all they're going to see. And This is deranged. This is I, this is incredible. I don't know how people are practicing law writing like this. It makes me angry personally

0:38:42 Thomas: Just wonder how much someone got paid to do. I could do this, like just, you're right.

0:38:47 Matt: You couldn't you could not do this you would never do

0:38:49 Thomas: I mean, I would have to hit myself in the head with a hammer pretty hard, but I could, but this court should know. Am I going out? Yeah, obviously, Obviously, I'm reading this amazing paragraph.

0:38:58 Matt: This let's let's get music how about some conspiracy theories that would be let's

0:39:01 Thomas: This court should know that one or more of plaintiff's counsels was partners with Hunter Biden as Boies Schiller Flexner LLC, President Joe Biden's son, and had been involved with, upon information and belief, Burisma Holdings and or Ukrainian issues. That was a sentence.

0:39:01 Matt: Go there what is going on just like five different sentences

0:39:29 Thomas: I don't. OK.

0:39:25 Liz: I one or

0:39:31 Matt: Aren't your biden as the law firm comma president joe joe biden's son is a law firm I don't know what's going on in this sentence I'm

0:39:34 Thomas: Or no. Well, it seems like the plaintiffs were the law, like the plaintiffs was partners with Hunter Biden as this.

0:39:43 Matt: Just parsing the sense I'm looking at what I'm

0:39:45 Thomas: Me too. So the or more plaintiffs counsels was partners with Hunter Biden, as Boies, Schiller, Flexner, LLC. I could be either, I guess. Right. I mean, it's either that's Hunter Biden or the plaintiff's.

0:39:55 Liz: One or more of the, yeah, I just, so

0:39:58 Thomas: But then it says President Joe Biden, Joseph Biden's son what I can't figure out what that's doing there in that sense like honest to god I can'T figure out WHAT THAT'S DOING in that sentence hunter

0:40:08 Matt: And why it's not before. Anyway, whatever. Okay.

0:40:11 Thomas: Biden is oh okay so that they meant okay they meant to move that president just can you red marker this matt for us and well that'll be the the patron con that it It should be partners with Hunter Biden, Joseph Biden's son, as Boyce Schiller Flexner LLC.

0:40:28 Matt: That's what I'm saying. As

0:40:32 Thomas: But I still don't know who is that. Who is that?

0:40:32 Matt: Makes no sense.

0:40:36 Liz: Not Boyce Shiller is President Joe Biden's son.

0:40:39 Thomas: We got that.

0:40:39 Matt: Liz.

0:40:40 Thomas: But I don't.

0:40:40 Matt: Important fact checking.

0:40:41 Thomas: But no, what I genuinely don't knows is were the council's partners as that LLC or was Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden that LLC?

0:40:50 Matt: Did they hook up with Joe Biden?

0:40:50 Liz: So this is what, no, this is, I can, let me step back. I got you. Okay. I can tell you what this actually is. I mean, not the sentence, but okay. So, Hunter Biden was counseled. He wasn't a partner by the way, um, at Boies Schiller, um, Boies Shiller, very good law firm, um. With some controversy behind it, but that's a, that's different story. Um, it, it, you know, very good, uh, law firm. And so he, he was counsel there, not a partner. What they're saying is some of the people who, yes

0:40:54 Thomas: Please. My God. I'm so sorry to stop you, Liz. Is it just that it should say at instead of as oh my god for the love of god I was like oh he was like doing business as boys like I was trying to figure out like what the oh at

0:41:22 Matt: Of course it should. It oh it's so it's right there it

0:41:30 Liz: So someone involved in this lawsuit was a partner before they came to wilkie farr which is the the law firm that's like behind the plaintiff's lawsuit lawsuit right uh someone was also also worked with hunter biden at boy schiller that's what what they're saying it's

0:41:44 Matt: Just took us minutes

0:41:44 Thomas: Would love to understand your conspiratorial nonsense but you gotta use proper grammar and not make so many typos I just that genuinely stopped me from understanding the nonsense you were trying to I would love to go with you on the moon is cheese and the hollow earth and and whatever this is but you said as like I don't know what at like at okay hunter biden at boys schiller and then we need to clarify just in case we're talking about some other hunter bidan just president joseph biden son and had been involved with blah blah burisma

0:41:53 Matt: Want information and belief language is like from a complaint like that's not something you need to throw into your preliminary statement also this is page three top of page three and we're talking about Burisma had to do it here we are let's hear about Burisma two varies you know he means it

0:42:21 Thomas: Holdings and Very, very, yeah, it's a comma. Very, comma, very. That's like what my daughter Phoebe would write. Anyway, these issues became very, and there's no other word for what this is, so comma, very, political and charged during the 2020 presidential campaign and thereafter. One or more of the organizations of the plaintiff's councils are politically based organizations. What the fuck does that mean? Okay. Okay, such as the Organization United to Protect Democracy, whose website states, there's an extra quotation mark, whose web, am Web site states, close quote, for some reason, space,

0:42:38 Matt: Bad writing never use very yeah and then open

0:43:10 Thomas: Open quote, that should be a comma, I guess, states comma, I think but it's a this is this is golden I love this so much this is my favorite thing protect democracy is a group dedicated to defeating the authoritarian threat and protecting liberal democracy our experts and advocates use litigation to stand up there's a lot of what is it lipsies is that yeah there's so I don't even know what this actually says but there's like a hundred ellipses litigation

0:43:10 Matt: Quote yeah a lot of ellipses yeah I'm sure this isn't out of context this is probably true oh

0:43:38 Thomas: Dot dot dot to stand out for dot dot the rule of law dot dot and a better democracy it wasn't a joke that was actually real democracy for future generations close quote I guess no matter what anyone says that's

0:43:50 Matt: This is so good this is such a good this

0:43:53 Thomas: And that's bulletproof in legal uh I don't know if you know this liz if you say no matter What anyone says my client is innocent free to go that's it's no matter. What anyone's what could someone say it's no matter White anyone okay 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 Thiefs are the antithesis of the plaintiff's counsel.

0:43:55 Matt: Sentence is incredible okay this is an own goal like directly into the net this is incredible we do not believe in liberal democracy, judge, let it be known.

0:44:21 Thomas: Liberal democracy. Oh, boy.

0:44:27 Matt: We are the antithesis of liberal democracy.

0:44:24 Liz: We are believe in authoritarian like fascist rule I

0:44:34 Matt: In case there's any doubt, if you haven't been watching the news, this is what Rudy Giuliani is all about. Why?

0:44:38 Liz: I mean I it's its its

0:44:40 Thomas: Know don't they mean it this way, but it's almost like they're trying to do the thing from like the, advocate or whatever? Where he's like, my client sucks. You're going to hate my client. He's the worst person in the world, but he's not a murderer. You know, like that stupid lawyer trope thing. Yeah my client hates liberal democracy but but they're doing it unironically it's just like yeah obviously he's against liberal democracy and like and the lawyers are pro so that's how you know what well

0:45:03 Matt: What is he trying to say? I mean, okay, first of all, pointing out that the council on the other side stands up for democracy and democratic rights and is appearing pro bono because they believe this is actually actually something, you know, this problem. But then what is this summary sentence supposed to be saying? Is he really trying to say that they're authoritarian? Because I don't think that's what he means to say. He trying to summarize what they're here for?

0:45:18 Liz: So

0:45:25 Thomas: It sounds like he's trying to explain matt why the other side is against him

0:45:30 Matt: It's there. Yeah, exactly. Why they're showing up for this.

0:45:33 Liz: Know I don' think liberal democracy means what what he thinks it means you know

0:45:36 Thomas: That's a given but the thing that he thinks he's try to explain hey here's the thing in most civil civil fucking cases, the two sides love each other very dearly. And the other council, we, we go on long walks together. We hold hands. We gaze into each other's eyes and that's how it should work. It's fair. But if the other counsel doesn't like you, that's not fair. You can't do law like that. They don't like me. Well, then that's therefore no judgment. What?

0:45:38 Matt: That's true. You're right though, Liz, that it he thinks liberal democracy is like leftists. I Think that's What He Actually thinks. That's amazing.

0:46:11 Thomas: Yeah, that's, yeah, obviously.

0:46:12 Matt: I just realized that as I read this, but he's saying he's opposed to like Western liberal democracy, like the general concept of it. That is the antithesis of what we believe in. S amazing. Malpractice. It's incredible.

0:46:22 Liz: It's very princess bride you know like I don't think that word means what you think it does um and that's like most of this brief truly like

0:46:25 Matt: Doesn't. Well, let's keep going.

0:46:30 Thomas: Plaintiffs, through their counsel, filed their judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on August 5th and filed their judgement in the U .S. District Court on August 6th. In the United State District Court in the Southern State District of New York on the same day, august 5th there is no way that plaintiffs and their counsel did not know the defendant was a citizen of comma domiciled in and a permanent resident of the state of florida who was and is actually residing no comma there a permanent residence of the city of florid who was and actually resigning in his florida condominium comma where he has and is entitled to homestead protection under the Florida Constitution.

0:47:07 Matt: Citizen of Florida. I just have to point out he's a citizen of Florida. I just think that's very funny as an immigration person to say that you're a citizen isn't of Florida, not in or resident of Florida. And just for context, this August 5th date is very important because at the point at which the judgment, the actual judgment is registered, the $148 million, that's when it becomes very relevant about where he's living and what his homestead is. And he's trying to argue that he was up until that point actually homestetted in Florida and that way they can't take his Florida house. So that's why this date matters so much, especially in Florida.

0:47:41 Liz: Yeah I actually I think I think we should just kind of even step back a little bit further right so Florida specifically has um in in their constitution, this that says, like, if this is your primary residence, you can't be forced to sell it. So that's what the homestead exception is. And it's a Florida constitutional matter. And Giuliani already basically had tried to stymie execution of this judgment before by trying to go into bankruptcy court, which I mentioned before. And the thing about bankruptcy court is it puts a stay, it stops all pending civil litigation. Investigation, bankruptcy court is a privilege to be in. And they more or less kicked him out because they were like, you're not using us correctly. You're not allowed here.

0:48:18 Matt: There was a finding of bad faith, right? That it was actually a bad bad faith litigation.

0:48:21 Liz: Yeah. And that's the thing. It's like bankruptcy law is really interesting in the US because it's actually pretty favorable to the debtor. But if you're abusing those protections, I mean, bankruptcy port will try tell you to shape up your act, which obviously wouldn't work for Rudy Giuliani, or they just kick you out. And that's what happened. So he's trying to find any sort of protection that he can to having his assets seized. So someone looked up in the Florida Constitution that there is this exception. So maybe if it's your primary residence, you don't have to sell it. If it's Your Primary Residence, they don't care about someone having a pita tear down in Florida, correctly. And so he's trying to rely on this thing that is impossible for him to rely on when you actually look at the facts of the case.

0:49:06 Thomas: Political

0:49:06 Matt: And there's a whole body of case law about people trying to claim their vacation homes as their homesteads, as you might expect in Florida. This is very common. Idea that there no way that plaintiffs and their counsel did not know that defendant was domiciled in Florida, that's such a weird thing to say. Right? It's been in the paper every day, I guess. I don't know. Yeah, yeah. All right. Let's Yeah? Conditional.

0:49:25 Thomas: Case, the plaintiffs would have filed for a determination determination of homestead in circuit court of Palm Beach County, Florida, but

0:49:40 Matt: Why would they do that why

0:49:41 Liz: Why would they ever do that? Why would they ever say that?

0:49:41 Thomas: They did not a

0:49:42 Matt: Would the plaintiffs file for his homestead declaration what is he talking about that's his job okay

0:49:45 Thomas: Determination of Homestead. So that's the thing he files to say, Hey, I live here. Okay. Why would they have done that? That's stupid. Yeah.

0:49:53 Matt: That's coming maybe not this brief but it's coming yeah

0:49:56 Thomas: Uh, Plaintiffs would have fine, but They did not do so because they want a New York court to help plaintiffs achieve their their goals. Oh my

0:49:56 Matt: It's his shop no they didn't do so because it's not their job they just want his property like they're entitled to okay all

0:50:09 Thomas: Keep would ask, why would the plaintiffs file their judgment in Florida and New York and then not proceed in enforcing the judgment in Florida or in the United States District Court for the Southern of Florida, but only seek to enforce the judgment In New York, and try to have a federal court in New York interpret Florida constitutional law and Florida Supreme Court case law. God, that was the worst. I hate reading this stuff. It's so hard. This is so weird. My brain doesn't want to read it. This is like you just dictated a brief to Siri or something.

0:50:33 Matt: A question yes totally Totally.

0:50:44 Liz: Worse. Oh, I was just going to say that, you know, that ends in a question mark. And I just want to note that on my own paper copy, since I am a real lawyer and I have my paper copy. I wrote seven question marks.

0:50:58 Matt: One would ask, apparently, Liz.

0:50:58 Thomas: One would ask. Yeah.

0:51:00 Matt: You're asking.

0:51:01 Thomas: Answer appears to be forum shopping because plaintiffs likely believe that a Florida court will undoubtedly grant Homestead protections protections to defendant because Homestead is properly assumed to be valid ones claimed while the plaintiff's counsel likely believes that they have a better chance of having a federal court in New York trying to interpret Florida constitutional law in plaintiff'S favor. God, I hate this so much. I hate This so much why do you normally pontificate about what the plaintiffs believe and the lawyers think and the what they're like is that normal yeah Yeah.

0:51:34 Matt: And what you might be asking as you read this?

0:51:39 Thomas: Would be no chance of taking defendants Florida condominium, which is homesteaded in Florida, where Florida courts have routinely resolved and decided cases on homesthead and Florida constitutional law.

0:51:48 Matt: That's correct. They have routinely resolved and decided cases on homesteaded Florida constitutional law, mostly about idiots trying to claim their vacation houses as Homesteads.

0:51:52 Thomas: Where they do it. Yeah. Yeah, it is believed that this case will be the first case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the court is deciding Florida homestaid and Florida Constitutional Law.

0:52:07 Matt: I doubt that, given

0:52:09 Liz: I I I have so much to say so first off that yeah there's no way thank you matt there's no way that's right um did not want to bother even using a westlaw search uh confirm that because that was a waste of everyone's time but like there's so much back and forth between new york and florida and obviously bankruptcy cases and this comes up all the time like there'S And also, so what? It's courts are allowed to interpret other states. There's no sort of difference between a federal court in New York interpreting New York law versus Florida law. There is not considered some sort preferencing.

0:52:23 Matt: Good

0:52:41 Liz: Other thing I just want to say is just as a little bit of context, if want an answer to their question, I can provide an answer to their question, which is to say, I took a look at the docket and I went through, cross motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is when you're trying to decide the issue supposedly after discoveries already happened, but obviously that didn't really happen here. Judge Lewis Lyman has a very good answer as to why plaintiffs would file here. Year. And a very beautifully written sentence, and he says this. This is in there because he also, in every other filing, they're also ranting about this, oh, why is it in New York, not Florida? Defendant evidently does not like that plaintiffs have chosen to bring the lawsuit in the Southern District of New York rather than in federal district court in Florida. That is what animates his argument that a more efficient remedy exists in Florida, the other federal court in which plaintiff's money judgment has been registered. But plaintiffs had and have a right to sue in New York and defendant has challenged neither venue nor personal jurisdiction.

0:52:41 Thomas: It happens

0:53:43 Matt: Point.

0:53:44 Liz: Southern District of New York is where defendant and many of his assets are located. Is cited here. It was perfectly appropriate for plaintiffs to sue defendant for a declaratory judgment here where the most efficient remedy is available to resolve question of plaintiff's rights in the Palm Beach condo. There you go. I mean, it's totally reasonable, but

0:54:07 Matt: I see that and raise you just a little bit because during bankruptcy proceedings, this is incredible. During bankruptcy proceedings from January to March of 2024, Rudy Giuliani confirmed again and again that he spends his time in Manhattan and that the time that he spent in New York versus Palm Beach was 80-20, 70-30. Mr. Giuliani misstated the address of the Palm Beach condo, explaining, gosh, I hardly have to use this address. 316?

0:54:30 Matt: I think that's it. Okay. Obviously, Mr. Giuliani continued, he therefore could not claim an exemption for the Florida condominium. That was to a bankruptcy court. And then he turns around after the bankruptcy is dismissed in July. He turns around several days later and starts making this argument in exactly the opposite direction. It was never on the record, apparently.

0:54:30 Thomas: God oh my God oh my God well it was dismissed so it doesn't count right does that all go away never happened yeah

0:54:52 Matt: Yeah, good thinking. Also, and just because I did tease this before, the summary judgment brief spells out in page six and seven an exhausting detail about which state Rudy is currently an actual resident of. Do you know or can you guess?

0:54:52 Thomas: Well you said it was might have been a third state oh

0:55:07 Matt: Is a third state. A secret third state is where Rudy Giuliani lives. It is, in fact, much closer to me. He is living in Manchester, New Hampshire, presumably because it's much cheaper and the taxes are better.

0:55:17 Liz: Was really troubled by this because I was very Manchester, New Hampshire last weekend, and I just didn't know.

0:55:21 Matt: And you didn't even stop

0:55:22 Liz: I didn't, I didn' know that we had a a near near to me but no no

0:55:27 Thomas: You didn't feel it in your bones this

0:55:32 Matt: In? Link to all this, of course. But in the summary judgment brief, there's a very exhaustive explanation of all the time he's spent in New Hampshire recently with a lot of citations from his own statements.

0:55:42 Thomas: A case of first impression because it is believed that any other cases ever involving an interpretation of the florida constitution provisions regarding homesteading have have been decided by courts in the state of florida comma not in new york this case does not belong in this court but this is where it is being litigated as this court has not yet granted a dismissal of this case or transferred venue to court for the Southern District of Florida.

0:55:45 Matt: It's not. I

0:55:47 Liz: It's not go away that's

0:56:12 Matt: Actually didn't realize how great that sentence was until you read it. This case is here because the court hasn't dismissed it yet or transferred it. It. It's so good. I should put that in every brief. That's why it's here.

0:56:18 Liz: Amazing that's amazing like

0:56:16 Thomas: They transfer it like it's your call and you're on hold and they should transfer you to a different court, you know, to get this resolved.

0:56:26 Matt: He never asked him to transfer it as far as I know, but okay. All right. You can keep going.

0:56:32 Thomas: And their counsel are seeking to take every asset of the defendant before there's 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 plaintiff's counsel was to believe to have supported, was to believed to have supported, okay, President Biden.

0:56:57 Matt: Semicolon.

0:56:58 Thomas: Is, yes, so good. This is what this fierce prosecution of this case, prosecution of the case derives from. Is this criminal?

0:57:10 Matt: Could prosecute a civil case. That is just a word. If you are pursuing it, it it works. I just want to remind everybody that it case did indeed evolve from the 2020 election in the sense that, you know, he was lying about the 2020 election and a lot of things that happened in it. That's it. That's all.

0:57:13 Thomas: Fierce prosecution of his case. Okay, sure.

0:57:13 Liz: Wait

0:57:24 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Defendant was very outspoken against Hunter Biden and the Hunter Biden laptop, which many people say, what does this have to do with anything?

0:57:36 Matt: Spoke out against the laptop. I like that idea. Like that damn laptop might

0:57:38 Thomas: And yeah, is the laptop one of the opposing counsel? It also doesn't matter. We famously. Am I wrong? We have an adversarial system. You two sides don't agree with each other. That's how it works.

0:57:51 Matt: Not even like each other.

0:57:52 Liz: Guys I have to come in I couldn't help myself and I decided to look up how many New York courts have a minimum resolved solved homesteading stuff. Outside of Florida, um, or Georgia, the number one place where Florida homesthead comes up with like at least 30 cases. And I just did a very basic search by the way, is New York.

0:58:13 Matt: Wow.

0:58:13 Thomas: No way. Crazy.

0:58:14 Matt: First impression.

0:58:14 Thomas: Crazy this is a case of the first 31 impressions

0:58:16 Liz: First impression. Yes, at least, at least. And this is published cases. Like, you know, like again, not exactly my best like moment of legal research because it took about five seconds to run this search so just which says a lot about the five seconds they didn't spend yes

0:58:28 Matt: Says a lot.

0:58:31 Thomas: This is a case -of -31st impression the hunter Biden laptop which many people said was Russian disinformation when the truth eventually came out that the hunter buying laptop was authentic and real at least one

0:58:45 Matt: It was a real laptop so

0:58:47 Liz: They were just making that sentence up I'm

0:58:48 Thomas: That was that was the sentence at least 1 of the plaintiff's council counsel's has emails in the public domain with hunter biden on the same emails and and such council was special assistant to president barack obama oh yeah yeah I was gonna say like it's been a minute but that's missing a letter yeah president bar barak obama and associate white house council oh we gotta we gotta a little what a footnote ah fine

0:58:49 Matt: Good barrack obama we dropped a c there yeah I

0:59:09 Liz: Dying oh

0:59:17 Matt: Thought no that's not that exciting just another part of the conspiracy

0:59:21 Thomas: But I love that they Oh, spelled Barack Obama incorrectly again in the footnote. That's, boy, that's, wow. That's just really, he was the president. Like, come on.

0:59:26 Matt: Yeah good work right

0:59:27 Liz: So that was that yeah wow wow which

0:59:36 Thomas: Okay, but I just love, I don't care about the footnotes other than like, of all the things to footnote, you footnoted this thing. You know what I mean? Like, this whole thing has been ridiculous. But you're like, oh, please, let me explain this part, I guess. I don' t know. 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. Is a battle between the left and the right. And this is one of the last battles that exist from that exist. From the 2020 election.

0:59:44 Matt: It's amazing that is not true it's just not true

1:00:14 Liz: Is just superfluous and true and just randomly superfluious like what what what is the judge it's gonna do with that it's like one of the last ones like dismissed

1:00:18 Thomas: It's nothing. Like, oh, it's the last. Oh, well, the last one doesn't count. Now you get, you don't have to do the last one or something. I don't know what that would be on the internet and upon information.

1:00:25 Liz: Like oh no it's

1:00:34 Matt: It's such a good combo that's

1:00:36 Thomas: I love that already on the Internet and upon information and belief.

1:00:43 Thomas: Come on. That's not a real thing. You guys say, is it like on the Internet? Okay. Just making sure I heard silence. I was like, don't tell me I'm wrong about this on the Internet and there's

1:00:46 Matt: So good none of that but

1:00:47 Liz: Not no it'S

1:00:55 Matt: Your honor have you seen the internet it. Let

1:00:57 Thomas: No comma either. Like on the the internet and upon information of belief the will then a comma the Willkie Farr and Gallagher website it states or stated with a post thing dated august 30th that do I need to read this let's see wilkie pro bono team it's they're bragging about their win right yeah and

1:01:10 Liz: JUST STANDARD LIKE LAW FIRM YOU KNOW PUBLICITY THEY'RE BRAGGING ABOUT WINNING THAT'S ALL YEAH IT'S

1:01:17 Thomas: We all know the other side can't want to win otherwise that's not fair.

1:01:21 Liz: I Mean Then That'S Political And That Means The Case Gets dismissed

1:01:25 Thomas: So stupid. My kids wouldn't even think that. It's so dumb. The other side can't want to beat you. That's not how we do it. What are you talking about?

1:01:39 Thomas: Show is brought to you by HelloFresh. Lydia and I are always podcasting, always researching, always editing all the time, we're but always looking to save time anywhere And HelloFresh meal kits ARE a great WAY to do THAT. Because HelloFresh, you get farm fresh, pre -portioned ingredients and recipes delivered right to your doorstep. Trips to the grocery store and count on HelloFresh to make home cooking easy, fun and affordable. You, you think about how much time savings that is. Planning of the what to cook. Then you have to go to the grocery store and get all that stuff and get the right amounts and not forget anything. Oh, whoops. You got too much. Didn't use all of it. And the rest of it just goes to waste right now, forget that. Y'all HelloFresh has you. They've got so much too. It's to all these choices. They've got new ready -made meals that go from your fridge to your fork in three minutes. Talk talk about time savings. Also have a lineup of prep and baked meals. This is great. A, This this is a newer thing. Very short prep around five minutes and then you pop it in the oven the oven does most of the work but it still so good and it's till a home cooked meal and I'm telling you, if you are someone who is as busy as we are, or even like half as busy, as we have been HelloFresh is such a good way to save you time and money. I'm gonna take advantage of this. Get up to 10 free meals and a free high-protein item for life. Go to hellofresh.com slash opening10fm. Item per box with meals applied as discount on first box. New subscribers only. Varies by plan. That's up to 10 free HelloFresh meals. Just go to hellofresh.com slash opening10fm. HelloFresh, America's number one meal kit.

1:03:11 Thomas: That Wilkie, Farr, and Gallagher made this their allegedly pro bono project.

1:03:17 Matt: Allegedly pro bono. That's an interesting choice there. Do you have some proof they're getting paid?

1:03:22 Thomas: My God. Likely to try to destroy defendant while increasing the publicity and promotion for Wilkie Farr and Gallagher as very aggressive and tenacious attorneys. This

1:03:32 Matt: It is okay to take a pro bonо case to promote yourself.

1:03:33 Thomas: Is so stupid.

1:03:34 Matt: That is fine. You are allowed to do that. Come on.

1:03:36 Liz: And mean

1:03:38 Thomas: Why would this be anything? Why would you think. How dumb could you be? Why would yo think this means no case? If I can prove the other side. Doesn't like me at all. I'm free to go. That's how it works.

1:03:42 Matt: Why is this in the preliminary statement? Want to point out there is four or five pages just about the opposing counsel in his preliminary statement. It is incredible. There

1:03:57 Thomas: That the judgment that is the to this action was not a judgment on the merits, but based on default because Judge Howell granted plaintiff's motion resulting in a default judgment on all claims, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy.

1:04:15 Matt: I wonder why. How did that happen? Rudy? Not going to mention that.

1:04:17 Liz: How that happened hmm yeah

1:04:17 Thomas: The case was not decided on what actually occurred, which resulted in the lawsuit in the first place.

1:04:24 Matt: Yeah, that'll happen when you don't participate in it.

1:04:28 Thomas: What internet and or on there what no I can't do this yeah I've died my honestly my eyes just crossed up when I was reading that because I thought I was like having oh my god okay I have to like this is so bad you know when something's so hard to read because it's so confusing I literally need to print it out like Liz and I need to put my finger under each word to be able to On the internet and or the their website, the their website, Wilkie Farr and Gallagher stated, it's got a URL in case you want to

1:04:32 Matt: And or the their website. Parentheses,

1:05:04 Thomas: Click on it, just in case you want click on that hyperlink, I guess, that they devoted thousands of hours to litigating the matter, including filing more than 20 discovery -related motions. That is how the plaintiffs

1:05:05 Matt: Not a footnote, a parenthetical. Wonder why they had to file so many discovery -related motions, Rudy.

1:05:24 Thomas: Won by bombarding defendant with discovery, hoping that they would get a judge to buy their story of discovery disobedience.

1:05:32 Liz: That's not what it means again this is words don't mean what you think they they do there is a concept of bombarding someone with discovery And that would be if you like, you some document requests and then you dumped like a million pages and you're like, fine, go through all this, have fun. That's not what the plaintiffs did. They just filed motions being like, can you please give me discovery?

1:05:54 Thomas: Do any discovery.

1:05:55 Liz: Can you provide us with discovery?

1:05:55 Matt: Just compel anything. Right.

1:05:55 Thomas: One discovery, please.

1:05:58 Liz: Just one discovery. That is all we want. Propounding

1:06:02 Thomas: Is what plaintiff's counsel is doing in this court what sorry it's so dumb this is what plaintiff's counsel is doing in this court plaintiffs also stated that they were represented by the Wilkie team that includes partners Michael Gottlieb

1:06:18 Matt: So she's going to list the partners.

1:06:19 Thomas: And yeah whatever okay blah blah co -counsel on the case is eight protect democracy and nine blah blah okay nine other people or something entities maybe there actually have Have been more than nine attorneys working propounding the defense.

1:06:35 Matt: Propounding?

1:06:35 Thomas: Propounding the defendants with discovery demands.

1:06:37 Matt: That's not what that means. That is a completely incorrect use of the word propounding. Propounding is when you suggest an idea.

1:06:39 Liz: Propounding no propounding is when you pound even harder matt come on

1:06:49 Thomas: You're pro -pounding. And so,

1:06:51 Matt: It's a super pound, yes. Megapound.

1:06:55 Thomas: Yeah, if you do it once, it's pounding. If you do It multiple times, it is propounding. That's just obviously.

1:06:59 Matt: If getting paid for it, you're a professional pounder. So propounding, I didn't even catch that when I read this stupid thing. Oh, wow. Propounded.

1:07:09 Thomas: Pounding the defendant I don't even know like what word were they going for uh I guess I don'T think pound look pounding would be worse pounding the defendant that sounds worse like there's got to be a word that's a more law word right that they were going for

1:07:17 Liz: Pounding my

1:07:17 Matt: I propound it was pounding. A lot of well words in this brief, Thomas. We're running a deficit.

1:07:30 Thomas: But there's a lot of impressions of law words is what I'm saying there's there's something they were yeah yeah what's the law word that they're going for There are nine attorneys working, propounding the defendants. No, there's nothing. I can't think of what it would be. Okay.

1:07:32 Matt: Well, that's what propounding is. Nonsense.

1:07:44 Thomas: With the discovery

1:07:44 Liz: Stomach hurts from laughing so much right

1:07:48 Thomas: Demands in this case, as they had in the DC court case, because the plaintiff's motive is to try to overwhelm defendant and his counsel and win on default and sanctions because they cannot and could not prevail on the merits. So here's the only problem with this. I could see this being something if you kept providing stuff from Discovery, like, hey, give us this. OK, I'll give you that. Hey, give me that. OK, I'll give it a go. And then they just keep asking for a million different things. They're like, God, I've given you like a billion things and you keep asking from more things. But you don't give them anything, that's a whole different fucking thing.

1:08:23 Liz: That's right and that's that's the idea right it's just if you're not given something right you're gonna ask again or you're gonna ask it in a different way or youre gonna say like judge they haven't given us a thing other thing I would just note is, you know, just to kind of give a little more context of there are a lot of lawyers working on this. Like, I would you say that's pretty standard for a big law team. It's was routinely on matters with, you nine, ten attorneys. And, you know, everyone's kind of doing a little bit here and there. There might be someone who's kind of the lead on it, that sort of thing. It's just not, that should not be convincing or compelling in any respect. And certainly it will not be convincing and compelling to Lewis Lyman, who himself was a former big law partner and commanded very many large teams of attorneys. It's just standard. So whatever.

1:09:03 Matt: Well, we're hearing pages about how many turners there are. It must be important.

1:09:06 Thomas: Most of this filing is just the Wilkie Farr website, because now we get the following. Is posted on the internet and or the their website again or wait hold on it's the set no oh my god I thought for a second I had scrolled up no okay the their site and or their website okay uh there's a posting on the their web site okay

1:09:16 Matt: The same. This is a different page. The same thing. Same mistake. Incredible. This is like a standard posting about how we got this win. And we got a shout out, so cool. Okay, right.

1:09:31 Thomas: We all know that if the other side is happy about their win that is a miscarriage of justice we We all know that it is believed that a significant factor in this case, comma, is for pro bono attorneys to get promotion and free advertising in the press. OK, what is the alternative? If they were getting paid, you'd be like, they're just doing this because they're getting paid.

1:09:36 Matt: Something's gone wrong. The money.

1:09:55 Thomas: Yeah, man. Oh, my God.

1:09:58 Matt: That is a completely legitimate reason to take a pro bono case, by the way. But, okay. And then he lists the attorneys, the 11 different counsels.

1:10:04 Thomas: This is this is so funny. Note how many attorneys.

1:10:07 Matt: He already did this in the previous thing, but now he...

1:10:10 Liz: That's why I was so confused. I was like, didn't you just do that? I

1:10:12 Matt: But that list was in the paragraph.

1:10:14 Thomas: And then because I'm in hell, Matt, after that, what's the sentence after that? The following is posted on the internet and or the their website.

1:10:17 Matt: Your website is...

1:10:23 Thomas: He just copied and pasted.

1:10:23 Matt: How did you keep... Did you just copy and paste?

1:10:25 Thomas: Yes, absolutely. He just copy. He looked at that sentence and said, that's a perfect sentence. I'm going to use that for to four times at least. Oh my

1:10:27 Matt: You can't make that mistake that many times. It just flows so beautifully off the tongue. The there website.

1:10:35 Thomas: I it was a lot of work to type it. So I'm gonna copy and paste it. Again this case so dumb again comma this case is to promote the interests of wilkie farr and gallagher and the court should be fair to defendant knowing that plaintiff's the goals here are to win by default or sanctions and not on the merits because plaintiffs have to lose on the merits hey guess what's next if you guessed more stuff from websites you win the following is more More stuff from websites. I'm not even going to read. It's other websites now.

1:11:11 Matt: To. That's a whole page of listings from websites.

1:11:13 Thomas: And to be fair, because it's a different website, he didn't get to copy and paste. So it doesn't say the their website again. So, yay. You did that one. Court should see that Wilkie Farr and Gallagher, allegedly working pro bono, is publicizing this case in all cases involving defendant. What does it fucking matter, dude? What? Will likely. Oh, my God. I can't. This is I can. How are you coping with this? Like, I'm a lawyer. I'm like, I don't know. I'm just not a lawyer and this is so fucking dumb. I can't even keep going.

1:11:39 Liz: Mean, I already told you that at one point I screamed while reading this.

1:11:43 Matt: I just think it's very funny. I'm having a great time.

1:11:44 Thomas: So, yeah, but there's the outrage of like how these are the people running our country now though. Like this is the, this is The Level of, I just, oh my God, it's too depressing.

1:11:55 Matt: I'm a little concerned that I think most lawyers might write like this also. The lawyers I know are good writers, but I shouldn't say most, but quite a few lawyers I think might be writing this badly. It's an epidemic.

1:12:04 Thomas: What?

1:12:04 Matt: I don't know. I've seen some bad writing. I've never seen this bad. Yeah.

1:12:07 Thomas: This is, yeah. I mean,

1:12:08 Matt: This is awful. That's

1:12:08 Thomas: There's, look, there'S, it's sure, I'm sure it's getting a little worse, but like at not for nothing, a better lawyer would have at least used ChatGPT to cheat a little bit. Like, if you had ChatGPT look over this, it would fix all of it. Like, it would...

1:12:18 Matt: We would not be here. We would not be reading this. It would not, be worth it.

1:12:24 Liz: That's the thing. I mean chat GPT would be better. The problem with chat GPTs is famously they might make some stuff up, which would also be a problem.

1:12:32 Matt: Unlike this guy, the

1:12:34 Thomas: We can't have something made.

1:12:34 Liz: Sorry. I mean, I don't

1:12:36 Thomas: Do you hear yourself, Liz?

1:12:37 Liz: Know. I just, I know, I know.

1:12:41 Thomas: You're telling me it would make up a legal argument as bad as they don't like me over there, so therefore, what? Like, I guess none of this counts?

1:12:41 Liz: You're right.

1:12:52 Thomas: Okay.

1:12:51 Matt: Oh boy. Oh, yeah.

1:12:52 Thomas: OK, this publicizing the case in all cases involving defendant Rudolph Giuliani, which likely will or has generated probably millions of dollars for Gallagher from other clients who disliked who dislike to vet at Rudolph Giuliani and or President Trump. Pro bono attorneys would not spend thousands of hours on a pro bonо assignment without an ulterior motive, a profit motive.

1:13:06 Matt: That a lot of people.

1:13:08 Liz: Can't

1:13:17 Matt: Okay, this is amazing to me. There is a certain kind of lawyer who cannot imagine ever doing an hour of work for free. And this is, this really says everything thing about this guy, right? Because I have worked thousands of hours. I'm not saying I'm a saint, but I've worked so many hours on pro bono work because I just want to do it.

1:13:31 Thomas: Because you hate Rudy Giuliani.

1:13:33 Matt: Yeah, that's right. And I want to bring in more people that also hate Richard Giuliani.

1:13:35 Thomas: To be fair, if that motivates you, Hey, if you're like, Hey I need to run, I need exercise better. I need you to do anything. And what motivates you is you hate Rudy Giuliano. I think that's healthy. You know?

1:13:44 Matt: Hey, whatever gets you out of bed.

1:13:46 Thomas: I needed to donate. I'm going to work in the soup kitchen because I hate Rudy. Giuliani yes. Good.

1:13:50 Matt: I just think it says so much about Joe Camerota that he's saying there must be a profit motive. There is no way that you would ever give your time to helping these two election workers would

1:13:57 Thomas: I'm so sorry. Not the alternative is just profit like the alternative to being pro bono is you just get money there's no like why would the fact that they're pro boni be some additional disqualifying thing when the alternative is I assume Joe Camerota is just getting paid money to do this it's amazing plus I love the image of like why are going after rudy giuliani I'll take a thousand of your law hours Like there's all these other clients that did you, did you see that they're doing this? I give you millions of dollars for my law thing that has probably look, which light, I love this, which likely will, or has generated probably millions of dollars, millions of dollars, just from people who dislike Rudy Giuliani. And they're like, man, I'm going to

1:14:40 Matt: Good probably

1:14:47 Thomas: Go have a big law thing and bring it to them or something. I just, okay. So dumb. And 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 20th, 2025, when President Trump takes office, because it's not in Wilkie Farr and Gallagher's best interest to have this case proceeding. Cheating once there is a new administration in Washington, as clients of Wilkie Farr and Gallagher, who would have to work with the new administration, in Washington may be offended

1:15:23 Matt: Is one one sentence yep yep it's a slug comma

1:15:36 Thomas: By the approaches taken by Wilkie, Farr, and Gallaghar with their manner of overly aggressive discovery tactics comma designed to win comma not on the merits comma what what are these commas comma designed -to -win comma not -on -the -merits comma but on default or sanctions comma because they cannot win based on the facts that

1:15:44 Matt: Stop you

1:15:48 Liz: I don' t know. No, I don't know. I mean,

1:15:55 Matt: Get an f this is an f you fail this is so bad here

1:15:57 Thomas: Was one sentence the whole paragraph this court should try to avoid the politics involved with this case in the honorable judge of this court was nominated for the go here we are nominated for for the current district judge position no democratic senators voted against the nomination of the honor judge so that's not some weird law thing that's just a typo right the

1:16:05 Matt: We go honor judge not he means to say honorable and he will in fact in the same sentence the

1:16:20 Thomas: Honor judge in the same sense not eight words from now he will say honorable judge it's so close that you cannot have read prove read this a single time like you've got the honor and honorable judge so close on the page that if anyone oh oh my god it it gets better okay sorry I just need to read it the no democratic senators voted against the nomination of the honor judge but 29 republican senators voted against the honorable judge period hopefully the honor judgments

1:16:52 Liz: Honor judge. The honor judge, they

1:16:58 Thomas: Honor judge honorable judge hopefully the honor judgment not

1:17:05 Liz: Must think that honor judge is also an appropriate form.

1:17:09 Matt: The only explanation I don't know I

1:17:09 Thomas: I it can't be could it I

1:17:11 Liz: Must think that. How could you miss that typo? It's

1:17:14 Matt: Maintain he wrote this on the toilet

1:17:16 Liz: Is versus in, which was really

1:17:18 Thomas: Think this has to be voiced to text that's That's the only thing that, and he's like, hopefully the honor judge will, you know, I'm just saying it really fast. Guess this is that hopefully the owner 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 plaintiff's motions and letters from the plaintiff council and ruling against the defendant nearly a hundred percent of the time is troubling.

1:17:22 Matt: That's a reasonable theory

1:17:50 Liz: So, I mean, obviously insulting the judge is really appropriate. It's definitely going to help you. I

1:17:57 Thomas: He's trying to work the refs. Oh, is the best. This is so much better than I even thought it was, man. I can't. It's the best, uh, yeah,

1:17:59 Matt: It's amazing yeah I reading it out loud really is something I will point out I'm docket is a known term like that's something we do talk about but rapid rocket dovet like the super rapid rocket that's something new yeah it's even faster very cool what

1:18:08 Thomas: It's the sequel. Yeah.

1:18:15 Liz: Is. I just want to go back. I mean, I this this goes without saying, but, you Keefar is not, you to drop this case after January 20th because their clients are going to be upset with them. It makes no sense. It it makes absolutely no sense.

1:18:25 Matt: No sense its face and

1:18:29 Thomas: Well, especially because I've learned that they are making millions from their new clients who are in love with them for having taken this case. So it'd be very weird if all of a sudden those same clients were like, wait, hold on. What date is it? Nevermind. It's so dumb.

1:18:35 Liz: That also, yeah,

1:18:36 Matt: Hate rudy yeah oh let's let's do some more passive voice we haven't had enough passive voice there

1:18:46 Thomas: Is believed that the plaintiff's counsel's goal is to bombard defendant with tons of discovery using dozen attorneys. No, sorry, that's me that

1:18:55 Liz: But they're not bombarding them with discovery. It's discovery requests. Like, they've done nothing.

1:18:58 Thomas: They haven't even started to do. You can't if if I'm sitting somewhere and I get 400 requests for like, hey, Thomas, can you give me that sandwich? I'm like, well, I can't because there's too many bombarded with these requests. But it's like, no, you just do it once. Like if you were doing it a million times, then yeah, you're, maybe that's bombarding you, but you haven't done anything.

1:19:23 Liz: Just say the, you know, the initial motion for sanctions here, it just, you Know, it begins by saying this very key sentence. Giuliani has not produced a single document in response to plaintiff's discovery orders in this matter it's

1:19:33 Matt: Liz that is not true and also false didn't you read the promotion have we not reading the same document they already responded to that

1:19:45 Liz: False in

1:19:45 Thomas: See how it's not, I see why it's true, but how is it false though?

1:19:52 Thomas: This is so, I'm, this is so good. We deserve this. This is, you know, it's been rough. It's been a bad few months, but this can always count on Rudy. We really can.

1:19:56 Matt: A good Good time. Yeah, you're right.

1:19:59 Liz: A bad few months but we can yeah

1:20:02 Thomas: We can can always count on Rudy it is believed okay yeah sorry I did that making discovery using a dozen attorneys make yeah they each wrote a discovery request using days and attorneys making it nearly impossible for defendant to timely respond because he can't respond because you keep asking him exactly every time you ask him that resets his cooldown timer and so he and then filing motion after motion against defendant hoping that one of the motions for sanctions the will stick.

1:20:21 Liz: That's how it works yeah

1:20:34 Thomas: The plaintiff's playbook here, comma, is the same as was in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Is how the plaintiffs won their judgment in the United States District court for the district of Columbia sanctions, not on them.

1:20:51 Thomas: Yeah. That's what I did too, is like, I tried to win by sanctions. It's like how in wrestling, you can pin someone or you can get points. You can win by points. It's just, you take one of of two approaches. You either try to win on the merits or you try to win by sanction.

1:21:06 Matt: Your opponent is doing is sanctionable conduct, that will happen.

1:21:09 Thomas: Yeah because when they're doing sanctionable conduct it means that you can't do the other thing usually like right.

1:21:10 Liz: The new will win yeah right exactly

1:21:16 Thomas: I mean it's like they're stopping you from doing the normal thing so it's okay. Sanctions imagine obtaining a 145 million dollar judgment based on sanctions only question mark.

1:21:32 Matt: It wasn't. It was on defamation.

1:21:33 Thomas: That is is what happened. No, the brief says that is what I haven't met. So the very next sentence, can't you read?

1:21:38 Matt: All right.

1:21:38 Liz: So that's what happened yeah capital

1:21:40 Thomas: That is what happens. It's on appeal and likely to be reversed. Semicolon capital T.

1:21:45 Matt: Capital T. This is hurting. This ist painful.

1:21:46 Liz: T not not really that

1:21:50 Thomas: This was designed to just kill everyone in the room that read it. I think it's EMP or something. I'm going to throw in a piece of writing so bad that every lawyer within a 30 -foot radius will pass out because, yeah,

1:22:05 Liz: Like that's like the way that they are most likely to win is by killing the lawyers.

1:22:09 Matt: Just wearing us down. It's stroking us out. But

1:22:13 Thomas: Judge's nose starts bleeding. Oh, I can't. Damn, get a new one. It's on appeal and likely to reverse, semicolon, capital T, there are really no other cases like that case and outcome. There are really not other cases like that and outcome in all of the federal courts in the United States.

1:22:33 Matt: That Never happened before. Never had a defamation judgment with major punitive damage before.

1:22:35 Thomas: This is so good this is I'm having a great time the plaintiff comma plaintiff's counsel and the court does have to like the defendant or what he stands for yeah man then why are you saying they have to before like but this court should give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and give the dependent fairness if this yeah

1:22:56 Matt: I'm sorry. Wait. The benefit of doubt and fairness. You want both of those things, man? The benefit for the doubt and fairness. That is a lot to ask from a court. OK.

1:23:00 Liz: I know. I

1:23:00 Thomas: That would be an advantage okay we're We're going to let that side have benefit of the doubt and the other side doesn't get it. Yeah. If this court looks at only the facts, there is no way for this court to ever rule that on the date that the plaintiffs recorded and filed their judgment in Florida and New York, the defendant was not entitled to a homestead in Florida. The fact that the honorable judge was nominated to become a district judge in 2018 and that nomination was returned to the president under the provisions of seven rule 31 paragraph six of the standing rules of the Senate can subconsciously affect any human being. I,

1:23:07 Matt: You get fairness. What are you doing?

1:23:39 Liz: Cannot

1:23:39 Matt: What is going on? What?

1:23:39 Liz: Understand. Wouldn't he be subconsciously affected by Trump nominating him? I

1:23:47 Thomas: I, yeah, that,

1:23:46 Matt: No, it's the rule. Cool. The Senate rule is what subconsciously affects him. That's what I'm reading.

1:23:49 Thomas: Why do you, I need to read this one again. Okay. Okay.

1:23:52 Matt: It's insane.

1:23:52 Thomas: I'm gonna focus. I'm going to try to get through it. The fact that the honorable judge was nominated to become a district judge in 2018 and that nomination was returned to the president under the provisions of senate rule 31 paragraph 6 of the standing rules of the senate can subconsciously affect any human being

1:23:53 Matt: Look at this paragraph. Look at what he's doing in this paragraph?

1:24:09 Matt: No. What? The Senate rule. Okay. There's a certain kind of lawyer that just rattles off citations and thinks that's being a good lawyer. And I'm very impressed that you know which Senate rule paragraph it is of the standing rules of the Senate under which he was appointed. What are we doing? And okay, just again, back up in this this paragraph.

1:24:16 Thomas: For what yeah it's nothing yeah

1:24:27 Liz: Hope he didn't paste it from something. Like, let me just be clear.

1:24:28 Matt: Obviously. Yeah.

1:24:29 Liz: Like, he did not look up the rule.

1:24:29 Matt: This is into this paragraph because this paragraph starts with, you don't have to like the defendant. And then it goes to, there's no way you could possibly find that he is not entitled to an homesteading exemption. And dann you go to this weird thing about the appointment nomination. And than let's see where it goes from here because it's all one paragraph. Continuity.

1:24:47 Thomas: It like he's trying to give him an excuse hey it's a buddy it's fine and there's no this would affect any human being what then when the honorable judge was nominated again the honorable Judge was confirmed by the Senate however with no Democratic senators voting against the nomination but 29 Republican senators voting again against the nomination that is the reason for this court to be very conscious of giving the defendant who is only before this court because of politics in the 2020 election a fair day in court by

1:25:16 Liz: I just a little a hot minute on then when the honorable judge was nominated again look at that little passive voice to avoid saying by trump by trump by

1:25:27 Matt: Yeah great point.

1:25:25 Thomas: Trump yeah I don't this court should be aware that based on everything that was submitted to this court there is no possible way under the Florida constitution that the defense you keep saying why have I already read this did I get that the defendant is not deemed a Florida resident I'll trust that that's a word and citizen with a permanent residence in florida one

1:25:51 Matt: Once again, Florida citizen, very important establishes citizenship so

1:25:53 Thomas: One of the most important facts is that in july 2023 defendant listed his only new york residence for sale and he did not seek to purchase or lease any other residence in new yorg this was done well before there was any judgment issued in favor of plaintiffs against defendant defendant listed is only new york residents for sale in juli 2023 because he was so repetitive because he he was preparing to move to Florida as his only and permanent residence. And that is what defendant did. If also,

1:26:21 Matt: I'll point out he's repeating this fact because it's the only fact they have this is the only thing that they have to even begin to prove right that

1:26:25 Thomas: If you say it 40 ways, not even 40 ways 40 times, then that's 40 facts.

1:26:30 Matt: He listed his new york residence for sale that's the only proof they have that he was thinking of relocating ever

1:26:35 Thomas: Yeah, because every time you sell something, you move to a different state. That's how it works. You're allowed one house per state. If you need to sell it, you're out of the state. Sorry, that's how how it goes. That's just the law. I don't know. Because he was preparing to move to Florida, this court reads between the lines of the plethora of plaintiffs' counsel's filings, the plaintiffs seek sanctions from this court to try to get... Yeah, I thought three amigos ended that word. It's a great three amigos bit. No more. The plaintiffs seek sanctions from this court to try to get this court to sanction the defendant by taking away the homestead rights of the defendant. This is because the plaintiff's counsel knows unquestionably that the facts are such that on the merits defendant was home. I'm not sorry. I've quit. Wake me up when he talks about something else. If this case was not a political case, this case likely would have very few filings on the docket. And this case would have taken a standard track, not have an expedited trial with the case filed in August 2024 and trial in January 2025.

1:26:56 Matt: I hate that word I just never use it I just have to point out if If you wanted expedited, you could comply with discovery. That's the best way to move this thing along. They didn't do that.

1:27:43 Thomas: I hate this so much. This is the best. I love and hate this så much. Plaintiffs have pushed this court with... We're still in the preliminary statement, right?

1:27:52 Matt: That's really all we need to read here.

1:27:53 Liz: Still in the preliminary statement which again is like it broke me it broke my eyes this is not a preliminary statement this is a an legal ramble I

1:27:55 Matt: Page 12.

1:28:04 Thomas: I don't know what. This first part of a barf that comes up a little bit. Pl plaintiffs havepushed this courtwith voluminous filings... That's on me. That's a real word, with voluminous filings to make the defendant look bad to the court. You're making me look bad in front of the court and it's not, you can't do so many voluminious

1:28:23 Matt: He doesn't need help. This is not a defendant who needs help.

1:28:25 Thomas: Filings that makes me look good. Wait, my question is why can't he do the same? Why can't he do a bunch of voluminuous filings and then he makes the plaintiffs look bad? And then,

1:28:34 Matt: I think that's what we're doing, actually, here. That's what мы're reading.

1:28:35 Liz: Mean he did a fucking voluminous like statement killing me killing me that

1:28:38 Thomas: Then, so good. They're making to make the defendant look bad to the court, even when there were events that occurred that were beyond the defendant's abilities to perform. What?

1:28:51 Matt: What?

1:28:51 Thomas: There were events that occurred beyond the

1:28:53 Liz: Makes me uncomfortable that phrasing I

1:28:56 Thomas: Defendant's ability to perform The fact that he couldn't do discovery was because of the press legal team that refused do discovery No?

1:28:58 Matt: It makes no sense. It's very generous of you to find meaning in that sentence.

1:29:10 Liz: Thing is that like it's not like you get a new lawyer and all of a sudden you don't have to do the things you were ordered to do which is another thing underlying this it's like the new lawyer might be given like a week or two or you know maybe some reasonable time to get up to speed but they act as though it'slike well it's now that he's a new lawyer he doesn't have todo these things yeah

1:29:30 Thomas: Yeah, he's just he's trying so hard. He's working as fast as he can. I I would question like, well, then why are you taking the time to write this really repetitive nonsense? Like that's time you could have been following discovery requests, complying with discovery requests. Defendent relied upon his prior counsels to respond to discovery demands in this case, but they were not served.

1:29:49 Matt: I wonder why.

1:29:50 Thomas: But THEY WERE NOT SERVED. Oh, OK. So the discovery was not served?

1:29:50 Liz: I

1:29:54 Matt: Because the defendant refused to comply and told them that he wouldn't.

1:29:56 Thomas: Well, here's what happens when discovery served on you. You don't do anything. Your lawyers take your phone and your email already and they do that. I know it's fucking stupid.

1:30:07 Matt: Why didn't they do that?

1:30:08 Liz: Don't wait I actually genuinely don't understand what they're saying there oh

1:30:12 Matt: He's just saying his lawyers didn't do the discovery, didn't perform what were supposed to do. He's completely blaming them.

1:30:16 Thomas: Hey, lawyers, give them my stuff that I haven't given you. That's how it works.

1:30:20 Matt: You can see how this resulted in that thing being unsealed because this is directly what he's saying.

1:30:23 Thomas: When defendants present counsel came into this case on November 26, 2024. 24.

1:30:29 Liz: My god wow this is so dumb it broke my brain there's

1:30:30 Thomas: And there's no comma. What? Hold on. I got to read this straight through. There's no comma here. Defendants present counsel came into this case on November 26, 2024, when defendants prior counsels were granted permission to withdraw as counsel in the approximately three weeks, there has been substantial compliance. Oh, guys, what are you making a big deal about? There's been substantial complaints with all discovery in court or they Liz they have thought about it really hard they've they we have planned to comply pretty hard and that's substantial don't you think you

1:30:53 Liz: There's been no, it's like eight out of 10, not zero out of 10. I mean, I just, I, I'm I Was like, You guys are just lying and making things. There's no compliance. You haven't given a single document.

1:31:12 Thomas: Know there, this did shock me about the legal system, um, while I won't say Andrew's briefs were this badly written it is true that you apparently can just lie like I didn't know that about court and like there are times where they just would lie about stuff and you're like, boy, I didn't think you could do that. Um, I guess you can just do that. I don't, I don'T know. Like, yeah.

1:31:41 Matt: It's not a sworn statement, I guess. I mean, this should be disciplinable if he's actually just straight up.

1:31:46 Thomas: That, my question was going to be, is that why it's in the preliminary thing? Does that make any difference?

1:31:50 Liz: To, if you're an attorney, right. In New York, you don't have to swear. Like you're supposed to be acting in good faith. And like, when you're writing this, like you're not supposed to be, yeah, it's not like sworn, but like, you also don't have to, like

1:32:01 Thomas: Is Liz saying, I DIDN'T KNOW WE NEEDED A RULE FOR THIS.

1:32:04 Matt: Yeah, well, I assume in New York, you also have a duty of candor to the court, right? And if you're just telling the court we've been complying and you're not complying that's not very candorous in fact that is not true and also false

1:32:13 Liz: Lying. It's

1:32:16 Thomas: It's not true and is false.

1:32:20 Liz: False.

1:32:20 Thomas: That is lying and it's also dishonest.

1:32:20 Matt: My new catchphrase and inaccurate okay

1:32:28 Thomas: Court should know that no matter what is provided to the plaintiff's counsel plaintiff 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 homestead condominium in florida which is the defendant only if we're going to do this again if you say a thing 40 times in a brief it becomes law that just becomes just judges like oh well on the 50th time that means it's true Only permanent residents, and has been so, before a new administration takes office.

1:32:44 Matt: Incorrect just see what he's saying here which is that the only purpose of any of this is so they can get the stuff that the court ordered that they're supposed to get can you believe this he

1:33:08 Thomas: Can you believe it? It is very unfortunate that the plaintiff's counsel appears out to destroy the defendant, who did lots of good things for the United States of America and all citizens.

1:33:09 Liz: Can you believe it? Lots of good things. Lots of great things. Lots of really good things, Giuliani.

1:33:20 Thomas: Did he ever have a national position, really? Was he in

1:33:25 Matt: Was he was SDNY. Yeah, he was a prosecutor.

1:33:27 Liz: Giuliani was no, no, No, no. I mean, no Giuliani, was a huge deal.

1:33:27 Thomas: New York, though?

1:33:31 Liz: It's insane, actually. No, he was the yeah, was the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, AKA the sovereign district of New York because they take on such heavy cases and, you know, they, they frankly push the limits of their jurisdiction. Um, he broke up the mob. I mean, like he was a, you Know, he, he did a lot of things. He did a, he was at one point a, was a very, very, very respected. And I mean I wouldn't say like national position per se, but a position of national prominence, like breaking up them, all that stuff. I mean I just, you it's just, you Giuliani now without understanding that at one point he was

1:33:33 Matt: He was a federal. Mother court.

1:33:51 Thomas: But that yeah no granted he

1:34:06 Liz: Actually

1:34:06 Thomas: Was an actual human being of somehow

1:34:08 Liz: Like an actual human who was, I mean, might I disagree with the prosecution tactics as a defense attorney, but was justifiably lauded and praised for the work that he did as US attorney. He was not, he He was not a joke then. I, yeah.

1:34:25 Thomas: Yeah absolutely yeah that is it is crazy if anyone wasn't alive back then it is crazy to see what he's become like it is absolutely crazy my only point is lots of good things for the united states of america and all citizens of the united United States of America it's like all right like you're a New York guy sure all citizens are there citizens in Alaska who are like thank god the mob is gone in New York or something I don't whatever because of the luminous filings I

1:34:39 Liz: Well, yeah, it's a little bit of an exaggeration. Yeah.

1:34:41 Matt: Arguably, it is one of the most important U.S. attorney positions. A New Yorker would say that, of course. Yeah?

1:34:53 Liz: Yeah. I mean, the mob is kind of local come to think of it, you know.

1:34:56 Thomas: Have had no dealings with them that made no no difference in my life that I know of.

1:34:57 Matt: Actually,

1:35:00 Liz: It's like, you know, I've been rewatching Sopranos. It is kind OF a New York, New Jersey thing. So, oh

1:35:05 Thomas: How'd you, how'd you get that? And yeah,

1:35:07 Matt: Meant to mention, I just dropped this very quickly, that in 2006, so Quinnipiac University has something called the feeling thermometer, where they ask people how they feel about different politicians. And Rudy Giuliani was the highest on the feeling thermometer. People felt the most warmly about him in 2006. He got 63 and a half percent.

1:35:24 Thomas: He was, he was, like on top of that, the for 2008. Like he, look,

1:35:28 Matt: He was beating Obama in 2006, yeah, for warmth. And McCain, well

1:35:31 Liz: He was, I mean my mother who was a lifelong long democrat you know even like giuliani um for a minute and then she denies that now but I might have just outed her yeah

1:35:42 Matt: Worth pointing out.

1:35:42 Thomas: 9 -11 made a lot of people do and think crazy things. It's just how it is. Yeah, We, people thought he was anybody because of that. And then he lost his mind very quickly, but, not as though he went insane right away, but like, he also didn't do well in the Republican primary. Like he wasn't good.

1:35:59 Thomas: He, even when he hadn't quite lost his mind, he's also kind of sucked. He like, it wasn't like a good politician per se, uh, because of the voluminous filings by plaintiffs, the court likes likely looks at all of the filings prepared by probably a dozen attorneys here. Let me list them for the fourth time with endless resources going against the defendant with limited resources and and limited attorney staff wait probably hold on was there a verb no the court likely looks at is the verb because

1:35:59 Liz: That's he totally collapsed yeah

1:36:27 Matt: All of the filings prepared.

1:36:33 Thomas: Hold on hold on we got to figure out our dependent clauses here because of the voluminous filings by plaintiffs the court probably looks at all the filings prepared by probably a dozen attorneys with with endless resources going against the, Oh, going against the defendant with limited resources and limited attorney staff going against because look like the court probably looks at all of them going against the defendant. So, so I think what he's trying to say is like, this is so dumb court likely looks at them going. So he's saying, I'm trying to figure out how this is a a complete sentence. And the answer is

1:36:37 Liz: Can't figure it out

1:36:52 Matt: Man, whatever you say. What

1:37:10 Thomas: It may not be. But going against means, I guess he's saying the court is likely going to favor the other side. Okay. It appears, likely

1:37:10 Matt: He's saying, because they haven't read

1:37:20 Liz: Right okay I I right I think that's right yeah go prepared by a dozen attorneys going against the defendant I not a so there's they're saying they're

1:37:20 Matt: So much he's he's literally saying they're just gonna have to read a lot of things this

1:37:32 Liz: They're seeing that plaintiffs are going against The Defendants but then they insert two more clauses so it gets very confusing

1:37:40 Thomas: Looks at all of them going against the defendant. Okay, it appears that plaintiff's counsel made it very difficult for defendants prior counsel, Kenneth Caruso, Esquire, and David Labkowski, Esq., with motions and filings consistently done until Kenneth Caruso Esquire and David Levkoski EsquIRE could not take it anymore and they had to withdraw as defendants counsel this

1:37:40 Matt: Next sentence just name them again sure so he's half correct they couldn't take it anymore because of the defendant not because ofthe opposing counsel yeah

1:38:10 Thomas: Is I mean it would be one thing if you were telling like an outsider this like if if someone if if you traveled abroad fraud and someone who knows nothing about this was like hey why did you lose that case or why is that going back you'd be like well what happened was like you know first off they're filing so many things that's probably why these other lawyers quit there's too many things that they were filing they lost it but isn't aren't he telling the person who was there like the judge was there right or is this a new judge for this yeah

1:38:29 Liz: Well take

1:38:45 Matt: Same judge and he saw the motion to withdraw so he knows why they withdrew already it

1:38:49 Thomas: Like you can't tell he knows dude he okay and

1:38:52 Matt: Wasn't because because they couldn't take it anymore.

1:38:53 Thomas: They had to withdraw as defendants the judge knows what they still represent the defendant on appeal before the united states court of appeals for the dc circuit okay so they they couldn't take it anymore but they kept that I guess defendants council has experienced the voluminous filings by plaintiff's council and knows that it is like a war with a dozen machine guns shooting at you and only one person to defend it.

1:39:21 Matt: He's throwing himself in front of Rudy Giuliani, taking the bullets.

1:39:22 Thomas: You don't know what it's like out there, Judge. Judge, you, who have just seen this for the first time, don't knows what it is in this case that you have been handling this whole time. It is respectfully requested that this court take a step back.

1:39:37 Thomas: I hereby request the court to take a step back and that this is what is happening defendant has substantially complied with court orders and discovery since defendants present counsel began to take over just repeating yourself again defendant was not the person responsible for the plaintiffs not receiving discovery prior to november 26 and he should not face any sanctions or penalties of any kind at the end of the day plaintiffs Will have not been prejudiced in any manner whatsoever by the slower than optimal discovery production and compliance with the court's orders. And this court will hopefully see and hear all of the facts and decide that while the plaintiffs can push very hard and with full force, it does not change the fact that under Florida law and under the Florida constitution, defendant wasn't entitled to claim his condominium unit. God, so funny.

1:39:40 Liz: A step back court it's

1:40:27 Matt: I'm sure the plaintiff's attorneys are very happy to hear that it's really no trouble at all for them to have filed months more than they should have had to, to get this stuff out of him. It's really good of him to point that out.

1:40:35 Thomas: Plus, isn't this already done? Like the horse has left the barn or whatever there's something it's like he's asking him to go undo the findings right you can't does that that does that work matt can you do that no okay he's

1:40:41 Liz: Like so it's it's not yeah no no no right

1:40:52 Matt: He is just complaining about litigation. He doesn't seem to like litigation very much.

1:40:55 Thomas: Already lost and this is about collecting but he's like hey honor judge you should take a step back which is the legal terms I already use a legal phrase everybody but I hereby request that you take a a step back and undo what's happened and look at the facts and then you'll see that there's too many filings and that's why oh

1:40:58 Matt: Which they are trying to stop. Right?

1:40:59 Liz: Hey

1:41:18 Matt: Well, I think he just is saying they are trying to enforce the judgment, judgment judge if you step back and look at it if you really think about it they're trying to enforce this judgment and I don't like it that's it so might make sense yeah so

1:41:28 Thomas: Okay well why don't you just say that the honorable judge once said that quote the quality of our system of justice is measured by the service it provides to the poorest and most despised member of our society oh

1:41:40 Matt: This I will point out this is a good tactic actually to quote the judge back to him

1:41:41 Thomas: I love this yeah that's what I'm saying yeah Yeah. Especially given that you are defending the most despised member of society. There are many individuals who are against President Trump and, as such, against Rudolph Giuliani, and many members of society despise defendant Rudolph Giulioni 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 what what does it matter man they're the other side

1:41:49 Matt: Right it's perfect apparently likely it's good

1:42:14 Liz: I have to come in here also with another critique that I have yet to, to bring up, which is, um, and is relevant to them quoting the law article. So, So, you in law, when you cite something, there are certain ways to cite it. That is called bluebooking. It is tedious and, you Know, a bit annoying at moments. But honestly, once you've done some civil litigation, you Know how to bluebook like the back of your hand. Like I am, unfortunately, because of my years of doing this, quite good at bluebook. Throughout this, their citations are just made up nonsense.

1:42:47 Matt: All over the place it's great it's so good

1:42:48 Liz: They're all over the place. They're completely incorrectly done when they footnote when the judge they don't actually footnote when they put note the article they don't properly like underline the thing they're supposed to underline they also don't even have the judge's own name in citing the article which is like what you need to do they the page range instead of the actual page number it just it's horrifying like I just threw out like one of the reasons I'm having like serious like agita reading this is that like Like I blue have booking was a form of like, you know, torture that was inflicted upon me, but consequently I know how to do it. And it is also just a sign of like whether you're dealing with professionals. Like it is one of the ways that we lawyers, unfortunately, deeply judge other lawyers. It's what we do is like you cite things correctly, but it's also, there's something important about that, right? Because you want to be able to show that you have the authority to say the things that you say. Now, obviously, Joe Camerata has no authority to say any of the things that he's saying. So it's fitting that he doesn't know how to blue book or cite anything. But that is something that is very frustrating throughout this article. This article, this, excuse me, this brief, this rant, I don't

1:43:00 Matt: Exploit

1:43:53 Liz: Know, whatever the hell this is, this napkin, banana.

1:43:54 Thomas: This napkin it we nailed it the goal is to kill all lawyers within a 30 meter radius and uh it's succeeding eating yep it is defendants recent understanding that the honorable judge is the son of god it's so good recent under I've come to understand

1:44:01 Matt: Our heads yep go

1:44:11 Liz: Recent understanding. I'm like, I'm, like, if you Google this judge and then there's a link and it links to his dad, okay? Because, pardon me, if you Google this judge, he comes up on Wikipedia and, you know, on Wikipedia where it says relatives his also comes up and his dad also has a Wikipedia page it understanding like they've done some like real investigatory work there on that one also anyone who's a real lawyer in new york like I knew back when I was doing all this stuff yes rudy would know who this person is rudy wouldn't know his dad like I mean they probably met a few times I mean well actually that gets referred to um crazy it's just crazy discovered

1:44:36 Thomas: Wouldn't rudy know who this is crazy yeah it is defendant's recent understanding the the honorable judge is the son of the late Arthur L. Lyman, who it been discovered passed

1:44:52 Matt: Who it has been oh my god hey hey judge are you aware that your father's not living Anybody pointed that out yet?

1:44:56 Liz: Yeah Yeah. Killing

1:44:58 Thomas: 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. Lyman was representing certain defendants in Drexel Lambert prosecution cases. That's the end a sentence sorry and

1:45:18 Matt: Have to point out, this is so poorly written that it actually puts forward Rudy Giuliani as a suspect in his father's death. It passed away at a time when coincidentally Rudy was there. It's incredible. So good. It's amazing.

1:45:34 Liz: His dad because his dad was such an effective lawyer. There's

1:45:40 Thomas: It has been discovered yeah and Giuliani's fingerprints have been found on the weapon that did it it has Been Discovered and

1:45:48 Matt: Would you raise the judge's father? I mean again, he's trying to be respectful. It sounds like everybody respected this man.

1:45:52 Thomas: In this insane way yeah it's

1:45:54 Matt: And I just, and of course, what he's saying is this conflict of interest because your father was attorney while Rudy was a prosecutor. And so, you know, just another reason you can't be on this case, I guess.

1:45:56 Liz: Death. I

1:46:05 Thomas: It almost sounds like he's trying to say therefore give me some special treatment right because

1:46:10 Liz: Don't know.

1:46:10 Matt: Well, he's trying to be careful. I think what he is saying is like, just be extra fair because I, you know, I know that subconsciously.

1:46:14 Liz: Because at one point your dad was opposed, was, was you know, in literal opposition, but

1:46:18 Matt: Because you look at the next sentence, that's what he saying.

1:46:19 Liz: Also me just also clarify, like Arthur Lyman was not representing certain defendants. He, I don' t know who he was representing, but he was representing one of them. Okay. Like, like you, you're you, not going to be representing in that time that okay

1:46:20 Thomas: Right okay well that hasn't been discovered yet that that may it may may come to recent understanding.

1:46:34 Liz: Fine and they've listed out in parentheses they say the drexel you know lambert prosecution cases you know drexell lambert was this huge this huge huge bankruptcy you then they prosecuted the individuals associated with that who were sort of these famous like you know in the rainbow room every night like in the 1980s just like drinking champagne michael millican you know Ivan Boski uh uh Dennis Levine and I'm like but he was representing one of them and so probably like half of New York law firms were somehow involved in this because it was that big of a deal um

1:47:07 Matt: These are junk bans, insider trading kind of stuff, right? Junk

1:47:10 Liz: It a it was was a junk bond thing

1:47:11 Matt: Yeah, Milliken was, but I think, no, it doesn't matter.

1:47:14 Liz: I mean they you know yeah

1:47:15 Thomas: Like you're going against people all the time, right? It's not like, oh, well back in the fucking seven, whatever you're talking about, I don't know, eighties, nine, whatever this was, he a client who was on the other side of Rudy Giuliani. That's it. That'S your, that'S your conflict of it.

1:47:28 Liz: That happens all the time his dad not Not even

1:47:32 Thomas: Not even him. Yeah, That's right. Yeah. Sorry. His dad. Come on, man.

1:47:32 Liz: Him. Not even him. Dad. His who Rudy Giuliani killed.

1:47:40 Thomas: 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. Lyman's clients. Oh, yeah. Who was prosecuting the honorable judge's late father, Arthur L. Lyman clients when or around the time that the honorable judges late father Arthur L Lyman passed away? What?

1:48:07 Liz: Like, why would you keep mentioning his death? It's really weird.

1:48:09 Thomas: Why would it matter around that time? Oh, is he implying like, OK, in case you have any grudge because the case was so hard that it killed your father? I think that's what he's saying the

1:48:22 Liz: That's right. Like, he was prosecuting. I that Rudy Giuliano was propounding so hard.

1:48:24 Matt: So weird. Weird propounded death

1:48:30 Thomas: Defendant would like to say he is sorry for propounding the judge's father late father Arthur L he has to say his name over and over the late father Arthur L Lyman when the late Father Arthur L lyman passed away and the late love father Lyman clients like what are you talking about we removed that applies to all sub previous and subsequent paragraph that we're adding now another something because there's a a heading defendant should not be held in contempt sanctions

1:48:47 Matt: Just remove this paragraph do not put this paragraph yeah if

1:49:00 Liz: You know, a thing about a preliminary statement is there shouldn't be subsections to your preliminary statement okay that's not that's not where you have subsections but they did subsections it just it's probably you keep it tight you you might not even put citations in it because again it's supposed to intro what will be coming on later and so like those things will have citations but anyway not that they know how to cite anything correctly so it's neither here nor there I

1:49:11 Matt: There was statement of facts maybe procedural history maybe but yeah no none of that yep sure yep okay

1:49:29 Thomas: Are not required to coerce defendant into compliance with any court orders it is respectfully submitted that plaintiffs have not established by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant violated the district court's edicts and therefore based upon the court's inherent authority sanctions should not be granted what I didn't okay

1:49:46 Liz: Don't think they know what any of those words mean

1:49:48 Thomas: That makes two of us as this court has seen once defendants prior counsel withdrew his counsel on november 26 2024 how many times are you supposed to say something in a fucking doc I'm going I think

1:50:03 Liz: He says it and it's still wrong it doesn't make it anymore right if you say a lie three times okay fine I

1:50:05 Thomas: It's like the sixth time I think it's more than the third I'll be honest with you

1:50:09 Matt: Gonna upgrade though he's going to upgrade the compliance

1:50:11 Thomas: We're gonna upgrade all right we're iterating we're iterating as

1:50:12 Liz: Full we yes are we're iterating мы're pivoting maybe I don't know no

1:50:15 Thomas: This as this court has seen okay once defendants said that That present counsel for defendant ensured nearly full compliance with all of the court orders capable of being complied with. Is

1:50:29 Matt: So that is an upgrade from substantial I'll point out

1:50:30 Thomas: Is that what the court likes? Are they like, well, as long as you nearly comply with most of it, with

1:50:33 Matt: Put the ones you that are capable of being complied with yeah

1:50:37 Thomas: The you decide that you like, then judges are cool with it, right?

1:50:43 Matt: The judge is like no that's on me for putting out things that you couldn't comply with sorry about that

1:50:47 Thomas: That you, in your opinion, couldn't comply, sure. Sure. Plaintiffs claim in the instant motion that defendant should be held in contempt for violating the October 28th and November 22 orders. The fact is that defendant has complied with the orders collectively, the orders in the event that defendant did not fully comply with either of the orders. There was reasonable excuse for not fully complying as defendant relied upon his prior counsels to comply with the two orders.

1:51:16 Thomas: Once present counsel for defendant took over representation from the prior counsel's. I wrong? Do you say counsels? Don't you just normally say counsel, like just as a plural or am I wrong you do counsels.

1:51:15 Liz: He didn't can

1:51:17 Matt: All the way under the bus it can be councils it's fine it's

1:51:27 Thomas: Okay. There don't normally see it. Yeah. But okay. Prior counsels yeah.

1:51:28 Liz: Say councils but I I agree I think it is a little off I would say council yeah I I wouldn't I wouldn'T have done it I would say counsel it's a bit it cleaner.

1:51:37 Matt: I disagree I think it's specific to indicate plural councils I think because prior council could be one person sure we can cut that four

1:51:41 Liz: Well, well, I...

1:51:40 Thomas: Hey, I was genuinely asking. I wasn't sure. Yeah. There was full or substantial compliance with the orders. Because there has been full or substantial compliance.

1:51:52 Liz: No, just stop saying that. Stop lying. Stop it. Stop It.

1:51:54 Matt: Or I like the choice there it's either four or substantial The orders.

1:51:56 Liz: There hasn't been.

1:51:56 Thomas: Just the logic. It's so funny to read someone's brain who doesn't work right. Like you're just, because there's been full nor substantial substantial compliance with the orders by defendant sanctions are not required to be imposed to curse defendant into compliance the orders into compliance, the orders with the orders, I guess, is what they mean.

1:52:17 Liz: Can we note sanctions capital?

1:52:19 Thomas: Yeah.

1:52:20 Matt: Yeah, terrible.

1:52:21 Thomas: Now, to non -lawyers, you seem to capitalize things a little weirdly, but not that. Right. So defendant is capitalized usually. Right? Plaintiffs I guess yeah

1:52:32 Liz: Here's what I would say. Yeah. You know, defendant, plaintiff, you might want to capitalize, you might wanna capitalize order. Oftentimes what we do is we engage in something called like defining terms so that's

1:52:41 Thomas: Well that he did it so he did say collectively the capital orders right and so then after that you capitalize orders so that you totally but crucially we didn't do that with sanctions uh

1:52:50 Liz: So that's a defined term but we didn't define sanctions as a term you know it's also like yeah exactly so

1:52:58 Thomas: No that's fair that makes that makes sense that's great

1:53:01 Liz: Yeah I mean what happened here is they originally had the sentence sanctions are not required to impose it and then they were like you know what would be better is if we added another clause. And so they added a stupid clause that wrong and a lie because there like, how can we explain why sanctions are not required? Oh, because let's just lie more. So then they added that clause and then they didn't uncapitalize sanctions.

1:53:11 Thomas: And forgot they did it yeah like how they did that with the semicolon earlier yeah additionally plaintiffs have not suffered any losses by any non -compliance or delayed compliance with the orders at all so there's no reason for this court to compensate plaintiffs for any monetary losses as plaintiffs did not suffer any losses as a result of the lack of compliance by defendant therefore based on the facts there is no reason to sanction defendant well that's airtight I don't know how we criticize that.

1:53:26 Liz: That's what happened. I

1:53:51 Thomas: Up. You're in a coma. Both of you have been put into a medically induced coma to deal with.

1:53:49 Matt: You said

1:53:55 Liz: The strategy is to kill the lawyers reading this so

1:53:58 Thomas: This case should be heard on the merits regarding the homestead of defendant in Florida. Truly, plaintiffs should not even be bringing. Yeah, truly comma plaintiffs. Should not even. Be bringing this case because plaintiffs know that when they file their judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the United States of New York defendant was at the time and well before a citizen citizen of domiciled in a permanent residence in Florida this court should read between the you did you already said this you've you've done this this court Should read between The lines of the plaintiffs motion and realize that the only reason why plaintiffs are seeking quote severe sanctions are because the plaintiffs would like this court to say that defendant should should not be permitted to put on a defense at trial. They already

1:54:18 Matt: This. Get it.

1:54:45 Liz: You don't get that anymore you gave up a trial we're CHASING YOUR ASSETS dude

1:54:47 Thomas: Have? You already were past that.

1:54:50 Matt: Do want to point out, they judgment, which is literally saying they should not have a trial. So we know that already.

1:54:55 Thomas: Now, you don't need to read between the lines. Just read the lines, dude. Just that's in the lines yeah.

1:54:57 Matt: That's the title of the motion.

1:55:02 Thomas: I read betweenthe lines of this motion to dismiss and I think they want to dismiss this. Yeah, this is come on read between the lines judge the son of whatever. I already figured his name. The late what's it? And it gets dumber because it should not be permitted to put on a defense at trial which is already not done because if this case proceeds to trial what we're past we're past that

1:55:09 Matt: Happen at all, Arthur. Well, they are going to have a trial on this. So there's going to be a trial about the homestead issue. That's still coming.

1:55:29 Thomas: I'm sorry because if this case precedes the trial the facts are that defendant is entitled to claim his homestead as Florida in accordance with the Florida Constitution okay so am I wrong do I have egg on my face because when he's been talking about the merits and the trial and the whatever he's talking about the florida homestead thing there's a trial about that

1:55:51 Matt: So that's coming up next week, actually. There's going be a full one. They're going to present evidence. This is when the surprise witness is going to come in that I'll tell you about in a minute. Have to determine, as a matter of fact, whether or not he is actually entitled to the homested exemption. And the World Series rings, which are also going to Be coming up. That is the other issue that is going to be litigated and

1:55:54 Thomas: Oh it's trial no

1:56:08 Liz: So I think Thomas though your confusion is justifiable because I think they a bit sloppy I think they kind of use it in both ways I know I know I know

1:56:15 Thomas: I know I mean I because I I want look I really want to not uh truth for roasting like I actually want to make sure I'm roasting for correct things but I swear to god there's no way they're just talking about this this whole time because like he's telling about the the oh if this proceeds to trial and he's been he's He's been mixing in there the like the discovery and the right is that that all applies to the Florida homestead thing. That can't be that right because the discovery stuff.

1:56:35 Matt: The sanctions.

1:56:29 Liz: Not right no I think I think throughout they're trying to be like oh like they haven'T really done a trial they've only just sought sanctions right but they they do mean I think that there wasn't an yeah

1:56:47 Thomas: OK, so this time, though, importantly, Matt is saying which which is fair is fair. They're saying this if this case precedes trial and they're talking about this Florida thing. Okay. All right. So the only way for plaintiffs to have a victory in this case is for plaintiff's to continue to claim deficiencies of discovery and or violations of court orders and hope that this court sanctions defendant. I wrong that like that doesn't defeat you though? Could you be sanctioned and then you're still going, does that end the Kate? Like, do you lose if you're saying that, that

1:57:18 Matt: Hasn't mentioned yet is because it doesn't help him is that they're also seeking adverse inferences. They're trying to get the court to say that there are some things that they can find as a matter of law going into this because he has not participated. And one of those things is going to basically that he doesn't live in Florida because he's provided no proof that he lives in Florida. And of the things the judge ends up ordering is that he provide identities and locations of his professional service providers writers, which includes doctors and such, to show that everybody that he frequents, I guess, is not in Florida. And he still has not provided that. That's why he was held in contempt.

1:57:23 Thomas: Makes more sense. Yeah. The defendant was not disregarding this court's orders, but relied upon prior counsel to complete discovery response. How many times are you going to say this? You already said it. Okay. Uh, here's some citation -y stuff. So does or?

1:58:04 Matt: Yeah, we can skip that. Yeah.

1:58:05 Liz: Not cited correctly just fii I

1:58:06 Matt: Yeah, just assume that.

1:58:08 Thomas: All they, what would this paragraph be trying to do? It's trying to stay like, here is how normally contempt and and sanctions works sort of okay all

1:58:15 Matt: It's really generic. It is just a generic statement of the law. It doesn't...

1:58:18 Thomas: Right and then he contrasts that with so like you present how the law works and you say there was no willful non -compliance by defendant as stated above it is evident that once defendant changed counsels a plethora of fucking twice and a pletpora of discovery responses and compliance with the court orders was accomplished yeah

1:58:32 Matt: The passive voice is killing me. Out of all of this it is so much passive voice and

1:58:43 Liz: Mean

1:58:41 Thomas: It's so bad. It

1:58:43 Liz: Plethora should never appear here twice in a brief I mean

1:58:46 Thomas: Be once, but yeah, twice. It is respectfully submitted that if the defendant in this case was not Rudolph Giuliani, the plaintiffs would probably not be seeking sanctions. If the defendant of this case with someone who didn't do something sanctionable, then they wouldn't be seeking sanctioned. And that's a great argument.

1:58:57 Liz: Mean off that's just not true I mean anytime you could reasonably seek sanctions you will seek sanctions and I very rarely litigated against people that were just so deficient that it even you know could even be arguable but let me tell you there were two instances where like we we could have potentially sought sanctions and we were gleeful to do so. Gleeful.

1:59:26 Liz: So have to be Rudy Giuliani to be gleefully. That's kind of your job.

1:59:27 Thomas: Well, Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know if this will apply, but in, in my, again, one experience there talk at times of like, well, this is sanctionable what Andrew's side was doing, but it was like, it has to be like super duper duper sanctionable to want to like go through with that because of the credibility with the judge. Like my who was very good was like yeah, it's, this bad, but like, they're not worth putting a fight about this for sanctions Cause it's a little too much. Like you don't want to, you don'T want to go too far with the judge. It's all about the fucking judge and like, you know, yeah,

1:59:45 Matt: To do something about him right right some point you're the asshole like you don't yeah right right so

2:00:02 Liz: And you want to do something that's unambiguously sanctionable. So they absolutely are engaging in totally bad faith conduct. And you just want to have a very clean argument for that judge. You don't want to kind of be like, this is standard sort of snipping back and forth. They did something that was kind of shitty. That's standard litigation. Exactly.

2:00:17 Thomas: Mm -hmm. We're skipping a bit because this has gotten really repetitive and we're going to a sentence that says, what is really incredible?

2:00:24 Liz: But we're skipping a bit, but we are still in the preliminary statement. Yes. The subsection of the preliminary statement.

2:00:31 Thomas: Importantly, on page 22 of 55 or whatever, we're still in the preliminary parts here.

2:00:37 Matt: The seventh circle of hell.

2:00:38 Thomas: What what is really incredible is that the plaintiffs are trying to obtain adverse inferences against defendant so that they get the ultimate relief they seek in the case, which is for a declaration by this court, not a Florida court, that the homestead of the defendant is not in accordance with the Florida Constitution. Constitution and we're still repeating that. Why did we? Okay.

2:01:00 Thomas: But you have to read a sentence that starts with what is really incredible.

2:00:59 Matt: I just liked the sentence. Yeah of course can't skip that.

2:01:03 Liz: What

2:01:04 Thomas: What is really incredible?

2:01:04 Liz: Is really incredible...

2:01:05 Matt: And then it's going to remind the judge and we can skip this too but he's remind the Judge what the adverse inferences are just in case you forgot that they're looking for and then let's go to the indisputable fact we already know that we can can skip this too

2:01:16 Thomas: I might read those sentences because that is useful information there. So the plaintiffs seek the following adverse inferences.

2:01:19 Matt: That's true yes what they're looking for yeah

2:01:23 Liz: So can we just say, you said the indisputable fact, but I want you to be clear. It says the undisputed fact. Okay. Which, as people may know, you say undisputed or you say indisputable. There is no, there is no undisputable. I mean, or it's not, yeah, exactly.

2:01:38 Matt: Excuse me for speaking english I

2:01:40 Thomas: Undisputable.

2:01:41 Liz: Maybe you can say, it's just not, it, yeah.

2:01:47 Thomas: Nah, indubitably. OK, I plan to see that Mr. Giuliani did not form an intention to live permanently at the Palm Beach condo prior to August 5th and that Mr Giuliani Giuliani did not actually occupy the Palm beach condo as a permanent residence prior to us. But so they're seeking those stipulations adverse inferences.

2:01:48 Matt: Going

2:02:09 Thomas: It's like that's only because he has not provided a single shred of fucking proof. Right.

2:02:07 Matt: Into the hearing yep literally

2:02:13 Thomas: Like if he had if he provided anything, then you'd have an argument about it. But you don't get to just say, OK, adverse inferences. Right.

2:02:20 Liz: They literally the only option they have left to that.

2:02:22 Thomas: Right, the undisputable fact. Wait, am I. Oh, was I skipping this or reading it? I

2:02:26 Matt: So I can summarize that I mean honestly this he's just bringing up the same fact the only fact they have which is that he once listed his apartment for sale in new york and they're saying that's because he intended to live in Palm Beach and that's all they got. And it's going to keep going if

2:02:37 Thomas: Ironclad, baby, because if I lived at a place, the only proof I would have is that I once put something up for sale in another place.

2:02:44 Matt: Know, their state.

2:02:44 Thomas: I wouldn't have like, you know, records or, you Know, like you said, doctors, other stuff I use the AC guy I called to have. Have any of that.

2:02:52 Matt: What it's worth, he did register to vote in Florida and he has a driver's license he produced that he got in Florida. I think he might've unlawfully voted in Florida, which is a whole other issue. Yeah, yeah. Republican voter fraud.

2:03:02 Thomas: That. Yeah, I saw RFK Jr. also might have voted illegally, right?

2:03:06 Matt: Our Falcon Law segment? That's a direct tie into the Falcon Law.

2:03:08 Thomas: Well, no, he might've voted in New York, right, and he wasn't supposed to, yeah.

2:03:11 Matt: But that's what I'm saying. That was the whole thing. That's what that came from, the falcon law uh

2:03:13 Thomas: Sorry. Yeah, yeah, gotcha. Is why plaintiffs now want adverse inferences and a protective order precluding defendant from relying on referencing or otherwise using any documentary evidence in support of his claim that he established the Palm Beach condo as a homestead prior to August 5th. Because plaintiffs are obviously concerned that if this court meets justice out fairly and blindly, this court must find unquestionably that defendant intended to use his Palm Beach condo in Florida as his permanent residence prior to august 5th and defendant actually did in fact permanently reside at his Palm Beach condo in Florida prior to August 5th. That would mean that while the plaintiffs get all the defendant's non -exempt assets, the plaintiffs would not be able to seize the defendant's Palm Beach Condo in Florida. So stupid.

2:03:55 Matt: And fiend

2:03:56 Liz: Want to note that that is seven lines long. That sentence is seven line long.

2:04:01 Thomas: He's saying the dumbest thing, just in case, try and make sure I understand as a non -lawyer, but as someone who has a tiny bit of experience with kind of this, their only reason we're talking about adverse inferences is because he didn't do any of the stuff you're supposed to do. So to sit here and to argue, Like, well, if you were meeting out justice fairly, you would find, based on what? Like, you have to provide something. You have to have provided anything. There's no, did he, is there evidence, like, attached to this or something? Like, exhibits that, oh, well maybe that should have been what he did in discovery.

2:04:30 Matt: There are actually 24 pages attached to this uh could reference them yeah and

2:04:36 Thomas: Like, maybe, yeah, he doesn't.

2:04:36 Matt: He doesn't reference any of the things that are attached like they actually might have helped No, it's insane.

2:04:39 Liz: It actually is, is really

2:04:40 Matt: It's completely insane. So I just want to point out, there's a total of 25 pages on this thing. And you might notice the word after what you just read. This is kind of like the thing where in a movie where they do like 45 or 50 minutes of the movie, and then they give you the credits, right? Or the title of the the movie. I kind of hate that. The next word is argument. So the argument's about to begin in case you didn't have any argument previously.

2:04:40 Liz: Insane.

2:05:02 Thomas: Finally. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So I was looking at the page of the PDF, which is a bad idea because there's a bunch of like form filling out stuff on the bottom. So that makes this even funnier. I'm sorry that I didn't fully appreciate how funny Liz's point is about the preliminary thing, because goes until page 19 and then there's like three pages and that's the end.

2:05:09 Matt: I just go by page numbers. Yep.

2:05:18 Liz: It goes until page 19. He reached more. And then can I just also, I mean, I have so much to even say about this, which is, um, under argument, they say 0 .1 standard of review.

2:05:25 Matt: Me too. Yes. Standard of review. That's

2:05:32 Liz: That's you know, like don't do that, you know? And so like in general, when you write a brief, like they're like different sections of brief. Now there's a little flexibility. Like for example, sometimes you might not do call something preliminary statement. You could call it an introduction. You know, you can do a little, there's a little space for whatever, but argument is supposed to be arguments, right? The standard of review is a separate section of the brief that is like a standard section where you include like one to, you frankly, as long as they do, like it's supposed to Be like one or two short paragraphs as to like, what what, is the relevant standard that the court is is reviewing this under. So is it an abuse of discretion standard? Is it preponderance of the evidence? What the court kind of reviewing this underway? What level of kind of discretion does the court have? It is not in and of itself an argument unless you are arguing with the other side about the standard

2:05:32 Matt: Not the argument. Don't do that. But the standard,

2:06:21 Liz: Of review. And that would actually just be a different section under the, and they're not doing that. And so it broke my brain that under argument, it says 0 .1 standard interview that's not the argument

2:06:24 Matt: But he's not doing that. Yeah. It's incredible.

2:06:33 Thomas: That should be the thing you're stating that probably you're going to agree with for the most part. And it's just how you're applying it usually point

2:06:38 Matt: And court that you know what the standard of review is, not to remind the court what the standard of view is. Like, they know what The Standard is. It's not worth reading any of this. But I do want to point out one thing, which is the beginning of point two, which is entitled, holding defendant in civil consent and for sanctions are not appropriate in this case. I'm not really, can't really parse that. I know. But just note, that's

2:06:58 Thomas: To that's it that's a bold underlined heading in all caps wait why is that in all gaps because before they the headings weren't in all caps well

2:07:01 Matt: The heading, right? That is how I would do it. Because these are within the

2:07:08 Thomas: But the one okay but the ones before were not oh okay

2:07:09 Matt: Argument. Right, but this argument is different.

2:07:12 Thomas: Okay sorry

2:07:13 Liz: I I don't agree with the formatting decisions but yeah also that it's not holding defendant in civil contempt and for sanctions is not appropriate in this case is not, is not is not.

2:07:14 Matt: I wouldn't call it points, but okay. Yes, I know. It killed me to read that out loud. It murdered my brain.

2:07:24 Liz: I cried. I cried.

2:07:21 Thomas: It's so frustrating.

2:07:25 Matt: All right. So I just want to point out though, did you see what he starts with? Because this is the only thing I want to mention, even from the legal stuff that he's trying to do. It's not even worth talking about the rest of it, but this is very funny to me.

2:07:33 Thomas: The court should be aware of the case of Oved V.

2:07:37 Matt: Now look at the proposition he's citing it for, which is very fun. Just read this one sentence. That's all we need.

2:07:42 Thomas: Should be aware of the case Oved v. Weiner, I don't know, whatever, that stuff, where Judge Dennis R. Hurley stated that, quote, plaintiff has submitted evidence that supports the assertion that defendant is domiciled in the state of Florida, to wit records showing defendant is a registered voter in the state of Florida, and that defendant has been claiming the Florida homestead exemption, which is available only to, quote, permanent residents.

2:08:08 Matt: Literally in one case, in New York, by the way.

2:08:12 Liz: One of the 30 plus cases in New York that have interpreted the homestead exception exemption.

2:08:17 Thomas: It's a case of first impression, sorry, second impression now.

2:08:22 Matt: It's incredible.

2:08:22 Thomas: That's amazing. It's

2:08:23 Matt: So again, I mean, even when I first saw this, I wasn't thinking about the fact that he said it was a case of first impression, but just the fact that a court in another case found that there was a homestead.

2:08:32 Thomas: Sort of like, look, if I was a criminal defendant, I'm like, Look, there's this other case where the the judge said quote not guilty so that should apply to me too right we

2:08:41 Matt: So what are we doing here, Judge? Yeah. And he also has not been claiming the Florida homestead exemption. I don't even want to talk about that. We don't have time to talk about the actual homestead exemption and how it ended up applying in this case. But this is pretty much it. And then he goes through and just mentions a bunch of other cases, is like a very bad first -year law student and just sort of lists out examples of things that have happened in other cases really explaining or wrapping up at the end. He doesn't explain how all these cases are supposed to apply to anything. There's a conclusion. And that's it. That's our brief.

2:09:12 Thomas: We've done a bunch of crap that doesn't yeah not really relevant and then if their court were and it's t -h -e -r -e even it's not even like their if their Court were to grant plaintiff's motion which I respectfully submit should not be granted.

2:09:15 Matt: Pointless. First person. We've gone to the first person suddenly at the end. And don't make it about yourself, Mr.

2:09:28 Liz: Person, which don't do not put Put the first person in your memorandum of law, okay? Ever, ever,

2:09:33 Matt: Blanche, I'm

2:09:34 Liz: Ever.

2:09:36 Thomas: The, uh, should I respectfully submit should not be graded. The only imposition should be reasonable attorney's fees and costs and nothing else, comma, however, comma, it is respectfully submitted that plaintiffs have not incurred attorney's fees and costs as a result of any failure to comply with discovery or court orders yeah

2:09:56 Matt: I would be so furious if I were the other side of reading that, because they're pro bono. And he's saying, oh, it hasn't cost them anything. They've wasted a whole bunch of their time, but it's not like they're getting paid, so it's fine.

2:10:06 Thomas: That's okay that can't be how it works right

2:10:09 Liz: Also, respectfully submit is used twice in one sentence.

2:10:12 Thomas: Unbelievably oh

2:10:09 Matt: That's so painful. He's very respectful. What are you talking about?

2:10:16 Thomas: And then the conclusion is one sentence conclusion for the foregoing reasons plaintiff motion should be denied in its entirety and for such other and further relief what

2:10:26 Matt: That's actually the only normal part of the whole thing. A one -sentence conclusion is not unusual. But, you know, um,

2:10:29 Liz: Well, disagree. I mean, I think sometimes you would do, that's a little, no,

2:10:34 Thomas: I feel like that sentence before it was part of the conclusion it seems like for

2:10:34 Matt: I'm just saying it's common, but

2:10:37 Liz: Also, can we just say, plaintiff's motion should be denied its entirety and for such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. That's not a correct sentence, right? Right? For such other, it doesn't have like a verb attached to it. What he did was he copied from some other motion where you say, you know, and request, you knows, such other further, because we forgot to do that.

2:10:40 Thomas: Such other and further relief yeah yeah yeah this the best that was so stupid my

2:11:01 Liz: It's really, really painful and terrible.

2:11:03 Matt: A lawyer, as an English major, as a writer, as somebody who cares about coherence, clarity. I'm glad that we all endured it together. At least I didn't have to read this alone.

2:11:11 Thomas: Is propounding right now yeah oh

2:11:19 Liz: Mean I just wish I weren't doing dry January, you now, because now I have, yeah

2:11:22 Thomas: That's that's on you what a mistake you've made that is critical error oh boy um

2:11:25 Matt: You've got weeks. So judge the day after this issued a completely normal scheduling order and did not at all acknowledge the filing of this. It didn't go go anywhere.

2:11:37 Thomas: Maybe if we don't acknowledge it, it didn't happen. I think is what the judge was saying.

2:11:39 Matt: Just back away from the brief.

2:11:37 Liz: That's honestly the nicest thing the judge could do okay

2:11:44 Matt: Exactly. Yes, under these circumstances. Couple of funny things happened after this. And I really do think we should probably do some more Rudy Gabble Gabble episodes because there's such such a wealth. It's such a treasury.

2:11:52 Thomas: Cause we deserve it. It's

2:11:53 Matt: We absolutely do.

2:11:53 Thomas: Hard. It's hot. It's been, it's

2:11:54 Matt: We all deserve it.

2:11:54 Thomas: Hard this is, this was, this made me feel good. I feel I mean bad and good it's yeah dear

2:12:01 Matt: There's a very funny declaration that's filed on Christmas Eve where Rudy lists out all of his property in detail, including like every part of his sofa bed, including the legs and the couch and everything to talk about. He was turning them over, his TV. And by the way, I don't want Rudy's bed. That's not something that anybody's looking for.

2:12:17 Matt: Put that on the curb. And the Yeah.

2:12:16 Thomas: God no I'd be like yeah pay you not to give it to us oh

2:12:23 Liz: And be propounded on the bed I don't know sorry

2:12:25 Thomas: No liz come on oh

2:12:28 Liz: Sorry I couldn't help myself I

2:12:28 Matt: So he asked for pictures, so he gave him a couple of pictures. He pointed out at one point, I guess, that there was a picture that was supposed to be... Wait, turns out there was actually a picture of Derek Jeter, and it was actually of some other stupid Yankee player who cares about the Yankees. Do you remember who you're talking to here? Not only do I not care about sports, but I don't care about sports in a Boston way.

2:12:30 Liz: Mean

2:12:39 Thomas: Well okay no I know you don't care but you can't yeah oh

2:12:46 Liz: I do know I just listen there are many things to say about the Yankees and I I personally don't particularly care about them, but there a lot of people who care about the end case.

2:12:54 Thomas: This is like when the atheists got stopped in in ireland and they're like I'm an atheist and they'RE like okay OK, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?

2:13:03 Liz: Exactly.

2:13:03 Thomas: It's like that with Matt. OK, yeah,

2:13:02 Matt: At the end of the day, I still have to care because Boston and New York, it's just how it is. We have bridged our differences and become friends despite this gulf, but here we are. So the 27th of November, Rudy does something very funny, if this wasn't funny enough. He tries to file his witness list under seal, which as Lemon points out and immediately in his order, I'm just going to read his order because it's very funny.

2:13:25 Thomas: Oh, yeah. That's right. The surprise witness. You teased surprise witness each more surprising than the last.

2:13:30 Matt: Yes. I have to mention that. So Uh, he files his witness list under seal and in a very simple one paragraph order, uh, Rudolph W. Giuliani filed his witness list for the trial set for January 16th. The list was filed under seal in both dockets. The court has neither directed nor permitted this list to be filed under seal.

2:13:47 Matt: Nobody asked for this man. The clerk of court is respectfully directed to unseal the documents. So that's such a weird move.

2:13:54 Thomas: Yeah. I'm just going to slide my witness under the. No, you have to say it. You have to.

2:13:58 Matt: Just people have to be able to see it. It's pretty important.

2:14:01 Liz: Have to make some sort of showing when you file something under seal. I mean, you can't just like, I mean you have ask the court for their permission, you explain why it is, you know, file the request to have something put under seal, like under seal or at least substantially redacted, like that's reasonable.

2:14:09 Matt: Under seal. Exactly right. I've had to do that.

2:14:17 Liz: Reasonable but I mean it's just it seems to me that they just went ahead and filed an under seal which is totally inappropriate and then it's not really a thing to file your your witness list in a civil case again civil case right you are fighting over money here no there's no there's No like you mafia witness or something like it just it's not a thing you do well

2:14:23 Matt: Insane. Right, right.

2:14:37 Thomas: Well, they're going to get killed by the Hunter Biden crime family, you know, so that's why.

2:14:43 Matt: I just, before we close, I just want to point out his star witness because this is really something, I mean, it's, really okay. The witness list is unsealed, and it's a number of different people that he had conversations with about being a Florida resident. The star witness is going to be a priest. Now, good. That's a good idea to get a priest in. You can't do better than a priest or a nun to come in and swear under oath that they heard you say something, right? Unfortunately for him, this priest was the best man at his wedding, somebody he's known since he was a child, a priest named Alan Plaka. And I'm looking now at an investigative report from Jeff Anderson and Associates PA, Alan Plaka, colon, key architect of minimizing abuse claims, coercing silence, and protecting church assets. This is a very bad priest, allegedly. I will say allegedly because there have been no formal findings, but it is almost certain that he was one of the people helping to move priests around.

2:14:43 Liz: Fair yeah

2:14:47 Thomas: Here we go. Well

2:15:32 Matt: Well, sure, that's true. Great priests out there. But this guy was very much, allegedly, in the middle of the sex abuse scandal of the Catholic Church, moving priests around, and that's the guy who's going to come in and testify under oath. And he already has. He's done a deposition saying that Rudy hung out in Florida sometimes. It's not a very convincing deposition.

2:15:32 Thomas: Me every priest is allegedly a very bad priest but that's me yeah yeah

2:15:51 Matt: I skimmed it.

2:15:51 Thomas: We're molesting kids together oh no and I

2:15:55 Matt: Very funny to me that Rudy Giuliani is like, I got a priest.

2:15:58 Thomas: Love and finally under seal because it's like I don't want anyone to see how embarrassing this witness is or what it's

2:16:04 Matt: It's a very bad priest. No, I guess. I don't know. I really don't why else they would have filed this because there's a number of other witnesses on there. There's so many other things. I mean, every rock that you turn over in this trial is something else.

2:16:09 Thomas: So funny this is the best ah incredible

2:16:16 Matt: And we really could do like as much as we've done on Trump on these proceedings and the D .C. ones.

2:16:22 Thomas: Uh oh we still haven't played the coffee commercial that I put So I, I went, I watched a bunch of this and I feel bad about it, but it's so funny.

2:16:28 Matt: We could go out on that, actually.

2:16:37 Thomas: It's, I mean, there's, there's a couple different ones he did as Santa. Uh, there's the one everyone's talking about, but there's another one where he's like daydreaming. I and it's, it's the worst green screen you've ever seen. He can''' yeah, it's, it's like, I don't even know how to, it's a green— but the green screen is just a Christmas tree in a fireplace. Like buddy, you couldn't find a Christmas tree and a fireplace to film your thing in December.

2:16:36 Liz: Should you should

2:16:48 Matt: It's hard to describe. It's so bad.

2:17:01 Thomas: He's got a weird green screen and,

2:17:01 Liz: Yeah

2:16:59 Matt: In December, and this is for Rudy Coffey, his own coffee.

2:17:04 Thomas: Rudy coffee, Rudy, that's your name. Rudy coffee. Okay. Uh, he's sitting in a chair, smiling like an idiot, uh, with a horrible green screen. Oh, he's yawning and is going to go to sleep.

2:17:19 Thomas: Very believable. He falls asleep and he has a dream that he's Santa and he's handing out Rudy coffee and everyone's so thrilled.

2:17:35 Clip: You were smiling in your sleep. I know the perfect gift for Christmas. Go to rudy.coffee.

2:17:44 Matt: I will not. Actually, I just did.

2:17:44 Thomas: So good. It's so good. I did, too. It's it's fantastic.

2:17:49 Matt: The different packages are Rudy from different eras. There's a very serious black and white 80s prosecutor, Rudy. There's America's mayor, Rudy, and there is Rudy sitting on the beach in a full suit in Florida. It is Homestead.

2:17:59 Thomas: And that's a weird one for coffee. I mean, I'm not going to say that's like out the question, but I don't know if I'm advertising for coffee sitting on the beach in the sun with the coffee. Is that decaf

2:18:10 Matt: Says, enjoying life, Rudy coffee. Oh, this is the decaf also. So you're drinking decaff on the Beach, which that works. It's chill.

2:18:15 Thomas: On the Beach? I guess I'm

2:18:17 Matt: In a full suite at your Homestead.

2:18:17 Thomas: Fine in it. Sure. Yeah, but

2:18:21 Matt: He's Homesteading.

2:18:21 Thomas: Then there's the one of course that everybody watched, which is him in a Santa suit.

2:18:26 Matt: You have to hear the voice that he does.

2:18:27 Thomas: Got to hear it.

2:18:27 Clip: Ho, ho, ho! Merry Christmas! What would you like for Christmas, darling? Rudy Coffee. Not diamonds? Not a necklace? No, just Rudy Coffee! Give her all the coffee she wants! Give her the coffee all she wants. Ho, Ho, Hoo!

2:18:32 Thomas: What I can't even this is so this is as bad as it can be. The brief.

2:18:42 Matt: I'm having a stroke. Yeah. So I will say that he made that commercial specifically so that he could have a woman sit on his lap. There's no other explanation for that. That. Mrs.

2:18:51 Thomas: Is that his like current

2:18:52 Matt: Santa does not sit on your lap.

2:18:52 Thomas: Partner or something? Cause that's

2:18:54 Matt: I don't know. She's in the other one too, right? It's probably just an aspiring model.

2:18:54 Thomas: The only thing that makes any sense. Yeah. I know. I just wonder who these people are or wonder. Yeah. Do they work in his office?

2:19:00 Liz: Do you who were they before what

2:19:03 Thomas: Well, cause he has some amount of production help with his bullshit thing he does. And I always think about those people, you know, like the camera person and the whatever. Is there anyone just taking the job? They're just taking a paycheck and they got to do this. I don't know. Or are they in on it?

2:19:04 Liz: Have you yeah no

2:19:16 Matt: I mean, if at all familiar with the allegations made by Noelle Dunphy, which we don't have time to get into today, you do not want to work anywhere near Rudy Giuliani if you are a woman.

2:19:23 Liz: It really

2:19:24 Thomas: Or if you saw that fucking it's not Borat. It's the is it the yeah.

2:19:28 Matt: Yeah, that was Borat. Yeah,

2:19:29 Thomas: Maybe I'm wrong.

2:19:30 Matt: I think it was in the second Borat movie. Movie yeah did some moments

2:19:31 Thomas: Rudy. Guess I didn't see Borat, too. And I thought I saw this. Huh? Well anyway that I enough people watched Sasha Baron Cohen's show that he did that I did watch which was fucking hilarious where he actually might have caught oh I'm mixing up because it's the the other thing he did he might have actually caught like human trafficking you know and he had referred it to like the FBI or whatever like so that wasn't Borat 2 which is why I got confused but okay Borat 1 yeah that happened great guy great guy and that was several layers of sanity ago like rudy was like comparatively sharp back then boy well what was that voice he was it was like he was doing santa but santa is also like an elf as well or something it's just do santa man just santa doesn't talk like that no there's

2:20:03 Matt: Yeah that's true I got to be other ways that rudy giuliani can make money I understand he's broke but it's

2:20:25 Thomas: No other way that's the only way all right this was so much fun I we yeah we gotta see maybe there's maybe we should do more because it's just it's a delight I mean where

2:20:35 Matt: This record is amazing.

2:20:36 Liz: Is it's kind of unbelievable but

2:20:37 Thomas: Where does this stand right now then you took us through some of it right did you where does where do we sit right now with this episode and

2:20:43 Matt: So on the auspicious date of January 6th, there was a full contempt hearing and he was held in contempt and the adverse inference was drawn. And whatever reason, the order isn't actually available. So I won't read from the order. But just to summarize the order, because he failed to reveal the names of his doctors and all the other professional service providers, the judge has made the the adverse inference that none of them are in Florida or that he'd ever changed any of his services after January 1st, 2024, which is the date that he's trying to claim that he established Palm Beach as his permanent residence. So we're going to be going into a trial in which that is presumed. Not great for the defendant.

2:21:14 Thomas: Was different than the judge who was like tell me your doctor for your fake lung issue oh

2:21:19 Matt: You're right. The lung issue did actually come up in both cases.

2:21:22 Liz: But I that's right but that That was a different contempt.

2:21:25 Matt: There have there have been two contempts this week. I can see the confusion. But Beryl Howe also found him in contempt. But in both cases, he tried to say he couldn't appear in person because he was having lung issues due to 9 -11, even though he was also going to go to the inauguration days later. Believe the trial is now scheduled for January 16th, and that he's going to have to show up, and And that'll be a fun one.

2:21:42 Matt: We haven't even talked about the World Series rings yet. That could be a whole other episode. The World Series Rings are very funny also. But those are the two issues are about the homestead in Florida, which is now very much against him.

2:21:41 Thomas: And the trial is what because now if yeah like what so why would you even have a trial wouldn't they just get it well

2:21:55 Matt: He's still going to put the evidence on, I guess. I don't know.

2:21:57 Thomas: But if it's an adverse inference already that he

2:21:59 Matt: Yeah. Judge said he will conclude that none of his providers are in Florida that he changed any of his services after. So, I mean, yeah, he's, but he hasn't really shown his hand here. And then the World Series rings about who those actually belong to, because he says he gifted them to his son, Andrew, even though he's refusing to turn over the tax returns that would show that those were listed as a gift. Among other things.

2:22:06 Thomas: So he could theoretically still put up other evidence okay oh man can't wait so we will follow along with that is there some chance of live courtroom anything video anything damn

2:22:27 Matt: It's federal court. So yeah, but we can maybe get some transcripts. Yeah, this will be short. This should be maybe at the most two days. So it should be an easy transcript to do.

2:22:31 Liz: Could definitely get transcripts.

2:22:30 Thomas: Transcripts uh we'll see uh that could be very fun that couldbeveryfun well this was an absolute pleasure I want to thank you both I had a great time it's nice it feels good to laugh again

2:22:37 Matt: Be a lot of fun.

2:22:38 Liz: That would be a ton of fun.

2:22:45 Matt: Yeah, This is a fun one.

2:22:46 Liz: I mean this is really this is Really Something. Yeah. Thanks, everyone. And I just, I sort of needed like kind of like a collective session of grief and therapy after reading this. And I think this is what I, what this podcast was for me.

2:22:47 Thomas: Good stuff for lawyers this is almost like jamming the paper clip in that hard reset button in your brain you know like this was so bad

2:23:06 Liz: The paperclip into my heart, like using a paperclip break open like my breastbone and then jam it into my heart is what reading this was like.

2:23:09 Thomas: Well that sounds horrible sorry I was trying to make it a positive thing like this like you're resetting now it's like a cleanse you know oh

2:23:20 Liz: I don't know about that.

2:23:22 Thomas: Well I'll see you in court

2:23:25 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved. It is produced and edited by Thomas Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro and outro music used with permission.

2:23:43 Matt: I'm really worked up. I am doing it again. Yeah, this

2:23:46 Thomas: First part of a barf that comes up a little bit.

2:23:49 Liz: And be propounded on the bed I don't know sorry

2:23:51 Thomas: No liz come on oh

2:23:54 Liz: Sorry