Giuliani’s Debts Mount As He Tries to Overturn $148 Million Judgment

WASHINGTON -- Rudy Giuliani’s appeal last week of a $148 million judgment against him in federal court in Washington, D.C., for defaming two election workers is exposing how severely indebted he has become.

He faces additional lawsuits from two companies he incorrectly accused of rigging their voting machines to favor Joe Biden while he worked as Donald Trump’s personal attorney during the 2020 presidential election.

Law firms have billed him at least $1.7 million so far and he owes about $900,000 in taxes. Other debts have built up from banks, credit cards and golf club memberships.

Meanwhile, a former female employee is suing him for $10 million after saying Giuliani sexually harassed and assaulted her.

Giuliani filed for bankruptcy in December immediately after Georgia election workers Wandrea "Shaye" Moss and Ruby Freeman won their $148 million jury award. The former New York mayor had accused them of falsifying ballots that helped give Biden a narrow win over Trump in Georgia.

Last week, a bankruptcy judge in New York told Giuliani he could not pay the legal expenses for his appeal from his personal funds.?

Giuliani's attorneys revealed during the defamation trial how difficult it will be for their client to pay all his debts. His net worth is estimated at less than $50 million, based on one of his attorney’s pleas for leniency when he said a large judgment would “be the end” of him.

He has not yet filed a reorganization plan with the bankruptcy court.?

A bankruptcy organization plan allows debtors to keep their assets while paying off their debts over a long period of time. Sometimes eligible debts can be discharged, assuming a judge approves the plan.

Giuliani’s court filing for an appeal in the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals showed the strategy he is pursuing to overturn the verdict.

He says an online publication that first published the defamatory allegations against Moss and Freeman should share the blame and the duty to pay them compensation.

Expert witnesses during the four-day trial improperly put all the blame for the backlash the women suffered on Giuliani, his court filing says. The failure to spread the fault among other sources means the verdict should be overturned, he argues.

One of the expert witnesses, Northwestern University professor Ashlee Humphreys, relied on other persons’ opinions of damage to the women’s reputation, Giuliani says. The dependence on other experts for her testimony meant it was unreliable, his court filing says.

"The court should have stricken the testimony and instructed the jury to disregard it," Giuliani's motion for appeal says. "Based on this error, the jury returned an exorbitant damages award for reputation injury based on expert testimony that should not have been admitted."

The case is Freeman et al. v. Giuliani in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

Supreme Court Looks at EPA’s Justification for Regulation to Block Interstate Pollution

The Supreme Court heard arguments last week on whether to keep the Environmental Protection Agency’s good neighbor rule that requires states to clean up their industrial pollution that could be carried by the wind into neighboring states.

Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia want the Supreme Court to order a hold on implementation of the rule to avoid what they believe would be catastrophic costs for their steel, cement, natural gas and coal-fired power plants.

The result could be business failures and widespread job losses, they argue in court filings.

So far, states challenging the rule have lost in court. After the EPA rule took effect last August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the upwind states’ request to put the rule on hold while the lawsuits continue in lower courts.

Downwind states that want the good neighbor rule enforced say they cannot comply with EPA pollution standards by capping their own emissions. They say the upwind states’ pollution is pushing them into noncompliance.

The downwind states include Maryland and Virginia, both of which complain about pollution from West Virginia.

The rule is targeted primarily at nitrogen oxide, a pollutant blamed for producing ground level ozone.

Environmentalists say that without the restrictions in the good neighbor rule, nitrogen oxide emissions could cause 1,300 premature deaths per year from respiratory illnesses. The rule requires 23 upwind states to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by about 70,000 tons by the summer of 2026.

Much of the dispute focuses on whether the Environmental Protection Agency is exceeding its authority as a government agency by instituting regulations not specifically approved by Congress.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority in recent years has sought to restrain the regulatory power of agencies.

Chief Justice John Roberts appeared skeptical toward the EPA when he explained why the Supreme Court took the case on an emergency basis.

"In terms of why it's necessary to look at this here ... it's because EPA will not look at it until after the hundreds of millions of dollars of costs are incurred," Roberts said.

Corporations joining with the plaintiff states include U.S. Steel Corp. and Maryland-based oil and gas company Kinder Morgan Inc.

Lawyers for the plaintiff states call the EPA’s good neighbor rule “a disaster” in court filings.

Liberal Supreme Court justices seemed unconvinced a disaster would follow if the EPA proceeds with enforcing the good neighbor rule.

"I'm trying to understand what the emergency is that warrants Supreme Court intervention at this point," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said.

She suggested that a lower federal court decide issues in the case as they develop rather than granting the emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.

The case is Ohio v. EPA.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

Justice Dept. Tries to Protect Media with New Guidance for Investigations

The Justice Department announced new rules this month that federal investigators must follow if they want to seize journalists’ records.

The Justice Department’s “guidance” bars its investigators from secretly trying to seize or view information gathered by journalists for their reports except for four circumstances.

Prosecutors’ subpoenas are allowed only if the information is necessary to prevent a serious crime, if the journalists are suspects in a crime, if the records are public information or if the journalists consent.

The “Justice Manual” guidance says, “In determining whether to seek, when permitted by this policy, information from or records of members of the news media, the Department must consider several vital interests: protecting national security, ensuring public safety, promoting effective law enforcement and the fair administration of justice, and safeguarding the essential role of a free press in fostering Government accountability and an open society…”

The Justice Department developed the guidance as a response to alleged abuses under the Trump administration. Prosecutors and investigators were accused of spying on journalists or threatening them, not for crime-fighting but to protect themselves from bad press.

Federal investigators seized records from The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN and other news organizations.

In an apparent reference to past abuses, the Justice Manual says, “Because freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of members of the news media to investigate and report the news, the Department’s policy is intended to provide protection to members of the news media from certain law enforcement tools and actions, whether criminal or civil, that might unreasonably impair newsgathering.”

The guidance added, “The Department does not consider the ideology or viewpoint of a person or entity, or of its reporting, when determining whether that person or entity qualifies as a member of the news media for purposes of this Policy.”

A statement from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said the new guidance would help to protect the news media’s watchdog role in society.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

Nonprofits Say D.C. Police Respond Inappropriately to Mental Health Crises

The Justice Department says in a new report that District of Columbia police appear to violate a federal disability law when patrol officers respond to psychological crises rather than mental health professionals.

The Justice Department compiled the report in response to a lawsuit filed against the city by nonprofits Bread for the City and the American Civil Liberties Union of D.C.

“Plaintiff Bread for the City contends that Defendant the District of Columbia administers its emergency response system in a manner that discriminates against people with mental health disabilities, in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act … and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,” the lawsuit says.

A Washington Post investigation showed that between 2019 and 2021, police nationwide killed at least 178 people suffering mental health crises.

The lawsuit implies police often respond to emergencies inappropriately when it said the purpose of the 911 emergency call service “is to provide a timely and effective response to a wide range of emergencies, including mental health emergencies.”

As an example, the lawsuit says that “in the event of a physical health crisis, the District almost always sends its certified emergency medical technicians or paramedics to the scene. But in the event of a mental health emergency, the District routinely relies on police officers. It does so even though the officers’ primary role is to enforce the law, not to resolve mental health emergencies, and even though their responses to mental health emergencies are often harmful and ineffective.”

Bread for the City provides food, clothing and health care to low-income persons. The health care can include mental health counseling.

The nonprofit organization says it is diverting too much of its resources to psychological crises because the police responses can do more harm than good. The need is growing as high home prices push more people into homelessness, according to mental health professionals.

Bread for the City says Washington has certified psychological counselors who could help but that they are too few, poorly trained and lack coordination with emergency responders. Its lawsuit asks for a court order to compel the city to improve its mental health crisis service.

The Justice Department report largely agreed with Bread for the City and the ACLU’s allegations.

“People with mental health disabilities must have an equal opportunity to benefit from a city’s emergency response system,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke said in a statement accompanying the Justice Department report.

A court filing by the city said it is making progress in managing mental health crises but that any shortcomings would not be resolved by a lawsuit. The D.C. police union said “a police response is always necessary due to the inherent threat to the health and safety of the individual, those around them and the surrounding officers.”

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

Foreign Teacher Recruitment Firm Shut Down by D.C. Attorney General

The owner of foreign teacher recruitment firms was run out of business under a settlement announced last week by the District of Columbia’s attorney general.

In addition, Earl Francisco Lopez must pay restitution to 61 teachers who paid him money so they could teach in D.C. public schools.

He falsely claimed to be affiliated with the U.S. State Department while charging the teachers improperly high fees and failing to provide the promised services, according to the D.C. attorney general’s office.

Lopez operated several recruitment firms, including Bilingual Teacher Exchange, Ives Hall Consulting, Inc., and Bert Corona Leadership Institute, Inc.

He told the teachers he could arrange for them to teach foreign languages in American schools as part of a three-year U.S. State Department exchange program. Most of the teachers came from Colombia to teach Spanish.

“Instead of providing these educators with the help and support he promised, Mr. Lopez took advantage of them, overcharging them for services and threatening retribution if they complained,” D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb said in a statement.

The contracts the teachers signed said they could work in D.C. schools if they signed contracts with his companies. They were threatened with firing and deportation if they failed to make monthly payments, the attorney general said.?

They were promised training, professional development and other in-country support but never received it, the attorney general said.

One of the teachers who will receive compensation is Campo Elias Gutierrez Lara, an elementary school teacher originally from Colombia.

“I was told that I would have to pay hundreds of dollars in fees every month for three years,” he said. “After two years, I and other teachers realized something was not right with this situation.”

Under the settlement agreement, Lopez is permanently barred from recruiting teachers from overseas to come to the United States and from claiming he can help anyone with visas or employment. He also must pay at least $30,000 in fines.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.