The judge overseeing Rudy Giuliani's bankruptcy case said he was “disturbed” so little progress has been made in sorting out his finances, and refused Tuesday to lift a legal barrier that has kept the former New York City mayor from appealing a $148 million defamation judgment.
Giuliani declared bankruptc y in December after he was ordered to pay the staggering sum to two former election workers for spreading a false conspiracy theory about their role in the 2020 election.
Since then, Giuliani has missed deadlines to file financial disclosure reports. He hasn't succeeded in selling residences in New York and Florida. Last week, he was suspended from WABC Radio, where he had a daily show, over what the station called his repeated violation of a ban on discussing discredited 2020 election claims.
“They have done nothing. They sold nothing. They settled nothing," said Rachel Strickland, an attorney representing the election workers. She accused Giuliani of getting fired on purpose by “deliberately flouting his employer’s restrictions.”
“I agree with you,” U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane responded. “And I am disturbed about the status of this case."
Attorneys for Giuliani said he has additional work lined up to bring in money, though they didn't say what kind of work that was. Giuliani's Manhattan apartment could soon be liquidated, they said. His attorneys said issues have been ironed out and necessary financial filings will also be made. Giuliani faces accusations from a slew of people who say he potentially owes them money.
“They finally have, I think, gotten things on track,” said his lawyer, Heath Berger.
The judge rejected a request from Giuliani, though, to lift an automatic stay so that he could pursue post-judgment litigation in the defamation case. Creditors' lawyers argued that doing so would delay the bankruptcy proceeding.
Lane also addressed a request from lawyers for the election workers that Giuliani be barred from making additional defamatory statements against them. While holding off on a decision, Lane said there was already a court decision on the matter and he was "not going to let this court be used as a place where parties can flout the requirements of the law.”
“Tell your client to stop," Lane told lawyers for Giuliani. "It's not complicated.”
Lawyers will meet with the judge again on Thursday to discuss the issue.
FILE - Former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani speaks during a news conference outside the federal courthouse in Washington, Dec. 15, 2023. A New York bankruptcy judge rejected Giuliani's request to pursue an appeal of a $148 million defamation judgment for spreading lies about the the 2020 election and said he was “disturbed” by the lack of progress in the five-month-old case on Tuesday, May 14, 2024. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
PHOENIX (AP) — A judge on Friday rejected an effort by GOP lawmakers to use the term “unborn human being” to refer to a fetus in the pamphlet that Arizona voters will use to weigh a ballot measure that would expand abortion access in the state.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Whitten said the wording the legislative council suggested is “packed with emotion and partisan meaning” and asked for what he called more “neutral” language. The measure aims to expand abortion access from 15 weeks to 24 weeks – the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb.
It would allow exemptions to save the woman’s life or to protect her physical or mental health. It would also prevent the state from adopting or enforcing laws that would forbid access to the procedure.
Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma, who is a co-chair of the legislative council, said the group will appeal the court’s decision to the state Supreme Court.
“The ruling is just plain wrong and clearly partisan,” said Toma, a Republican.
The State Supreme Court has until Aug. 27 to rule on the appeal for the language to be changed.
Aaron Thacker, communications director for Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, noted that the final decision on the ballot itself remains in the air.
“There’s still a lot of scenarios at play," he said. "Even after the secretary certifies the signatures, the courts have to decide if counties can put it on the ballot or not."
Arizona for Abortion Access, the organization leading the ballot measure campaign, sued the council earlier this month over the suggested language and advocated for the term “fetus,” which the council rejected.
Attorney General Kris Mayes wrote in a motion to submit an amicus brief that “fetus" and “pregnancy” are both neutral terms that the council could adopt.
“It’s incredibly important to us that Arizona voters get to learn more about and weigh our measure in objective and accurate terminology,” said Dawn Penich, communications director for the abortion access group.
Democrats have centered abortion rights in their campaigns in this year’s elections. Organizers in five other states have also proposed similar measures that would codify abortion access in their state constitutions: Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Nevada and South Dakota.
Arizona organizers submitted more than double the amount of signatures needed for the measure to appear on the ballot.
FILE - Arizona abortion-rights supporters deliver over 800,000 petition signatures to the capitol to get abortion rights on the November general election ballot July 3, 2024, in Phoenix. A judge on Friday, July 26, rejected an effort by GOP lawmakers to use the term “unborn human being” to refer to a fetus in the pamphlet that Arizona voters will use to decide on a ballot measure that would expand abortion access in the state. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File)
