Election denier and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell continues to refuse to pay more than $50,000 in sanctions he has been ordered to pay to voting software company Smartmatic over “frivolous” election claims — alleging he’s left with no money after numerous legal battles.

“I’m in ruins,” a teary Lindell said through a Zoom screen during a motion hearing in the U.S. District Court in Washington on Wednesday, pleading to Judge Carl Nichols to allow him to wait until after the final judgement comes out to make any payment in the case, which he has already lost.

Last month, Smartmatic filed a motion to hold Lindell in contempt, alleging the MyPillow CEO has been dodging his court-ordered payment of $56,369 to Smartmatic for months.

Lindell, however, insisted that he does not have the means to pay the amount due to various financial difficulties he has suffered over the last few years due to what he again claimed was “lawfare” waged against him for trying to “secure the election.”

“I borrowed everything I can. Nobody will lend me any money anymore,” Lindell claimed. “I can’t turn back time … but I will tell you, I don’t have any money.”

Lindell claimed he was recently forced to lay off hundreds of MyPillow employees, lost multiple MyPillow warehouse units over the past two years and even owes millions of dollars to the IRS for what he described as a COVID-era employee retention credit.

He claimed he has “nothing” except for two houses, which he claimed are in the process of being liquidated, and a truck.

He even claimed he can no longer adhere to a previously proposed plan of making monthly installments of $5,000.

After listening through Lindell’s plight, Nichols acknowledged that these claims are “non-verifiable representation” at the moment and gave Lindell until Friday to file under seal financial statements and other documents to prove his claims.

“I have nothing to hide,” Lindell said as he agreed to do so and added he wants Smartmatic to see the financial situation he’s in as well.

Smartmatic’s attorney said his client would prefer to see the payment made in a lump sum as soon as possible but acknowledged he would respect the judge’s ruling.