Members of then President Donald Trump’s legal team, including former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani, left, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis, speaking, attend a news conference at the Republican National Committee headquarters, Thursday Nov. 19, 2020, in Washington (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin).
Defamed election workers in Georgia are still brawling with Rudy Giuliani in court as they attempt to collect as much of their $148 million judgment as possible in property, including $2 million in “never paid” legal fees stemming from Giuliani’s ill-fated 2020 election lawyering for Donald Trump and his campaign.
Lead plaintiff Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss in August asked a federal court to order Giuliani to “turn over personal property in his possession” and to appoint them as “receivers with the power to take possession of, and sell, both real and personal property that Mr. Giuliani does not turn over,” like his New York apartment and his Florida condo.
At the time, Freeman and Moss cited Giuliani’s under oath testimony in his since dismissed bankruptcy case that he was “owed ‘about two million dollars’ by the Trump 2020 Presidential Campaign (the ‘Trump 2020 Campaign’) and/or the Republican National Committee for his work following the 2020 presidential election.” They demanded that the fee claim be turned over to them.
Left: Shaye Moss. Right: Ruby Freeman, during Jan. 6 Committee testimony (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File).
Giuliani responded in early October that he was concerned about timing — so close to the 2024 election — and optics.
“The Court, in its discretion, should postpone a turnover of this claim until November 6, 2024, the day after Election Day,” Giuliani requested, later warning that the media would make it seem like he had turned on Trump.
“Plaintiffs will or may use this assignment for an improper, political (or, at least, collateral) purpose, creating the confusing, and inaccurate, appearance that Defendant is now somehow suing candidate Trump, thereby generating an accompanying, and unnecessary, media frenzy,” his opposition filing argued. “Plainly, the value of this claim will not depreciate between now and November 6, 2024.”
On Friday, Freeman and Moss replied that there was “no merit” to Giuliani’s concerns about timing and appearances. The plaintiffs, therefore, demanded that Giuliani’s “control over this legal claim should be severed immediately.”
“There is no merit to Defendant’s objection. The ‘appearance’ that a judgment debtor is seeking repayment of an outstanding debt for the benefit of creditors is not a meaningful reason to withhold relief under CPLR § 5225 or §5228, and Mr. Giuliani cites no authority to the contrary,” the plaintiffs said. “If anything, Mr. Giuliani’s unwillingness to appear adverse to former President Trump or his campaign further underscores that Mr. Giuliani cannot be trusted to monetize or even preserve the value of this claim for his creditors.”
Freeman and Moss added that it will be “abundantly clear” who is suing whom.
“In any litigation with respect to the Legal Fee Claim—including in the event any such litigation is commenced prior to November 6, 2024—Plaintiffs would bring such litigation in their capacity as receivers for, or as assignees of, Mr. Giuliani’s interest in the claim, and would make that status abundantly clear both in the case caption and in the body of any complaint,” the filing said. “No reasonable observer would misinterpret such a filing as a suit by Mr. Giuliani against former President Trump, the 2020 Trump Campaign, or any other party.”
The Trump legal claim aside, plaintiffs are apparently open to the idea that neither New York Yankees World Series rings nor a watch that belonged to Giuliani’s grandfather will be subject to collection.
As Law&Crime noted recently, Giuliani’s son Andrew Giuliani filed documents claiming that the rings are his and have been since 2018, when his father gifted them to him.
Freeman and Moss are asking the judge to let discovery play out and for the younger Giuliani to sit for a deposition on the rings, perhaps ahead of November, before a ruling is issued on “turnover or receivership.”
The plaintiffs are taking a similar approach with Giuliani’s grandfather’s watch.
“As a gesture of good faith, Plaintiffs are prepared to recognize that exemption with respect to Mr. Giuliani’s grandfather’s watch, if he is able to produce satisfactory evidence showing that the watch”s value does not exceed the $1,000 exemption limit,” the filing said. “If ongoing negotiations do not resolve this issue, the Court should order that the watch be taken into receivership pending Mr. Giuliani’s production of such satisfactory evidence of value.”
Could all of this largely end up being much ado about nothing? In the words of the plaintiffs, maybe [emphasis ours]:
On October 15, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a consent letter motion, apprising the Court that Plaintiffs and Defendant are discussing a proposal that may, if successful, moot any remaining disputes raised in Defendant’s opposition to the Motion to Enforce Judgment. Those negotiations are ongoing, and by filing their reply brief today, Plaintiffs do not intend to convey to the Court that the negotiations referred to in their prior letter-motion have concluded without success; instead, Plaintiffs have filed their reply brief in support of the Motion to Enforce Judgment consistent with the Court’s deadline of October 19, 2024. Plaintiffs will file a status report by the end of the day on October 22, 2024, updating the Court of the status of those negotiations.
Giuliani’s camp has said that the judgment enforcement action was designed to “censor and bully” him and to “harass and intimidate” from exercising his First Amendment rights.
Read the reply in support of enforcing the judgment here.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
