Defamed Election Workers by Rudy Giuliani Seek Judgment, Ask Court to Seize Property

Two election workers have taken legal action to enforce a significant judgment against Rudy Giuliani, asking a federal court in Manhattan to require the former mayor to relinquish control over his cash accounts, jewelry, and ownership of a luxury apartment on Madison Avenue.

A jury found in December that Giuliani should compensate Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Shaye Moss, approximately $148 million for defaming them. He falsely accused them of tampering with ballot boxes in Georgia during the 2020 presidential election, leading to emotional distress for both women. The Washington D.C. court that handled the case finalized a judgment of about $146 million, adjusting the damages and including legal fees.

After the ruling, Giuliani filed for bankruptcy, which temporarily hindered Freeman and Moss from collecting the awarded amount. However, he later requested the dismissal of that bankruptcy case, which a New York court granted in July. This ruling allows Giuliani to appeal the substantial judgment while simultaneously enabling Freeman and Moss to seek compensation.

In a court filing on Friday, the attorneys representing Freeman and Moss requested an order compelling Giuliani to surrender several assets. This includes his cash accounts, jewelry, legal claims for unpaid legal fees, and his stake in his luxury co-op apartment on Madison Avenue.

The legal team for Giuliani did not respond promptly to requests for comments regarding this development.

Additionally, Freeman and Moss have sought control over a luxury apartment located in Palm Beach, Florida. They believe that having authoritative control over this property will help them maximize its value. This measure is intended to prevent Giuliani from damaging the apartment’s worth and to allow the women to enlist a qualified broker to market it effectively.

The bankruptcy judge overseeing Giuliani’s case criticized him for failing to fulfill requirements to disclose his financial status. The judge noted that Giuliani appeared to be redirecting his income to corporate entities. The attorneys for Freeman and Moss pointed to his conduct during the bankruptcy proceedings as further justification for needing the court’s intervention.

In their Friday request, they stated, “At every step, Mr. Giuliani has chosen evasion, obstruction, and outright disobedience. That strategy reaches the end of the line here.” They argue that Giuliani’s behavior throughout these proceedings has demonstrated a consistent pattern of delaying justice.

The ongoing legal measures reflect the complexities involved in securing compensation for the damages suffered by Freeman and Moss due to Giuliani’s actions. As they continue their pursuit, it remains to be seen how the court will respond to their requests.

This case serves to highlight the consequences of defamation in the public sphere, particularly surrounding issues as significant as election integrity. The actions of Giuliani, a notable political figure, have not only put him in the spotlight legally but have also affected the lives of ordinary citizens who were unfairly targeted by his claims.

The outcome of this request may change the landscape of how such cases are handled in the future, especially in the wake of the rise of misinformation and the impact it can have on individuals and communities alike.

Source: USA TODAY