A federal judge issued a stern warning on Thursday, indicating that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani could face civil contempt charges if he fails to comply with an order to surrender his assets to two former Georgia election workers. These workers, Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, won a staggering $148 million in a defamation lawsuit against him.
The assets at stake include an upscale $5 million condominium in Manhattan, a vintage 1980 Mercedes-Benz that once belonged to Hollywood icon Lauren Bacall, a signed jersey from baseball great Joe DiMaggio, as well as several cash accounts that could significantly aid the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs have publicly shared that they received distressing death threats and endured severe reputational damage after Giuliani falsely accused them of engaging in ballot fraud during the highly contentious 2020 presidential election campaign led by Donald Trump.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman set a deadline for Giuliani to transfer the identified assets by October 29. However, representatives for Freeman and Moss discovered last week that Giuliani’s apartment had been cleared of most belongings, including valuable art and treasured sports memorabilia, four weeks prior to their visit. Some of the items were reportedly stored in a facility on Long Island, raising further questions about Giuliani’s compliance with the court order.
During the court session on Thursday, Judge Liman explicitly cautioned Giuliani that the women would likely seek contempt charges against him if he continues to ignore the court’s directive to surrender his property. He stated, “He’s not going to be in contempt if he’s made efforts and it’s impossible to comply with the order,” outlining the conditions under which Giuliani would be judged.
Giuliani, who previously filed for bankruptcy following the multimillion-dollar judgment against him, saw his case dismissed when a federal judge ruled that he failed to provide a transparent overview of his financial situation. This dismissal has paved the way for his creditors, including the election workers, to pursue claims against him to recover owed amounts.
Aaron Nathan, representing Freeman and Moss, voiced concerns in court regarding Giuliani’s obstructive behavior, claiming that any attempts to retrieve his assets have been met with “delay and then evasion.” He alleged that Giuliani has been maneuvering his assets and even opening new bank accounts to evade compliance.
In response, Giuliani expressed frustration, stating in court that he felt he had been “treated rudely” by representatives involved in the asset retrieval process, further illustrating the contentious atmosphere surrounding the proceedings.
Giuliani’s legal team has made unsuccessful attempts to argue that their client should not be compelled to surrender his assets while he appeals the costly judgment against him. “Every bit of property that they want is available if they are entitled to it,” he claimed to reporters after the court session. He further lamented that certain personal items, such as his 150-year-old grandfather’s watch, should not be subject to seizure, likening his situation to what he termed “political persecution.”
At 80 years old, Giuliani, once celebrated for his leadership, now faces the harsh reality of being disbarred in both New York and Washington, a significant fall from grace that adds to the legal and personal turmoil surrounding this high-profile case.
**Interview with Legal Expert Jane Doe on Giuliani’s Defamation Case**
**Host:** Welcome to our program! Today, we have legal expert Jane Doe to discuss the recent developments in Rudy Giuliani’s defamation case involving former Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss. Thank you for joining us, Jane.
**Jane Doe:** Thank you for having me!
**Host:** So, Jane, a federal judge has issued a stern warning to Giuliani regarding his assets. Can you explain the significance of this order?
**Jane Doe:** Absolutely. This order is crucial because it reinforces that Giuliani is legally obligated to surrender his assets to Freeman and Moss following their successful defamation lawsuit. The judge has laid down a clear deadline for him to comply, which underscores the seriousness of the situation.
**Host:** The judge has warned Giuliani he could face civil contempt charges. What implications would that have?
**Jane Doe:** Civil contempt charges could lead to significant penalties, including fines or even jail time. It’s a way for the court to ensure compliance with its orders. If Giuliani continues to disregard the court’s directive, it signals to others that ignoring court orders can have severe consequences.
**Host:** We’ve heard that Giuliani’s assets include quite a few valuable items. What impact do these assets have on the case?
**Jane Doe:** The assets in question—such as the luxury condo and memorabilia—are not just material possessions; they represent the financial compensation awarded to Freeman and Moss for the harm caused by Giuliani’s defamatory statements. The fact that some items have reportedly been moved raises serious concerns about his intentions. If found to be hiding or mismanaging assets, it could further complicate his legal situation.
**Host:** The plaintiffs have claimed they received death threats and faced reputational damage. How does this factor into their lawsuit?
**Jane Doe:** The emotional and psychological impact of Giuliani’s actions is significant. In defamation cases, not only are monetary damages considered, but also the distress and harm suffered by the victims. Freeman and Moss’s experiences reinforce the damaging effects of misinformation, especially during a politically charged atmosphere like the 2020 election.
**Host:** Judge Liman mentioned that Giuliani could avoid contempt if he makes a reasonable effort to comply. Do you think there’s a chance he can still meet the court’s requirements?
**Jane Doe:** It’s difficult to say. Giuliani’s previous actions—clearing out his apartment and possibly hiding assets—cast doubt on whether he’s truly attempting to comply. However, if he can demonstrate a legitimate reason for his non-compliance, that might sway the court in his favor. Time will tell if he can meet the deadline by October 29.
**Host:** Thank you, Jane, for sharing your insights on this complex case. We appreciate your expertise.
**Jane Doe:** Thank you for having me! It’s always a pleasure to discuss important legal matters.
**Host:** And that wraps up our interview. Stay tuned for more updates on this story and other current events.