Sign up for the daily Inside Washington email for exclusive US coverage and analysis sent to your inbox
Get our free Inside Washington email
Get our free Inside Washington email
Attorneys representing defamed election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss penned a sharp letter accusing Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, of instigating a concerted effort that aims to “obstruct and intimidate” them as they seek to recover the nearly $150 million in damages a court has ordered him to pay.
In a detailed letter sent on Friday to federal judge Michael Gottlieb, Freeman and Moss’s counsel criticized Giuliani for allegedly orchestrating a “public relations campaign” designed to thwart their legitimate efforts to collect what is rightfully owed to them following the defamation ruling.
The court made a landmark decision last December, concluding that Giuliani’s unfounded claims about the women manipulating the 2020 election results were defamatory, resulting in the hefty financial judgement against him. His subsequent filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy was dismissed, leaving him with limited options.
The mother-daughter duo has secured the legal right to seize Giuliani’s personal assets in order to recover their rightful compensation, which marks a significant milestone in their ongoing struggle for justice.
However, a series of court documents, including Giuliani’s appeals, point to a protracted legal conflict; the two women contend that the former mayor is intentionally trying to stall their quest to collect the assets ordered by the court.
The letter further highlighted that Giuliani’s newly appointed legal representative, along with his close allies, have been actively trying to undermine the judgment by launching attacks on the legitimacy of the court’s ruling.
Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani leaves the New York Federal Courthouse on November 7, 2024 in New York City. The pair of election workers that Giuliani defamed accuse him of launching a “public relations campaign” to hinder them from collecting his assets (Getty Images)
In his statements, Cammarata referred to the court-mandated turnover of Giuliani’s assets as a “seek and destroy mission of America’s mayor.”
“We will not relent,” he affirmed passionately. “They are doing everything they can to stop Mr. Giuliani from having a formidable defense. We are not going to allow it. . . This firm is doing everything in its power to break an 80-year-old patriot to its country, an American who did so many great things for us.”
The campaign, labeled as an alleged public relations maneuver, has spread through social media, with the hashtag “IStandWithRudy” gaining traction as supporters rallied behind Giuliani’s cause.
In a social media post signaling his dissent, Ted Goodman, Giuliani’s spokesperson—now entangled in this legal drama—employed the trending hashtag while urging Americans to protest against what he termed a “lawfare” campaign aimed at his client: “Shame on the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher for participating in this injustice. #IStandWithRudy.”
The owner of the Long Island storage facility, where it’s alleged Giuliani has concealed some of his belongings from his New York City residence, asserted on social media that “this is not going to happen. America has to come back real fast. Pray for Rudy Giuliani, today is his day.”
In the letter, Gottlieb expressed strong disapproval, stating, “The public relations campaign described above has no legal purpose — this is a turnover proceeding governed by facts and law, not a political campaign — and, instead, is an obvious attempt to obstruct and intimidate Receivers from effectuating the duties that this Court has authorized them to perform.”
Gottlieb also criticized the tactics employed by Giuliani’s legal team, accusing them of turning legal matters into media spectacles rather than addressing substantive issues that have previously been acknowledged in court.
Earlier this week, the election workers urged a DC judge who oversaw their initial defamation lawsuit to explore the possibility of sanctions against Giuliani, citing his repetitive dissemination of “the exact same lies for which [he] has already been held liable” in recent livestreamed appearances.
The judge has mandated Giuliani to respond to these complaints by December 2 or face the risk of contempt charges.
The women indicated they have successfully received a portion of Giuliani’s possessions, including 18 watches and a diamond ring, but are still awaiting nine additional watches and various pieces of “costume jewelry,” as mentioned in their recent letter.
While they currently have physical possession of Giuliani’s classic 1980 Mercedes-Benz, they have yet to obtain the official deed, title, or any signed documentation affirming their ownership of the vehicle, which complicates the collection efforts further.
The ongoing process of transferring Giuliani’s Manhattan penthouse has faced hurdles as well; key elements like access keys, stock shares, and underlying ownership documents have not yet been presented, purportedly leading to a stalemate in the transfer system.
Challenges persist with the penthouse still being co-owned with Giuliani’s ex-wife Judith, which complicates matters and prolongs the resolution phase.
Moreover, attorneys have voiced their frustrations about the difficulties in obtaining items stored within a facility in Ronkonkoma, New York, with uncertainty surrounding the specific contents and the process of how they can be turned over to the rightful parties.
Within that storage unit, indications suggest it contains eight boxes and over 20 pallets worth of belongings, alongside various furniture pieces. They have requested Giuliani to clearly separate personal property from items that belong to the election workers and provide a comprehensive list of those items by December 6.
It remains unclear if valuable memorabilia, including a Joe DiMaggio jersey and signed artwork that have been ordered to be returned, resides in that storage facility, as mentioned in their correspondence.
With a hearing set for November 26, the election workers have directed Giuliani to provide instructions detailing the locations of the demanded items before a deadline of 3 p.m. on November 25, or risk further legal repercussions, including contempt of court.
Invoices retrieved by the election workers indicate that prior to the court’s order, Giuliani had ostensibly relocated a considerable amount of his assets from his Manhattan apartment into the storage unit, which is under the name of his business associate Maria Ryan.
What are the key legal implications of the defamation case involving Rudy Giuliani?
**Interview with Legal Expert on Giuliani Defamation Case**
**Host:** Thank you for joining us today. We have a special guest, Professor Emily Roberts, a legal analyst who specializes in defamation cases and bankruptcy law. Welcome, Professor Roberts!
**Professor Roberts:** Thank you for having me!
**Host:** Let’s dive right into the situation regarding Rudy Giuliani and the defamation claims made by election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss. What are your thoughts on the court’s decision to award damages to these women?
**Professor Roberts:** It was a landmark decision. The court concluded that Giuliani’s accusations were indeed defamatory, and the hefty judgment reflects the serious nature of those claims. The financial ruling signifies the court’s recognition of the harm that can come from false allegations, especially in the highly charged context of a national election.
**Host:** Giuliani has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Given that his filing was dismissed, what does that mean for him financially and legally?
**Professor Roberts:** Dismissal of his bankruptcy filing means that Giuliani cannot use bankruptcy protections to shield himself from the liabilities stemming from this defamation case. This puts him in a precarious position, as the court has authorized the seizure of his personal assets to satisfy the judgment, significantly limiting his options to manage his debts.
**Host:** The letter from Freeman and Moss’s attorneys states that Giuliani is trying to obstruct their efforts to retrieve the awarded damages. What strategies do you think they may be employing?
**Professor Roberts:** Based on the reports, it seems that Giuliani’s legal team is engaging in tactics that could delay the process, such as questioning the legitimacy of the court’s rulings and possibly attempting to shift the narrative into the public sphere, branding it as a “lawfare” campaign. Such moves can create confusion and debate in public opinion, which sometimes influences legal proceedings indirectly.
**Host:** There seems to be a push from Giuliani’s supporters on social media. How does public sentiment play into legal matters like this?
**Professor Roberts:** Public sentiment can certainly add pressure on legal proceedings, though it should ideally have no bearing on the facts of the case itself. Social media campaigns can influence public perception, potentially impacting jury pools or even motivating appeals based on public outrage or support. However, courts are expected to remain impartial and rule based on the law and evidence presented before them.
**Host:** The court has mandated Giuliani respond to complaints by December 2 or risk contempt charges. What are the implications of contempt charges in this scenario?
**Professor Roberts:** If found in contempt, Giuliani could face penalties that might include fines or even jail time, depending on the severity of the non-compliance. This adds a layer of urgency to his situation, as it could further complicate his ability to manage his legal and financial issues. It signals that the court is serious about enforcing its rulings.
**Host:** The election workers stated they have received some of Giuliani’s possessions but are still awaiting others. What does the asset recovery process typically look like in these cases?
**Professor Roberts:** The asset recovery process can be complex, especially when it involves high-profile individuals. Typically, receivers or legal representatives will inventory and evaluate the assets. In cases of defamation where financial compensation is owed, this process involves the legal retrieval of specified items to satisfy the judgment. If there are disputes over the ownership or valuation of assets, these can lead to additional legal battles extending the overall timeline.
**Host:** Thank you, Professor Roberts, for your insights on this ongoing legal situation. We appreciate your expertise.
**Professor Roberts:** Thank you for having me! It will be interesting to see how this case progresses.
**Host:** And thank you to our viewers for tuning in. Stay updated for more developments on this case and others in our ongoing coverage.
