Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss Push to Seize Giuliani’s Assets Amid $148 Million Defamation Judgment

Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, former election workers in Georgia, are continuing their legal efforts to enforce a $148 million judgment against Rudy Giuliani. As part of their strategy to recover what they are owed, the plaintiffs are pursuing various assets held by Giuliani, including an alleged $2 million claim against Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign. The plaintiffs argue that Giuliani, who played a key role in spreading falsehoods about the 2020 election results, owes them damages after his statements defamed their reputations.

In August, Freeman and Moss requested that a federal court compel Giuliani to turn over his personal property, including real estate in New York and Florida, to help satisfy the judgment. Additionally, they sought appointment as legal receivers with the authority to assume control over any assets Giuliani does not voluntarily surrender. Among the assets of interest is Giuliani’s unpaid claim for legal fees he claims to be owed by Trump’s 2020 campaign and the Republican National Committee. Giuliani testified in a prior bankruptcy hearing that these unpaid legal fees amounted to about $2 million.

Freeman and Moss argue that Giuliani’s hesitancy to collect this debt himself raises serious concerns. They contend that his reluctance stems from a desire to avoid creating any perception of conflict between him and Trump, a potential political liability as the 2024 presidential election approaches. Giuliani, in response, filed objections earlier in October, arguing that the court should delay any transfer of his legal claim until after Election Day on November 6, 2024. He expressed concern that the move might generate misleading media coverage, suggesting he had turned against Trump. Giuliani warned that such coverage could have political consequences and argued that there would be no financial harm in delaying the transfer since the claim’s value would remain stable until after the election.

Freeman and Moss, however, dismiss these arguments, asserting that Giuliani’s timing concerns are irrelevant and his objections are without legal merit. They argue that the assignment of a debt claim to creditors is a routine legal matter and does not imply any political betrayal or shift in loyalty. Furthermore, the plaintiffs assert that Giuliani’s unwillingness to act against Trump underscores his unreliability in managing the legal claim effectively. They emphasize that any lawsuit to recover the unpaid fees would be filed clearly in their capacity as receivers or assignees of Giuliani’s interests, leaving no room for confusion about who is suing whom.

The legal battle extends beyond Giuliani’s financial claim against the Trump campaign. Freeman and Moss are also seeking other assets, including memorabilia such as World Series rings allegedly given to Giuliani’s son, Andrew Giuliani, and a watch that belonged to Giuliani’s grandfather. While Andrew Giuliani has filed documents asserting that the rings have been his property since 2018, Freeman and Moss are pressing for further discovery. They have requested that Andrew sit for a deposition to clarify ownership of the rings before any court decision on asset turnover or receivership.

KEEP READING: Judicial Showdown: Gachagua Fights Back Against Impeachment Moves

Regarding the grandfather’s watch, Freeman and Moss have expressed a willingness to exempt it from collection if Giuliani can demonstrate that its value does not exceed $1,000. The plaintiffs indicated they are open to a resolution through negotiation but will seek the court’s intervention if necessary. Should Giuliani fail to provide sufficient evidence about the watch’s value, they have asked the court to place it under receivership pending further verification.

While Giuliani’s legal team has framed the plaintiffs’ actions as harassment, claiming the enforcement attempts aim to intimidate him into silence, Freeman and Moss have maintained their focus on enforcing the judgment through legal means. Both sides are currently involved in ongoing negotiations that could potentially resolve the dispute. However, Freeman and Moss filed a reply brief by the court’s October 19, 2024, deadline to ensure that their motion to enforce the judgment remains active. A status update on the negotiations is expected to be filed by October 22, 2024.

Freeman and Moss’s legal campaign against Giuliani stems from the severe personal and professional harm they suffered following the 2020 presidential election. They became targets of unfounded conspiracy theories propagated by Giuliani and other allies of Trump, who falsely accused them of participating in election fraud in Georgia. These accusations, which were widely circulated, led to harassment, threats, and emotional distress for the two women. In their lawsuit, Freeman and Moss successfully argued that Giuliani’s defamatory statements were made with reckless disregard for the truth, resulting in the significant damages awarded to them.

The legal fee dispute between Giuliani and Trump’s campaign illustrates the financial strain Giuliani faces as he grapples with multiple legal challenges. Having once been a prominent figure in Trump’s inner circle, Giuliani now finds himself burdened by mounting legal bills and dwindling resources. His strained finances became public during a bankruptcy case that was eventually dismissed, but not before revealing that Giuliani claimed to be owed millions in unpaid legal fees.

The outcome of the ongoing legal proceedings will likely determine how much of the judgment Freeman and Moss can ultimately recover. If they succeed in securing Giuliani’s legal fee claim against the Trump campaign, it could provide them with a valuable asset to help satisfy the $148 million judgment. Conversely, if the negotiations between the parties yield a mutually acceptable agreement, the immediate legal wrangling may be rendered moot.

The case also highlights the broader fallout from the 2020 election and the efforts of Trump’s allies to challenge its results. Giuliani’s role in advancing baseless claims of election fraud not only damaged the reputations of individuals like Freeman and Moss but also contributed to legal challenges that continue to reverberate years later. As the 2024 election looms, the legal battles surrounding these events remain a potent reminder of the contentious aftermath of the previous election cycle.

At the heart of Freeman and Moss’s pursuit of the judgment is a determination to hold Giuliani accountable for the harm his false claims inflicted on them. Their lawsuit serves as a high-profile example of the consequences of spreading misinformation and defaming individuals involved in the electoral process. The plaintiffs have expressed confidence that they will ultimately prevail in securing what they are owed, regardless of Giuliani’s objections or any media narratives that may emerge along the way.

KEEP READING: Police Raid Counterfeit Alcohol Depot in Nyandarua

Giuliani’s request to delay the turnover of his legal fee claim underscores his concern about the political implications of the dispute. However, Freeman and Moss have made it clear that they view the matter as a straightforward enforcement of a legal judgment, not a political maneuver. They argue that Giuliani’s financial claim against the Trump campaign is simply one of many assets they are entitled to pursue as part of their effort to collect the damages awarded to them.

The judge overseeing the case will need to weigh the plaintiffs’ right to enforce the judgment against Giuliani’s concerns about timing and optics. If the court sides with Freeman and Moss, they could gain control over Giuliani’s claim against the Trump campaign, potentially forcing a legal confrontation that Giuliani had hoped to avoid. On the other hand, if the ongoing negotiations between the parties result in a resolution, the case could conclude without further public disputes over asset turnover.

As Freeman and Moss continue their legal campaign, they remain focused on achieving accountability and justice. Their efforts reflect a broader push to address the consequences of false claims and ensure that those who spread harmful misinformation are held responsible for their actions. Whether through legal proceedings, asset recovery, or negotiated agreements, Freeman and Moss are determined to see their judgment enforced and their reputations restored.