In a new court filing, former Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss express interest in going after a Florida condominium owned by Trump ally Rudy Giuliani in the context of their successful defamation case against him. The case, which recently culminated in a jury awarding Freeman and Moss $148 million, was over the former New York City mayor’s role in spreading lies accusing the mother and daughter of involvement in non-existent election fraud in 2020.
In the filing, Freeman and Moss were seeking the opportunity from the presiding judge to immediately bring forth an actionable judgment from this case in other judicial jurisdictions where Giuliani might have significant assets, and they cited his Florida condo as an example. The property was also the subject of a reported lien originating with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over unpaid taxes on Giuliani’s part. He originally acquired the property alongside a now former wife, then taking sole possession. (As for the tax lien, a representative for Giuliani claimed an arrangement was established between the ex-mayor and federal authorities to deal with the debts.)
Freeman and Moss cited concerns including Giuliani’s history of brushing off obligations in this very case, including past court demands that he cover legal fees. “As reported in the press and confirmed by Plaintiffs’ initial investigation, Defendant Giuliani owns a condominium in the Southern District of Florida and a co-op in the Southern District of New York,” Freeman and Moss’ filing says. “As evidenced by discovery produced in this case, furthermore, Defendant Giuliani has various financial accounts at institutions located in the Southern District of New York. […] The presence of significant assets in other jurisdictions, coupled with the absence of assets in this District, is independently sufficient to establish good cause warranting leave to register the judgment in any other district immediately.”
Freeman and Moss also sued Giuliani a second time for his continued lies about them, seeking an injunction blocking him from continuing to make such statements. They said he refused the prospect of just agreeing to stop before they brought the new case.
