Rudy Giuliani Surrenders Luxury Watches and Mercedes in Defamation Lawsuit, Attorney Reports

Rudy Giuliani Surrenders Assets Following Defamation Judgment

In a significant turn of events, Rudy Giuliani has surrendered a collection of luxury items, including dozens of watches and a vintage Mercedes-Benz once owned by Hollywood icon Lauren Bacall, to two former Georgia election workers. This action comes in the wake of a staggering $148 million defamation judgment awarded to Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, after Giuliani falsely accused them of election fraud during the tumultuous 2020 presidential campaign.

The Surrender of Assets

According to a letter filed by Giuliani’s attorney, Joseph Cammarata, the luxury watches and a ring were shipped via FedEx to a bank in Atlanta, Georgia. The Mercedes-Benz SL 500, a classic model from 1980, was delivered to an undisclosed location in Hialeah, Florida. In addition to these items, an undisclosed amount of funds from Giuliani’s Citibank accounts was also turned over to Freeman and Moss.

Cammarata expressed concerns regarding the legality of the asset surrender, particularly the Mercedes. He argued that the vehicle should have been appraised before being handed over, asserting that if its value is determined to be less than $5,500, it should be exempt from the judgment under existing laws. If the appraisal reveals a higher value, Cammarata suggested that the car should be auctioned, with the proceeds partially benefiting Freeman and Moss.

Legal Arguments and Exemptions

Cammarata’s letter outlined a broader argument regarding the exemption of Giuliani’s possessions from the judgment. He claimed that various items, including clothing, household furniture, and even a signed shirt from New York Yankees legend Joe DiMaggio, should be exempt under New York and Florida law. The letter highlighted legal protections for jewelry valued under $1,325 and for "tools of trade," which include professional instruments and library items not exceeding $4,075 in value.

This legal maneuvering underscores the complexities involved in asset forfeiture and the protections available to individuals facing significant financial judgments. Cammarata emphasized that the enforcement of these assets must adhere to legal standards to protect Giuliani’s rights.

Giuliani’s Response and Political Context

Giuliani’s legal team has painted him as a victim of political persecution, asserting that the recent elections demonstrate a public fatigue with what they describe as "witch-hunts" and unjust legal actions. Cammarata’s correspondence included a call to delay Giuliani’s upcoming trial concerning the disposition of his assets, citing a desire for him to attend President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Giuliani himself has remained vocal about his situation, claiming that the judgment against him is absurd and indicative of a broader political vendetta. He has expressed confidence in his ability to appeal the decision and reclaim his possessions, asserting that the judgment is widely viewed as excessive.

The Impact on Freeman and Moss

Freeman and Moss, the recipients of the judgment, have faced severe repercussions due to Giuliani’s defamatory statements. Following the accusations, they reported receiving death threats and enduring significant personal distress. The judgment awarded to them is a reflection of the serious consequences that can arise from false claims, particularly in the politically charged atmosphere surrounding the 2020 election.

Representatives for Freeman and Moss noted that Giuliani’s Manhattan apartment had been cleared out well before the deadline for asset surrender, raising questions about the extent of his compliance with the court’s orders.

Conclusion

The unfolding saga of Rudy Giuliani’s asset surrender highlights the intersection of law, politics, and personal accountability in the wake of the 2020 election. As the legal battles continue, the implications for Giuliani, Freeman, and Moss serve as a reminder of the profound impact that public figures can have on individual lives and the legal system’s role in addressing grievances. The case remains a focal point in discussions about defamation, political discourse, and the responsibilities of public figures in the age of misinformation.