Former Georgia Election Workers Say Giuliani Not Complying With Asset

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Former Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani is failing to comply with a judge’s order requiring him to turn over his assets to the former Georgia election workers who won a nearly $150 million defamation judgment against him, an attorney for the workers said on Nov. 4.

Attorney Aaron Nathan told the Southern District of New York Judge Lewis Liman that Giuliani wasn’t communicating where his property was located.

Representatives of the former workers—a mother-daughter pair Wandrea Moss and Ruby Freeman—visited Giuliani’s Manhattan co-op apartment and found it, with some exceptions, “emptied of all of its contents,” including the “vast majority” of valuable property ordered to be turned over.

“Defendant has yet to reveal where the vast majority of the receivership property is actually located, despite repeated requests to his counsel,” Nathan said in his Nov. 4 letter.

“That includes all of the sports memorabilia, jewelry, furniture, and—with the two exceptions noted above—all of the other personal property listed in the Turnover and Receivership Order.”

Judge Liman had set up a receivership, or legal arrangement for managing the property, on Oct. 22 while ordering Giuliani to hand over many high-dollar items.

That included shares in his Manhattan co-op apartment, various furniture and watches, and a Mercedes Benz.

“Defendant’s counsel has indicated that the Mercedes automobile is located in Florida, but has not said where it is garaged,” Nathan said.

Kenneth Caruso and David Labkowski, both attorneys representing Giuliani, did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment before publication.

Nathan also submitted emails showing Labkowski’s response to concerns about Giuliani’s property.

Regarding the Manhattan co-op, Labkowski said: “We have made inquiries; it is our understanding that no property was removed in violation of any restraining order.”

He added that counsel for the co-op said it was owned by both Giuliani and his ex-wife Judith.

“The co-op therefore asked us for a copy of the divorce decree, which gave Mr. Giuliani sole possession of the apartment,” Labkowski said. “We are working on this now.”

Regarding the Mercedes, Labkowski said: “We will have our client sign documents transferring title, and then give you the keys.”

Judge Liman responded to Nathan’s letter on Nov. 5 by ordering that a status conference previously scheduled for Nov. 7 take place in person rather than over the phone.

Caruso followed by asking Judge Liman on Nov. 5 to revert back to telephone format. He stated that Giuliani had to be in Florida before a radio broadcast on that date.

Nathan’s letter said that: “If defendant does not begin to comply fully and promptly with the receivers’ requests under the turnover and receivership order, the receivers are prepared to seek relief under the terms of that order.”

It’s unclear what will happen to Giuliani’s Palm Beach condo, which Judge Liman refrained from ordering Giuliani to surrender pending litigation.

Part of Judge Liman’s Oct. 22 order required Giuliani to turn over non-exempt cash in Citibank checking accounts.

Nathan said that Giuliani revealed his Citibank accounts had “only $3,907.99 in non-exempt funds” and that statements showed “five-figure transfers of funds” from one of the accounts in July and August.

Labkowski said in his Nov. 1 email that Giuliani’s Citibank account had been frozen and suggested that Nathan “send Judge Liman’s order to the bank and execute on it accordingly.

“We don’t think that Citibank will allow Mr. Giuliani to make wire transfers, given that the account is frozen.”

Freeman and Moss filed for Giuliani’s assets on Aug. 30 following the dismissal of his bankruptcy case in New York.

Giuliani spokesperson Ted Goodman previously criticized the filing as a step “designed to harass and intimidate the mayor” while he’s appealing the “objectively unreasonable” judgment.

“This lawsuit has always been designed to censor and bully the mayor and to deter others from exercising their right to speak up and to speak out,” Goodman said.

A jury awarded Moss and Freeman nearly $150 million in December—an amount that Giuliani called “absurd.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.