The filing listed his New York apartment, Florida condo, and Mercedes Benz Model SL500.
The two Georgia election workers who sued Rudy Giuliani are asking a federal judge to grant them control over his assets after winning a $146 million defamation judgment against him in December.
An Aug. 30 filing in the Southern District of New York showed mother and daughter Ruby Freeman and Wandrea Moss naming Giuliani’s Florida condo, New York apartment, and various other assets, including numerous watches and his Mercedes SL500.
“Now that Mr. Giuliani’s bankruptcy case has been dismissed, Plaintiffs are finally in a position to receive a measure of compensation by enforcing their judgment,” the filing read.
“In this motion, Plaintiffs seek two remedies to which they are entitled under New York law: an order requiring Mr. Giuliani to turn over personal property in his possession in satisfaction of the judgment, and an order appointing Plaintiffs as receivers with the power to take possession of, and sell, both real and personal property that Mr. Giuliani does not turn over.”
Other items listed included sports memorabilia (a signed Yankee Stadium picture, Joe DiMaggio shirt, and Reggie Jackson picture), a diamond ring, and three Yankee World Series Rings. Giuliani, one of former President Donald Trump’s attorneys during the 2020 election fallout, served as New York City’s mayor during the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
In total, the two women are looking to collect assets valued at just a fraction (around $10 million) of what they were awarded by a jury in Washington.
Giuliani accused the women of mishandling ballots after a video clip surfaced of them pulling ballots out of large containers from under the tables after observers had gone. An investigation by the Georgia Elections Board cleared Freeman and Moss of wrongdoing, but mother and daughter said the damage had been done.
Prior Legal Battles
Giuliani spokesperson Ted Goodman criticized the filing as a step “designed to harass and intimidate the mayor” while he’s appealing the “objectively unreasonable” judgment.
By Sam Dorman
