Ruby Freeman And Shaye Moss Win Right To Collect Giuliani’s Unpaid Legal Bills From Trump Campaign – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Alex
Wong/Getty
Images)

Rudy
Giuliani
is
the
gift
that
keeps
on
giving
for
Donald
Trump.
After
steering
him
into
two
separate
impeachments
and
failing
to
overturn
the
2020
election,
America’s
erstwhile
Mayor
has
just
saddled
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
Republican
National
Committee
with
a
collections
action
by
former
Atlanta
poll
workers
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss.


Karma’s
a
bitch,
man.

In
2020,
Giuliani
smeared
Freeman
and
Moss,
falsely
claiming
that
they
had
stolen
the
election
from
Trump
in
Georgia
by
tabulating
fraudulent
ballots.
Trump
himself
named
Freeman,
whom
he
described
as
a
“professional
vote
scammer,”
18
times
in
his
infamous
call
to
Georgia
Secretary
of
State
Brad
Raffensperger.

In
2021,
the
pair
sued
for
defamation,
and
the
following
year
Judge
Beryl
Howell
granted
them
a
default
judgment,
thanks
to
Rudy’s
complete
failure
to
comply
with
his
discovery
obligations.
A
jury
awarded
the
plaintiffs
$148
million,
after
which
Rudy
stumbled
into
and
out
of
bankruptcy
in
a
shambolic
attempt
to
evade
collections.
That
case
is
now
on
appeal
to
the
DC
Circuit,
but
Giuliani
is
in
no
financial
position
to
post
a
supersedeas
bond.
(Who
would
underwrite
an
80-year-old
disbarred
lawyer
who
is
functionally
insolvent?)

On
August
5,
Freeman
and
Moss
filed
a
collection
action
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
along
with
a
contemporaneous
seizure
claim
in
Florida
with
respect
to
Giuliani’s
Palm
Beach
condo.
In
a
deposition,
Giuliani
admitted
that
he’d
never
been
paid
“about
two
million
dollars”
in
legal
fees
by
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
RNC
for
work
performed
in
2020
and
2021.
This
jibes
with
a
passage
from
the
special
counsel’s
latest

immunity
filing

in
the
election
interference
case:


 [Herschmann] 
repeatedly
gave
the
defendant
his
honest
assessment
that
[Giuliani]
could
not
mount
successful
legal
challenges
to
the
election.
For
instance,
when
the
defendant
told
[Herschmann]
that
he
was
going
to
put
[Giuliani]
in
charge
of
the
Campaign’s
legal
efforts
but
pay
him
only
if
he
succeeded,

[Herschmann]
told
the
defendant
he
would
never
have
to
pay
[Giuliani]
anything;
in
response,
the
defendant
laughed
and
said,
“we’ll
see.”

Up
until
now,
Herschmann
has
been
correct.
But
since
Freeman
and
Moss
own
Rudy’s
debts,
they
moved
the
court
for
an
order
allowing
them
to
collect
on
the
unpaid
legal
bills.

Giuliani

countered

that
the
court
should
stay
enforcement
until
after
the
election,
lest
his
creditors
“use
this
assignment
for
an
improper,
political
(or,
at
least,
collateral)
purpose,
creating
the
confusing,
and
inaccurate,
appearance
that
Defendant
is
now
somehow
suing
candidate
Trump,
thereby
generating
an
accompanying,
and
unnecessary,
media
frenzy.”
He
also
made
a
very
funny
series
of
claims
as
to
why
Freeman
and
Moss
should
be
barred
from
seizing
his
irreplaceable
“memorabilia,”
including
a
1980
Mercedes
alleged
to
have
belonged
to
the
actress
Lauren
Bacall.

Judge
Liman
was

deeply
unimpressed

with
Giuliani’s
suggestion
that
forcing
him
to
face
the
repercussions
of
his
lies
about
the
2020
election
would
amount
to
election
interference
in
2024.

“The
profound
irony
manifest
in
Defendant’s
alleged
concern
is
not
lost
on
the
Court,”
the
judge
wrote,
adding
that
“the
risk—if
any—that
the
public
would
be
misled
could
come
only
from
Defendant
himself
or
from
those
who
wish
the
Plaintiffs
not
to
pursue
their
claim.
But
that
is
not
a
risk
that
would
permit
Defendant
to
retain
his
claim,
nor
does
it
suffice
to
prevent
Plaintiffs
from
pursuing
a
claim
for
compensation
that
justly
belongs,
and
is
owed,
to
them.”

And
Rudy’s
not
keeping
the
Merc
either.

The
Court
also
does
not
doubt
that
certain
of
the
items
may
have
sentimental
value
to
Defendant.
But
that
does
not
entitle
Defendant
to
continued
enjoyment
of
the
assets
to
the
detriment
of
the
Plaintiffs
to
whom
he
owes
approximately
$150
million.
It
is,
after
all,
the
underlying
policy
of
these
New
York
statutes
that
“no
man
should
be
permitted
to
live
at
the
same
time
in
luxury
and
in
debt.”

Ah,
well.
They
can
take
his
18
watches
and
his
unpaid
legal
bills,
but
they’ll
never
take
his
dign—

HAHAHAHA,
nevermind.


Freeman
v.
Giuliani

[Docket
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye
 lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Lawyers Stand Behind Kamala Harris When It Comes To Lining Her Campaign Coffers With Cash – Above the Law

(Photo
by
BRENDAN
SMIALOWSKI/AFP
via
Getty
Images)

The
election
is
about
two
weeks
away,
and
lawyers
are
opening
their
wallets

wide

for
Vice
President
Kamala
Harris,
the
Democratic
presidential
candidate.
In
fact,
lawyers
gave
more
to
Harris
in
the
first
10
days
of
her
campaign
than
to
Trump
in
almost
two
years.
It’s
clear
who
lawyers
favor
in
this
political
race.

Continuing
to
stand
firmly
with
their
fellow
attorney,
members
of
the
legal
profession
added
more
than
$27
million
to
Kamala’s
campaign
coffers
over
the
course
of
the
past
two
months,
between
August
and
the
end
of
September.
Many
of
Biglaw’s
best
are
leading
the
pack
when
it
comes
to
their
contributions.

Bloomberg
Law

has
the
details:

Harris’
PAC,
dubbed
the
Harris
Victory
Fund,
received
$250,000
from
Cravath’s
presiding
partner
Faiza
Saeed
and
another
$250,000
from
Sullivan
&
Cromwell
senior
chair
Rodge
Cohen
in
that
timeframe.
Paul
Weiss
chairman
Brad
Karp
gave
$25,000
in
September
to
the
Harris
Victory
Fund.

Congratulations
to
Kamala
Harris
on
the
massive
cash
haul
from
attorneys.
But
what
about
her
opponent,
Donald
Trump?

As
noted
by
Bloomberg,
while
a
few
Biglaw
partners
and
in-house
attorneys
quietly
donated
funds
to
the
former
president
this
past
spring
and
summer,
according
to
FEC
records,
between
August
and
the
end
of
September,
Trump’s
PAC,
the
Trump
47
Committee,
received

zero

contributions
from
self-identified
lawyers
or
attorneys.

Kamala
Harris
may
be
the
winner
when
it
comes
to
accumulating
campaign
cash
from
attorneys,
but
will
she
be
the
winner
where
it
counts
the
most,
at
the
polls?
Stay
tuned.


Lawyers
Ante
Up
$27
Million
for
Kamala
Harris
in
Past
Two
Months

[Bloomberg
Law]



Staci ZaretskyStaci
Zaretsky
 is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter

and

Threads

or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn
.

Ruby Freeman And Shaye Moss Win Right To Collect Giuliani’s Unpaid Legal Bills From Trump Campaign – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Alex
Wong/Getty
Images)

Rudy
Giuliani
is
the
gift
that
keeps
on
giving
for
Donald
Trump.
After
steering
him
into
two
separate
impeachments
and
failing
to
overturn
the
2020
election,
America’s
erstwhile
Mayor
has
just
saddled
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
Republican
National
Committee
with
a
collections
action
by
former
Atlanta
poll
workers
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss.


Karma’s
a
bitch,
man.

In
2020,
Giuliani
smeared
Freeman
and
Moss,
falsely
claiming
that
they
had
stolen
the
election
from
Trump
in
Georgia
by
tabulating
fraudulent
ballots.
Trump
himself
named
Freeman,
whom
he
described
as
a
“professional
vote
scammer,”
18
times
in
his
infamous
call
to
Georgia
Secretary
of
State
Brad
Raffensperger.

In
2021,
the
pair
sued
for
defamation,
and
the
following
year
Judge
Beryl
Howell
granted
them
a
default
judgment,
thanks
to
Rudy’s
complete
failure
to
comply
with
his
discovery
obligations.
A
jury
awarded
the
plaintiffs
$148
million,
after
which
Rudy
stumbled
into
and
out
of
bankruptcy
in
a
shambolic
attempt
to
evade
collections.
That
case
is
now
on
appeal
to
the
DC
Circuit,
but
Giuliani
is
in
no
financial
position
to
post
a
supersedeas
bond.
(Who
would
underwrite
an
80-year-old
disbarred
lawyer
who
is
functionally
insolvent?)

On
August
5,
Freeman
and
Moss
filed
a
collection
action
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
along
with
a
contemporaneous
seizure
claim
in
Florida
with
respect
to
Giuliani’s
Palm
Beach
condo.
In
a
deposition,
Giuliani
admitted
that
he’d
never
been
paid
“about
two
million
dollars”
in
legal
fees
by
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
RNC
for
work
performed
in
2020
and
2021.
This
jibes
with
a
passage
from
the
special
counsel’s
latest

immunity
filing

in
the
election
interference
case:


 [Herschmann] 
repeatedly
gave
the
defendant
his
honest
assessment
that
[Giuliani]
could
not
mount
successful
legal
challenges
to
the
election.
For
instance,
when
the
defendant
told
[Herschmann]
that
he
was
going
to
put
[Giuliani]
in
charge
of
the
Campaign’s
legal
efforts
but
pay
him
only
if
he
succeeded,

[Herschmann]
told
the
defendant
he
would
never
have
to
pay
[Giuliani]
anything;
in
response,
the
defendant
laughed
and
said,
“we’ll
see.”

Up
until
now,
Herschmann
has
been
correct.
But
since
Freeman
and
Moss
own
Rudy’s
debts,
they
moved
the
court
for
an
order
allowing
them
to
collect
on
the
unpaid
legal
bills.

Giuliani

countered

that
the
court
should
stay
enforcement
until
after
the
election,
lest
his
creditors
“use
this
assignment
for
an
improper,
political
(or,
at
least,
collateral)
purpose,
creating
the
confusing,
and
inaccurate,
appearance
that
Defendant
is
now
somehow
suing
candidate
Trump,
thereby
generating
an
accompanying,
and
unnecessary,
media
frenzy.”
He
also
made
a
very
funny
series
of
claims
as
to
why
Freeman
and
Moss
should
be
barred
from
seizing
his
irreplaceable
“memorabilia,”
including
a
1980
Mercedes
alleged
to
have
belonged
to
the
actress
Lauren
Bacall.

Judge
Liman
was

deeply
unimpressed

with
Giuliani’s
suggestion
that
forcing
him
to
face
the
repercussions
of
his
lies
about
the
2020
election
would
amount
to
election
interference
in
2024.

“The
profound
irony
manifest
in
Defendant’s
alleged
concern
is
not
lost
on
the
Court,”
the
judge
wrote,
adding
that
“the
risk—if
any—that
the
public
would
be
misled
could
come
only
from
Defendant
himself
or
from
those
who
wish
the
Plaintiffs
not
to
pursue
their
claim.
But
that
is
not
a
risk
that
would
permit
Defendant
to
retain
his
claim,
nor
does
it
suffice
to
prevent
Plaintiffs
from
pursuing
a
claim
for
compensation
that
justly
belongs,
and
is
owed,
to
them.”

And
Rudy’s
not
keeping
the
Merc
either.

The
Court
also
does
not
doubt
that
certain
of
the
items
may
have
sentimental
value
to
Defendant.
But
that
does
not
entitle
Defendant
to
continued
enjoyment
of
the
assets
to
the
detriment
of
the
Plaintiffs
to
whom
he
owes
approximately
$150
million.
It
is,
after
all,
the
underlying
policy
of
these
New
York
statutes
that
“no
man
should
be
permitted
to
live
at
the
same
time
in
luxury
and
in
debt.”

Ah,
well.
They
can
take
his
18
watches
and
his
unpaid
legal
bills,
but
they’ll
never
take
his
dign—

HAHAHAHA,
nevermind.


Freeman
v.
Giuliani

[Docket
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye
 lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Italy’s Historically Horrific New Surrogacy Law Is Also A Threat To U.S. Attorneys – Above the Law

On
October
16,
2024,
Italy’s
Senate
passed
a
first-of-its-kind anti-surrogacy
law.
The
country
already
banned
surrogacy

an
arrangement
where
a
woman
carries
a
pregnancy
for
another
person
or
couple

within
its
borders.
But
the
new
law
takes
it
a
step
further,
criminalizing
the
actions
of
Italians
who
pursue
or
assist
with
surrogacy
arrangements
even
in
other
countries,
where
it
is
legally
supported,
such
as
the
United
States
or
Canada.

The
law
includes
penalties
for
“anyone
who
carries
out,
organizes,
or
advertised
the
commercialization
of
gametes,
embryos,
or
surrogacy,”
with
consequences
of
three
months
to
two
years
in
prison,
and
a
minimum
fine
of
600,000
euros!

The
law
is
incredibly
disappointing
for
hopeful
parents
in
Italy
who
are
unable
to
carry
a
pregnancy
on
their
own.
A
majority
of
Italians
seeking
surrogacy
assistance
are
heterosexual
couples
unable
to
carry
a
pregnancy
for
medical
reasons

a
not-surprising
fact
with
infertility
on
the
rise
globally.
However,
the
new
law
is
especially
devastating
for
LGBTQ+
parents,
who
already
face
a
ban
on
both
domestic
and
international
adoption
in
the
country,
and
now
lose
their
last
real
path
to
parenthood.

While
Italy’s
president
could
still
veto
the
bill,
that
is
expected
to
be
very

unlikely
, given
her
and
her
political
party’s
conservative
platform,
which
is
openly
hostile
to
LGBTQ+
rights.


Attorneys,
You
May
Unknowingly
Be
Subject
To
This
Law. 
Italian
attorney
Alexander
Schuster
spoke
in
the
United
States
in
September
2024
to
a
conference
of
adoption
and
assisted
reproductive
technology
(ART)
law
attorneys.
He
explained
the
far-reaching
consequences
of
the
law,
including
a
legal
threat
even
to
some
U.S.
attorneys.
Schuster
described
how
some
U.S.
attorneys
may
be
subject
to
the
law
without
even
knowing
it.

Wait, how
would
that
work?
Well,
Italy
has
generous
rules
as
to
the
conveyance
of Italian
citizenship
.
And,
in
essence,
any
American
who
has
an
Italian
ancestor

not
an
uncommon
lineage

may
be
entitled
to
Italian
citizenship.
There
are
exceptions
to
the
rule,
of
course,
including
if
the
Italian
ancestor
renounced
Italian
citizenship
when
acquiring
the
U.S.
one.
But
your
average
U.S.
attorney
with
an
Italian
great-grandparent,
as
wild
as
that
may
seem,
probably
qualifies
for
Italian
citizenship.
And
that
citizenship
through
ancestry,
Schuster
explained,
can
subject
a
U.S.
attorney
advising
on
surrogacy
matters
within
U.S.
borders
to
the
consequences
of
the
harsh
new
law.

The
same
reasoning
applies
to
nonattorneys,
as
well,
including
U.S.
fertility
doctors,
embryologists,
insurance
professionals,
agencies,
and
others,
who
support
surrogacy
arrangements
in
the
United
States

Of
course,
Schuster
points
out
that
Italian
citizenship
by
descent
does
not
actually
appear
anywhere
in
Italian
government
registers,
so
this
scenario
is
purely
theoretical,
and
enforcement
is
practically
impossible.
No
Italian
criminal
authority
is
likely
to
investigate
descent
and
impose
Italian
law
on
American
attorneys
practicing
exclusively
in
the
United
States.

Despite
its
theoretical
nature,
U.S.
attorneys
practicing
in
the
area
of
surrogacy
law
with
Italian
ancestry
may
want
to
think
twice
before
heading
over
for
their
favorite
gelato
or
a
Venetian
gondola
ride.
A
consequence
of
note

but
with
no
comparison
to
the
devastation
the
Italian
LGBTQ+
community
is
facing.




Ellen TrachmanEllen
Trachman
is
the
Managing
Attorney
of 
Trachman
Law
Center,
LLC
,
a
Denver-based
law
firm
specializing
in
assisted
reproductive
technology
law,
and
co-host
of
the
podcast 
I
Want
To
Put
A
Baby
In
You
.
You
can
reach
her
at 
[email protected].

Ruby Freeman And Shaye Moss Win Right To Collect Giuliani’s Unpaid Legal Bills From Trump Campaign – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Alex
Wong/Getty
Images)

Rudy
Giuliani
is
the
gift
that
keeps
on
giving
for
Donald
Trump.
After
steering
him
into
two
separate
impeachments
and
failing
to
overturn
the
2020
election,
America’s
erstwhile
Mayor
has
just
saddled
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
Republican
National
Committee
with
a
collections
action
by
former
Atlanta
poll
workers
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss.


Karma’s
a
bitch,
man.

In
2020,
Giuliani
smeared
Freeman
and
Moss,
falsely
claiming
that
they
had
stolen
the
election
from
Trump
in
Georgia
by
tabulating
fraudulent
ballots.
Trump
himself
named
Freeman,
whom
he
described
as
a
“professional
vote
scammer,”
18
times
in
his
infamous
call
to
Georgia
Secretary
of
State
Brad
Raffensperger.

In
2021,
the
pair
sued
for
defamation,
and
the
following
year
Judge
Beryl
Howell
granted
them
a
default
judgment,
thanks
to
Rudy’s
complete
failure
to
comply
with
his
discovery
obligations.
A
jury
awarded
the
plaintiffs
$148
million,
after
which
Rudy
stumbled
into
and
out
of
bankruptcy
in
a
shambolic
attempt
to
evade
collections.
That
case
is
now
on
appeal
to
the
DC
Circuit,
but
Giuliani
is
in
no
financial
position
to
post
a
supersedeas
bond.
(Who
would
underwrite
an
80-year-old
disbarred
lawyer
who
is
functionally
insolvent?)

On
August
5,
Freeman
and
Moss
filed
a
collection
action
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
along
with
a
contemporaneous
seizure
claim
in
Florida
with
respect
to
Giuliani’s
Palm
Beach
condo.
In
a
deposition,
Giuliani
admitted
that
he’d
never
been
paid
“about
two
million
dollars”
in
legal
fees
by
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
RNC
for
work
performed
in
2020
and
2021.
This
jibes
with
a
passage
from
the
special
counsel’s
latest

immunity
filing

in
the
election
interference
case:


 [Herschmann] 
repeatedly
gave
the
defendant
his
honest
assessment
that
[Giuliani]
could
not
mount
successful
legal
challenges
to
the
election.
For
instance,
when
the
defendant
told
[Herschmann]
that
he
was
going
to
put
[Giuliani]
in
charge
of
the
Campaign’s
legal
efforts
but
pay
him
only
if
he
succeeded,

[Herschmann]
told
the
defendant
he
would
never
have
to
pay
[Giuliani]
anything;
in
response,
the
defendant
laughed
and
said,
“we’ll
see.”

Up
until
now,
Herschmann
has
been
correct.
But
since
Freeman
and
Moss
own
Rudy’s
debts,
they
moved
the
court
for
an
order
allowing
them
to
collect
on
the
unpaid
legal
bills.

Giuliani

countered

that
the
court
should
stay
enforcement
until
after
the
election,
lest
his
creditors
“use
this
assignment
for
an
improper,
political
(or,
at
least,
collateral)
purpose,
creating
the
confusing,
and
inaccurate,
appearance
that
Defendant
is
now
somehow
suing
candidate
Trump,
thereby
generating
an
accompanying,
and
unnecessary,
media
frenzy.”
He
also
made
a
very
funny
series
of
claims
as
to
why
Freeman
and
Moss
should
be
barred
from
seizing
his
irreplaceable
“memorabilia,”
including
a
1980
Mercedes
alleged
to
have
belonged
to
the
actress
Lauren
Bacall.

Judge
Liman
was

deeply
unimpressed

with
Giuliani’s
suggestion
that
forcing
him
to
face
the
repercussions
of
his
lies
about
the
2020
election
would
amount
to
election
interference
in
2024.

“The
profound
irony
manifest
in
Defendant’s
alleged
concern
is
not
lost
on
the
Court,”
the
judge
wrote,
adding
that
“the
risk—if
any—that
the
public
would
be
misled
could
come
only
from
Defendant
himself
or
from
those
who
wish
the
Plaintiffs
not
to
pursue
their
claim.
But
that
is
not
a
risk
that
would
permit
Defendant
to
retain
his
claim,
nor
does
it
suffice
to
prevent
Plaintiffs
from
pursuing
a
claim
for
compensation
that
justly
belongs,
and
is
owed,
to
them.”

And
Rudy’s
not
keeping
the
Merc
either.

The
Court
also
does
not
doubt
that
certain
of
the
items
may
have
sentimental
value
to
Defendant.
But
that
does
not
entitle
Defendant
to
continued
enjoyment
of
the
assets
to
the
detriment
of
the
Plaintiffs
to
whom
he
owes
approximately
$150
million.
It
is,
after
all,
the
underlying
policy
of
these
New
York
statutes
that
“no
man
should
be
permitted
to
live
at
the
same
time
in
luxury
and
in
debt.”

Ah,
well.
They
can
take
his
18
watches
and
his
unpaid
legal
bills,
but
they’ll
never
take
his
dign—

HAHAHAHA,
nevermind.


Freeman
v.
Giuliani

[Docket
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye
 lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Ruby Freeman And Shaye Moss Win Right To Collect Giuliani’s Unpaid Legal Bills From Trump Campaign – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Alex
Wong/Getty
Images)

Rudy
Giuliani
is
the
gift
that
keeps
on
giving
for
Donald
Trump.
After
steering
him
into
two
separate
impeachments
and
failing
to
overturn
the
2020
election,
America’s
erstwhile
Mayor
has
just
saddled
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
Republican
National
Committee
with
a
collections
action
by
former
Atlanta
poll
workers
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss.


Karma’s
a
bitch,
man.

In
2020,
Giuliani
smeared
Freeman
and
Moss,
falsely
claiming
that
they
had
stolen
the
election
from
Trump
in
Georgia
by
tabulating
fraudulent
ballots.
Trump
himself
named
Freeman,
whom
he
described
as
a
“professional
vote
scammer,”
18
times
in
his
infamous
call
to
Georgia
Secretary
of
State
Brad
Raffensperger.

In
2021,
the
pair
sued
for
defamation,
and
the
following
year
Judge
Beryl
Howell
granted
them
a
default
judgment,
thanks
to
Rudy’s
complete
failure
to
comply
with
his
discovery
obligations.
A
jury
awarded
the
plaintiffs
$148
million,
after
which
Rudy
stumbled
into
and
out
of
bankruptcy
in
a
shambolic
attempt
to
evade
collections.
That
case
is
now
on
appeal
to
the
DC
Circuit,
but
Giuliani
is
in
no
financial
position
to
post
a
supersedeas
bond.
(Who
would
underwrite
an
80-year-old
disbarred
lawyer
who
is
functionally
insolvent?)

On
August
5,
Freeman
and
Moss
filed
a
collection
action
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
along
with
a
contemporaneous
seizure
claim
in
Florida
with
respect
to
Giuliani’s
Palm
Beach
condo.
In
a
deposition,
Giuliani
admitted
that
he’d
never
been
paid
“about
two
million
dollars”
in
legal
fees
by
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
RNC
for
work
performed
in
2020
and
2021.
This
jibes
with
a
passage
from
the
special
counsel’s
latest

immunity
filing

in
the
election
interference
case:


 [Herschmann] 
repeatedly
gave
the
defendant
his
honest
assessment
that
[Giuliani]
could
not
mount
successful
legal
challenges
to
the
election.
For
instance,
when
the
defendant
told
[Herschmann]
that
he
was
going
to
put
[Giuliani]
in
charge
of
the
Campaign’s
legal
efforts
but
pay
him
only
if
he
succeeded,

[Herschmann]
told
the
defendant
he
would
never
have
to
pay
[Giuliani]
anything;
in
response,
the
defendant
laughed
and
said,
“we’ll
see.”

Up
until
now,
Herschmann
has
been
correct.
But
since
Freeman
and
Moss
own
Rudy’s
debts,
they
moved
the
court
for
an
order
allowing
them
to
collect
on
the
unpaid
legal
bills.

Giuliani

countered

that
the
court
should
stay
enforcement
until
after
the
election,
lest
his
creditors
“use
this
assignment
for
an
improper,
political
(or,
at
least,
collateral)
purpose,
creating
the
confusing,
and
inaccurate,
appearance
that
Defendant
is
now
somehow
suing
candidate
Trump,
thereby
generating
an
accompanying,
and
unnecessary,
media
frenzy.”
He
also
made
a
very
funny
series
of
claims
as
to
why
Freeman
and
Moss
should
be
barred
from
seizing
his
irreplaceable
“memorabilia,”
including
a
1980
Mercedes
alleged
to
have
belonged
to
the
actress
Lauren
Bacall.

Judge
Liman
was

deeply
unimpressed

with
Giuliani’s
suggestion
that
forcing
him
to
face
the
repercussions
of
his
lies
about
the
2020
election
would
amount
to
election
interference
in
2024.

“The
profound
irony
manifest
in
Defendant’s
alleged
concern
is
not
lost
on
the
Court,”
the
judge
wrote,
adding
that
“the
risk—if
any—that
the
public
would
be
misled
could
come
only
from
Defendant
himself
or
from
those
who
wish
the
Plaintiffs
not
to
pursue
their
claim.
But
that
is
not
a
risk
that
would
permit
Defendant
to
retain
his
claim,
nor
does
it
suffice
to
prevent
Plaintiffs
from
pursuing
a
claim
for
compensation
that
justly
belongs,
and
is
owed,
to
them.”

And
Rudy’s
not
keeping
the
Merc
either.

The
Court
also
does
not
doubt
that
certain
of
the
items
may
have
sentimental
value
to
Defendant.
But
that
does
not
entitle
Defendant
to
continued
enjoyment
of
the
assets
to
the
detriment
of
the
Plaintiffs
to
whom
he
owes
approximately
$150
million.
It
is,
after
all,
the
underlying
policy
of
these
New
York
statutes
that
“no
man
should
be
permitted
to
live
at
the
same
time
in
luxury
and
in
debt.”

Ah,
well.
They
can
take
his
18
watches
and
his
unpaid
legal
bills,
but
they’ll
never
take
his
dign—

HAHAHAHA,
nevermind.


Freeman
v.
Giuliani

[Docket
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye
 lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Ruby Freeman And Shaye Moss Win Right To Collect Giuliani’s Unpaid Legal Bills From Trump Campaign – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Alex
Wong/Getty
Images)

Rudy
Giuliani
is
the
gift
that
keeps
on
giving
for
Donald
Trump.
After
steering
him
into
two
separate
impeachments
and
failing
to
overturn
the
2020
election,
America’s
erstwhile
Mayor
has
just
saddled
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
Republican
National
Committee
with
a
collections
action
by
former
Atlanta
poll
workers
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss.


Karma’s
a
bitch,
man.

In
2020,
Giuliani
smeared
Freeman
and
Moss,
falsely
claiming
that
they
had
stolen
the
election
from
Trump
in
Georgia
by
tabulating
fraudulent
ballots.
Trump
himself
named
Freeman,
whom
he
described
as
a
“professional
vote
scammer,”
18
times
in
his
infamous
call
to
Georgia
Secretary
of
State
Brad
Raffensperger.

In
2021,
the
pair
sued
for
defamation,
and
the
following
year
Judge
Beryl
Howell
granted
them
a
default
judgment,
thanks
to
Rudy’s
complete
failure
to
comply
with
his
discovery
obligations.
A
jury
awarded
the
plaintiffs
$148
million,
after
which
Rudy
stumbled
into
and
out
of
bankruptcy
in
a
shambolic
attempt
to
evade
collections.
That
case
is
now
on
appeal
to
the
DC
Circuit,
but
Giuliani
is
in
no
financial
position
to
post
a
supersedeas
bond.
(Who
would
underwrite
an
80-year-old
disbarred
lawyer
who
is
functionally
insolvent?)

On
August
5,
Freeman
and
Moss
filed
a
collection
action
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
along
with
a
contemporaneous
seizure
claim
in
Florida
with
respect
to
Giuliani’s
Palm
Beach
condo.
In
a
deposition,
Giuliani
admitted
that
he’d
never
been
paid
“about
two
million
dollars”
in
legal
fees
by
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
RNC
for
work
performed
in
2020
and
2021.
This
jibes
with
a
passage
from
the
special
counsel’s
latest

immunity
filing

in
the
election
interference
case:


 [Herschmann] 
repeatedly
gave
the
defendant
his
honest
assessment
that
[Giuliani]
could
not
mount
successful
legal
challenges
to
the
election.
For
instance,
when
the
defendant
told
[Herschmann]
that
he
was
going
to
put
[Giuliani]
in
charge
of
the
Campaign’s
legal
efforts
but
pay
him
only
if
he
succeeded,

[Herschmann]
told
the
defendant
he
would
never
have
to
pay
[Giuliani]
anything;
in
response,
the
defendant
laughed
and
said,
“we’ll
see.”

Up
until
now,
Herschmann
has
been
correct.
But
since
Freeman
and
Moss
own
Rudy’s
debts,
they
moved
the
court
for
an
order
allowing
them
to
collect
on
the
unpaid
legal
bills.

Giuliani

countered

that
the
court
should
stay
enforcement
until
after
the
election,
lest
his
creditors
“use
this
assignment
for
an
improper,
political
(or,
at
least,
collateral)
purpose,
creating
the
confusing,
and
inaccurate,
appearance
that
Defendant
is
now
somehow
suing
candidate
Trump,
thereby
generating
an
accompanying,
and
unnecessary,
media
frenzy.”
He
also
made
a
very
funny
series
of
claims
as
to
why
Freeman
and
Moss
should
be
barred
from
seizing
his
irreplaceable
“memorabilia,”
including
a
1980
Mercedes
alleged
to
have
belonged
to
the
actress
Lauren
Bacall.

Judge
Liman
was

deeply
unimpressed

with
Giuliani’s
suggestion
that
forcing
him
to
face
the
repercussions
of
his
lies
about
the
2020
election
would
amount
to
election
interference
in
2024.

“The
profound
irony
manifest
in
Defendant’s
alleged
concern
is
not
lost
on
the
Court,”
the
judge
wrote,
adding
that
“the
risk—if
any—that
the
public
would
be
misled
could
come
only
from
Defendant
himself
or
from
those
who
wish
the
Plaintiffs
not
to
pursue
their
claim.
But
that
is
not
a
risk
that
would
permit
Defendant
to
retain
his
claim,
nor
does
it
suffice
to
prevent
Plaintiffs
from
pursuing
a
claim
for
compensation
that
justly
belongs,
and
is
owed,
to
them.”

And
Rudy’s
not
keeping
the
Merc
either.

The
Court
also
does
not
doubt
that
certain
of
the
items
may
have
sentimental
value
to
Defendant.
But
that
does
not
entitle
Defendant
to
continued
enjoyment
of
the
assets
to
the
detriment
of
the
Plaintiffs
to
whom
he
owes
approximately
$150
million.
It
is,
after
all,
the
underlying
policy
of
these
New
York
statutes
that
“no
man
should
be
permitted
to
live
at
the
same
time
in
luxury
and
in
debt.”

Ah,
well.
They
can
take
his
18
watches
and
his
unpaid
legal
bills,
but
they’ll
never
take
his
dign—

HAHAHAHA,
nevermind.


Freeman
v.
Giuliani

[Docket
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye
 lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Ruby Freeman And Shaye Moss Win Right To Collect Giuliani’s Unpaid Legal Bills From Trump Campaign – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Alex
Wong/Getty
Images)

Rudy
Giuliani
is
the
gift
that
keeps
on
giving
for
Donald
Trump.
After
steering
him
into
two
separate
impeachments
and
failing
to
overturn
the
2020
election,
America’s
erstwhile
Mayor
has
just
saddled
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
Republican
National
Committee
with
a
collections
action
by
former
Atlanta
poll
workers
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss.


Karma’s
a
bitch,
man.

In
2020,
Giuliani
smeared
Freeman
and
Moss,
falsely
claiming
that
they
had
stolen
the
election
from
Trump
in
Georgia
by
tabulating
fraudulent
ballots.
Trump
himself
named
Freeman,
whom
he
described
as
a
“professional
vote
scammer,”
18
times
in
his
infamous
call
to
Georgia
Secretary
of
State
Brad
Raffensperger.

In
2021,
the
pair
sued
for
defamation,
and
the
following
year
Judge
Beryl
Howell
granted
them
a
default
judgment,
thanks
to
Rudy’s
complete
failure
to
comply
with
his
discovery
obligations.
A
jury
awarded
the
plaintiffs
$148
million,
after
which
Rudy
stumbled
into
and
out
of
bankruptcy
in
a
shambolic
attempt
to
evade
collections.
That
case
is
now
on
appeal
to
the
DC
Circuit,
but
Giuliani
is
in
no
financial
position
to
post
a
supersedeas
bond.
(Who
would
underwrite
an
80-year-old
disbarred
lawyer
who
is
functionally
insolvent?)

On
August
5,
Freeman
and
Moss
filed
a
collection
action
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
along
with
a
contemporaneous
seizure
claim
in
Florida
with
respect
to
Giuliani’s
Palm
Beach
condo.
In
a
deposition,
Giuliani
admitted
that
he’d
never
been
paid
“about
two
million
dollars”
in
legal
fees
by
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
RNC
for
work
performed
in
2020
and
2021.
This
jibes
with
a
passage
from
the
special
counsel’s
latest

immunity
filing

in
the
election
interference
case:


 [Herschmann] 
repeatedly
gave
the
defendant
his
honest
assessment
that
[Giuliani]
could
not
mount
successful
legal
challenges
to
the
election.
For
instance,
when
the
defendant
told
[Herschmann]
that
he
was
going
to
put
[Giuliani]
in
charge
of
the
Campaign’s
legal
efforts
but
pay
him
only
if
he
succeeded,

[Herschmann]
told
the
defendant
he
would
never
have
to
pay
[Giuliani]
anything;
in
response,
the
defendant
laughed
and
said,
“we’ll
see.”

Up
until
now,
Herschmann
has
been
correct.
But
since
Freeman
and
Moss
own
Rudy’s
debts,
they
moved
the
court
for
an
order
allowing
them
to
collect
on
the
unpaid
legal
bills.

Giuliani

countered

that
the
court
should
stay
enforcement
until
after
the
election,
lest
his
creditors
“use
this
assignment
for
an
improper,
political
(or,
at
least,
collateral)
purpose,
creating
the
confusing,
and
inaccurate,
appearance
that
Defendant
is
now
somehow
suing
candidate
Trump,
thereby
generating
an
accompanying,
and
unnecessary,
media
frenzy.”
He
also
made
a
very
funny
series
of
claims
as
to
why
Freeman
and
Moss
should
be
barred
from
seizing
his
irreplaceable
“memorabilia,”
including
a
1980
Mercedes
alleged
to
have
belonged
to
the
actress
Lauren
Bacall.

Judge
Liman
was

deeply
unimpressed

with
Giuliani’s
suggestion
that
forcing
him
to
face
the
repercussions
of
his
lies
about
the
2020
election
would
amount
to
election
interference
in
2024.

“The
profound
irony
manifest
in
Defendant’s
alleged
concern
is
not
lost
on
the
Court,”
the
judge
wrote,
adding
that
“the
risk—if
any—that
the
public
would
be
misled
could
come
only
from
Defendant
himself
or
from
those
who
wish
the
Plaintiffs
not
to
pursue
their
claim.
But
that
is
not
a
risk
that
would
permit
Defendant
to
retain
his
claim,
nor
does
it
suffice
to
prevent
Plaintiffs
from
pursuing
a
claim
for
compensation
that
justly
belongs,
and
is
owed,
to
them.”

And
Rudy’s
not
keeping
the
Merc
either.

The
Court
also
does
not
doubt
that
certain
of
the
items
may
have
sentimental
value
to
Defendant.
But
that
does
not
entitle
Defendant
to
continued
enjoyment
of
the
assets
to
the
detriment
of
the
Plaintiffs
to
whom
he
owes
approximately
$150
million.
It
is,
after
all,
the
underlying
policy
of
these
New
York
statutes
that
“no
man
should
be
permitted
to
live
at
the
same
time
in
luxury
and
in
debt.”

Ah,
well.
They
can
take
his
18
watches
and
his
unpaid
legal
bills,
but
they’ll
never
take
his
dign—

HAHAHAHA,
nevermind.


Freeman
v.
Giuliani

[Docket
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye
 lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Ruby Freeman And Shaye Moss Win Right To Collect Giuliani’s Unpaid Legal Bills From Trump Campaign – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Alex
Wong/Getty
Images)

Rudy
Giuliani
is
the
gift
that
keeps
on
giving
for
Donald
Trump.
After
steering
him
into
two
separate
impeachments
and
failing
to
overturn
the
2020
election,
America’s
erstwhile
Mayor
has
just
saddled
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
Republican
National
Committee
with
a
collections
action
by
former
Atlanta
poll
workers
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss.


Karma’s
a
bitch,
man.

In
2020,
Giuliani
smeared
Freeman
and
Moss,
falsely
claiming
that
they
had
stolen
the
election
from
Trump
in
Georgia
by
tabulating
fraudulent
ballots.
Trump
himself
named
Freeman,
whom
he
described
as
a
“professional
vote
scammer,”
18
times
in
his
infamous
call
to
Georgia
Secretary
of
State
Brad
Raffensperger.

In
2021,
the
pair
sued
for
defamation,
and
the
following
year
Judge
Beryl
Howell
granted
them
a
default
judgment,
thanks
to
Rudy’s
complete
failure
to
comply
with
his
discovery
obligations.
A
jury
awarded
the
plaintiffs
$148
million,
after
which
Rudy
stumbled
into
and
out
of
bankruptcy
in
a
shambolic
attempt
to
evade
collections.
That
case
is
now
on
appeal
to
the
DC
Circuit,
but
Giuliani
is
in
no
financial
position
to
post
a
supersedeas
bond.
(Who
would
underwrite
an
80-year-old
disbarred
lawyer
who
is
functionally
insolvent?)

On
August
5,
Freeman
and
Moss
filed
a
collection
action
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
along
with
a
contemporaneous
seizure
claim
in
Florida
with
respect
to
Giuliani’s
Palm
Beach
condo.
In
a
deposition,
Giuliani
admitted
that
he’d
never
been
paid
“about
two
million
dollars”
in
legal
fees
by
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
RNC
for
work
performed
in
2020
and
2021.
This
jibes
with
a
passage
from
the
special
counsel’s
latest

immunity
filing

in
the
election
interference
case:


 [Herschmann] 
repeatedly
gave
the
defendant
his
honest
assessment
that
[Giuliani]
could
not
mount
successful
legal
challenges
to
the
election.
For
instance,
when
the
defendant
told
[Herschmann]
that
he
was
going
to
put
[Giuliani]
in
charge
of
the
Campaign’s
legal
efforts
but
pay
him
only
if
he
succeeded,

[Herschmann]
told
the
defendant
he
would
never
have
to
pay
[Giuliani]
anything;
in
response,
the
defendant
laughed
and
said,
“we’ll
see.”

Up
until
now,
Herschmann
has
been
correct.
But
since
Freeman
and
Moss
own
Rudy’s
debts,
they
moved
the
court
for
an
order
allowing
them
to
collect
on
the
unpaid
legal
bills.

Giuliani

countered

that
the
court
should
stay
enforcement
until
after
the
election,
lest
his
creditors
“use
this
assignment
for
an
improper,
political
(or,
at
least,
collateral)
purpose,
creating
the
confusing,
and
inaccurate,
appearance
that
Defendant
is
now
somehow
suing
candidate
Trump,
thereby
generating
an
accompanying,
and
unnecessary,
media
frenzy.”
He
also
made
a
very
funny
series
of
claims
as
to
why
Freeman
and
Moss
should
be
barred
from
seizing
his
irreplaceable
“memorabilia,”
including
a
1980
Mercedes
alleged
to
have
belonged
to
the
actress
Lauren
Bacall.

Judge
Liman
was

deeply
unimpressed

with
Giuliani’s
suggestion
that
forcing
him
to
face
the
repercussions
of
his
lies
about
the
2020
election
would
amount
to
election
interference
in
2024.

“The
profound
irony
manifest
in
Defendant’s
alleged
concern
is
not
lost
on
the
Court,”
the
judge
wrote,
adding
that
“the
risk—if
any—that
the
public
would
be
misled
could
come
only
from
Defendant
himself
or
from
those
who
wish
the
Plaintiffs
not
to
pursue
their
claim.
But
that
is
not
a
risk
that
would
permit
Defendant
to
retain
his
claim,
nor
does
it
suffice
to
prevent
Plaintiffs
from
pursuing
a
claim
for
compensation
that
justly
belongs,
and
is
owed,
to
them.”

And
Rudy’s
not
keeping
the
Merc
either.

The
Court
also
does
not
doubt
that
certain
of
the
items
may
have
sentimental
value
to
Defendant.
But
that
does
not
entitle
Defendant
to
continued
enjoyment
of
the
assets
to
the
detriment
of
the
Plaintiffs
to
whom
he
owes
approximately
$150
million.
It
is,
after
all,
the
underlying
policy
of
these
New
York
statutes
that
“no
man
should
be
permitted
to
live
at
the
same
time
in
luxury
and
in
debt.”

Ah,
well.
They
can
take
his
18
watches
and
his
unpaid
legal
bills,
but
they’ll
never
take
his
dign—

HAHAHAHA,
nevermind.


Freeman
v.
Giuliani

[Docket
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye
 lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.