Two former election workers from Georgia, Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, are still fighting to collect $148 million from Rudy Giuliani, after he was found guilty of defaming them. Now, they’re asking a federal judge to hold the former New York City mayor in contempt, accusing him of dodging important questions as they dig deeper into his finances.
At the heart of the case is Giuliani’s multimillion-dollar condo in Palm Beach, Florida. Giuliani has claimed that this property is his permanent home, which would give it homestead protection, meaning it can’t be seized to pay off debts. But Freeman and Moss argue that the condo was more of a vacation spot than a real residence. They believe Giuliani is withholding information that could prove their point.
The question of whether the Palm Beach condo is truly Giuliani’s permanent home will be a key issue in a trial scheduled for January 16, 2025.
As part of their investigation, Freeman and Moss asked Giuliani in November to share details about the financial, medical, or legal professionals he’s consulted over the past four years. They also requested information about his phone numbers, email accounts, and messaging apps during that time. Giuliani missed multiple deadlines to respond and eventually objected, claiming the information was protected by various privileges, such as attorney-client and doctor-patient confidentiality. He also said sharing his phone and messaging details could put his safety at risk, pointing to previous threats he’d received.
U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman wasn’t buying it. In a December 17 order, Judge Liman slammed Giuliani for missing deadlines and failing to cooperate, calling his actions disrespectful and dismissing his objections as baseless. The judge also explained why the requested information was relevant: knowing which professionals Giuliani consulted, and where they’re located, could help determine if he really considered Palm Beach his primary residence or just a getaway.
Judge Liman also criticized Giuliani for refusing to provide his phone and messaging details, suggesting he might be deliberately hiding something. According to the judge, Giuliani’s repeated lack of compliance raises serious doubts about whether he’s being honest in this case.
In response, Giuliani asked the court on December 23 for a protective order to stop him from having to answer the questions, claiming they weren’t relevant to the dispute over his Florida condo. Freeman and Moss quickly pushed back, urging the judge to reject Giuliani’s request and hold him in contempt. They argued that Giuliani could have worked with them to clarify or narrow the scope of their questions if he had genuine concerns, but instead, he chose to ignore deadlines and resist cooperation.
They also asked the court to assume that truthful answers from Giuliani would show the condo wasn’t his permanent home. A hearing on this matter is set for January 3, 2025.
As the legal battle continues, Freeman and Moss remain determined to hold Giuliani accountable and collect the judgment they’re owed. Meanwhile, Giuliani faces mounting pressure to fully comply with the court’s orders. The upcoming hearings will play a critical role in deciding the fate of the Palm Beach property and whether Giuliani has been truthful about his finances.
