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.

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.

Infuriating Story Of The Bullsh*t Working Parents Have To Deal With In The Legal Industry – Above the Law

Working
moms
just
can’t
win.
Particularly
in
the
legal
industry
where
the
adversarial
process
can
fuel
a
more
competitive
spirit
than
is
particularly
healthy
and
can
make
folks
forget
their
humanity.
Over
at

Lioness
Stories
,
a
storytelling
platform
that
highlights
first-person
narratives,
there’s
a
particularly
infuriating
story
reminding
folks
just
how
toxic
the
legal
profession
can
be.

The
Instagram
post
highlights
the
story
of
attorney
Rachael
Kierych.
She
balanced
a
high-risk
pregnancy
and
a
trial.
She
won
the
case
at
seven
months
pregnant,
but
during
that
time
she
was
also
was
hospitalized
four
times
and
gave
birth
prematurely
(her
daughter
was
placed
in
the
neonatal
intensive
care
unit).
But
at
a
time
when
her
attention
should
be
on
the
health
of
herself
and
family,
instead
she
had
to
deal
with
on
attacks
on
her
professionalism.

In
her
own
words:

You
would
think
the
story
ends
there.
Sadly,
that
is
not
the
case.
After
filing
a
brief
in
this
same
matter
while
postpartum,
opposing
counsel
found
it
appropriate
to
continue
his
harassment
campaign
sending
a
letter
to
the
court
accusing
me
in
a
public
filing
of
misrepresenting
my
health
conditions,
and
refusing
to
withdraw
the
letter
even
after
being
informed
I
had
been
hospitalized
and
my
daughter
had
been
admitted
to
the
NICU.
This
is
the
unfortunate
state
of
the
legal
industry.

As
Kierych

told
the
court
,
a
brief
was
filed
while
she
was
on
leave,
and
opposing
counsel
chose
to
use
that
as
a
sword
against
her
and
he
did
so
without
knowledge
of
any
of
the
medical
details
or
when
drafting
on
the
motion
was
done
or
the
allocation
of
work
on
the
plaintiff’s
team.
It’s
a
sad
attempt
at
a
“gotcha”
moment
without
regard
for
the
actual
people
on
the
other
side
of
the
caption.

Read
the
full
story
below.




Kathryn Rubino HeadshotKathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast
,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer
.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her

with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1
 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

Benchmarks And Outcomes – ‘Moneyball’ For GenAI (Part I) – Above the Law

It’s
October.
The
seasons
are
changing.
The
air
is
growing
crisper.
And
people
in
the
United
States
are
beginning
to
take
more
interest
in
Major
League
Baseball
as
the
World
Series
fast
approaches.
In
celebration
of
the
season,
we
invite
legal
professionals
to
revisit
Moneyball,”
the
2011
sports
drama
starring
Brad
Pitt
and
directed
by
Bennett
Miller.

Pitt
plays
Billy
Beane,
who,
it
should
noted
upfront,
is
neither
a
lawyer
nor
an
AI
expert.
He
is
however
the
general
manager
of
the
2002
Oakland
A’s,
a
lifelong
student
of
the
game
who
struggled
to
consistently
produce
a
winning
team
in
a
small
baseball
market.
Beane
didn’t
have
the
budget
to
compete
for
players
like
teams
in
larger
markets
like
New
York
or
Boston.
The
A’s
could
develop
players,
but
they
couldn’t
retain
them
when
they
became
stars.
They
did,
however,
have
access
to
the
vital
statistics.

Baseball
is
a
sport
with
a
century
of
data
behind
it
and
benchmarks
like
a
player’s
batting
average
are
known
by
even
casual
fans.
What
Billy
and
the
A’s
did
was
use

analytics

and
different
key
performance
indicators
to
win.
A
player’s
batting
average
is
a
great
metric,
but
it
doesn’t
account
for
other
factors
like
the
ability
to
get
on
base
so
on-base
percentage
is
better.
Getting
on
base
leads
to
more
runs
scored.
And
more
runs
scored
means
winning
more
games.

When
losing
a
star
player
like
Jason
Giambi
to
the
New
York
Yankees
or
Johnny
Damon
to
the
Boston
Red
Sox,
conventional
wisdom
would
say
the
team
would
have
to
replace
two
stars.
But
Beane,
recognized
the
A’s
needed
to
replace
the

production

of
the
players
they
lost.
In
aggregate,
they
needed
to
get
on
base
as
much
as
the
prior
year.
Using
analytics,
the
A’s
would
go
on
to
set
an
American
League
record
by
winning
20
straight
games
in
a
row
and
also
made
it
to
the
World
Series.
But
the
way
they
did
it
was
the
bigger
story.

So
what
can
“Moneyball”
teach
us
about
benchmarking
AI
in
legal?

The

Stanford
study
on
benchmarking
GenAI
solutions

this
past
summer
moved
the
conversation
forward
regarding
the
usefulness
and
impact
of
GenAI
solutions.
The
study
was
not
without
some
controversy
that
also
helped
in
generating
awareness
to
an
important
topic:
How
do
we
measure
the
results
of
GenAI
on
the
legal
industry.

The
Stanford
study
tested
leading
research
products
on
their
ability
to
create
answers
to
questions
related
to
caselaw
research.
A
correct
answer
was
one
that
accurately
reflected
the
current
state
of
the
law.
An
answer
that
did
not
reflect
the
current
state
of
the
law
was
considered
a
hallucination.
The
result?
One
in
six
queries
hallucinated.

The
definition
of
hallucination
in
the
study
is
great
for
benchmarking.
But
does
a
hallucination
as
defined
in
the
study
always
equal
a
bad
outcome?
What
if
the
answer
moved
your
research
in
the
right
direction
and
then
you
were
able
to
formulate
a
Boolean
search
that
answered
your
question?
Another
run
crossing
home
plate.

And
what
about
associates
using
traditional
research
solutions?
Has
anyone
benchmarked
their
legal
research
skills
to
see
how
often
their
conclusions
do
not
reflect
the
current
state
of
the
law?

The
key
points
are:

  • Benchmarks
    are
    important,
    and
    the
    right
    benchmarks
    for
    your
    goals
    are
    more
    important
    than
    what
    is
    easy
    to
    measure.
  • Benchmarks
    on
    new
    approaches
    need
    to
    reflect
    the
    context
    of
    the
    effectiveness
    of
    current
    approaches.
  • Outcomes
    are
    more
    important
    than
    benchmarks.

Outcomes
are
always
interesting.
The
goals
of
two
organizations
can
differ.
And
what
counts
as
winning
or
a
positive
outcome
at
one
level
may
be
different
at
another
level
of
an
organization.

An
entertaining
television
advertisement
that
viewers
recall,
is
considered
a
winner
in
the
advertising
world.
But
what
if
viewers
can’t
remember
the
name
of
the
advertiser?
What
if
there
is
no
discernable
uptick
in
sales
activity
as
a
result
of
the
ad
campaign?
Recall
of
an
ad
can
be
an
example
of
a
vanity
metric

something
that
that
is
perhaps
easy
to
measure
but
doesn’t
support
decisions
that
a
business
or
law
firm
should
make. 
The
same
pitfalls
can
apply
to
measuring
the
efficacy
of
GenAI
solutions.
Is
what
we
are
measuring
aligned
with
outcomes
for
the
firm?

To
be
sure,
goals
and
outcomes
can
change
over
time.
Billy
Beane
came
up
with
a
winning
strategy
to
confront
the
realities
of
being
a
general
manager
in
a
small
market.
Circumstances
have
changed:
On
September
26,
2024,
the
Oakland
A’s
played
their
last
game
in
Oakland
as
they
prepared
for
an

eventual
move
to
Las
Vegas
,
a
much
bigger
market
with
its
own
unique
challenges.

Next
month,
I’ll
explore
different
use
cases
for
legal
GenAI
and
relate
the
performance
of
tools
to
positive
outcomes.
Said
another
way,
I’ll
explore
how
to
identify
getting
on
base
to
score
runs
to
win
games
with
legal
GenAI.




Ken Crutchfield HeadshotKen
Crutchfield
is
Vice
President
and
General
Manager
of
Legal
Markets
at
Wolters
Kluwer
Legal
&
Regulatory
U.S.,
a
leading
provider
of
information,
business
intelligence,
regulatory
and
legal
workflow
solutions.
Ken
has
more
than
three
decades
of
experience
as
a
leader
in
information
and
software
solutions
across
industries.
He
can
be
reached
at 
[email protected].

Using Your Law Degree For Good – Above the Law

In
this
episode,
I
interview
Dale
Margolin
Cecka,
Albany
Law
School
professor
and
director
of
family
violence
litigation.
Discover
her
journey
in
law,
challenges
in
child
advocacy,
and
insights
on
family
law
education.
Gain
a
deeper
understanding
of
domestic
violence
legislation,
its
impact
on
survivors,
and
potential
legal
reforms.
A
must-listen
for
anyone
interested
in
law,
justice,
and
societal
change!


Highlights

  • Why
    law
    school:
    a
    journey
    to
    child
    advocacy.
  • Transition
    from
    child
    advocacy
    to
    family
    law.
  • Challenges
    with
    systems
    in
    child
    advocacy.
  • Discovering
    a
    passion
    for
    family
    law.
  • Law
    school
    clinics:
    bridging
    practice
    and
    theory.
  • Role
    of
    clinics
    in
    true
    legal
    education.
  • Traits
    that
    align
    with
    family
    law
    practice.
  • Violence
    Against
    Women
    Act’s
    impact
    and
    shortcomings.
  • Critical
    issues
    with
    protective
    orders
    enforcement.
  • Need
    for
    public
    education
    on
    domestic
    abuse.
  • Future
    of
    domestic
    violence
    law
    reform.

The
Jabot
podcast
is
an
offshoot
of
the
Above
the
Law
brand
focused
on
the
challenges
women,
people
of
color,
LGBTQIA,
and
other
diverse
populations
face
in
the
legal
industry.
Our
name
comes
from
none
other
than
the
Notorious
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
and
the
jabot
(decorative
collar)
she
wore
when
delivering
dissents
from
the
bench.
It’s
a
reminder
that
even
when
we
aren’t
winning,
we’re
still
a
powerful
force
to
be
reckoned
with.

Happy
listening!




Kathryn Rubino HeadshotKathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast
,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer
.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her

with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1
 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].