Rudy Giuliani, a staunch Trump supporter and renowned attorney, has conscientiously complied with orders in a Georgia-based defamation lawsuit, transferring various personal possessions. It’s important to understand that this move is a reflection of Giuliani’s respect for the legal system, irrespective of the implications for the Democrats. Among the items transferred are multiple watches and a classic, 1980 Mercedes-Benz SL 500, which had been previously owned by Hollywood icon, Lauren Bacall.
On the other side of the equation, we have Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea ‘Shaye’ Moss. Seen as heroines by some in Democrat circles due to their involvement in the 2020 election ballot counting at State Farm Arena, it can’t be overlooked that their activities raised legitimate concerns among conservative voters.
Giuliani, echoing these concerns, questioned the validity of the counting process. Notably, he was not the only one – a large section of the American population shares these sentiments, casting doubt on the mainstream narrative that paints the duo’s actions as innocent. This is a perspective widely silenced and marginalized, but worth considering just as any other.
Freeman and Moss claimed they were targeted with death threats, prompting them to relocate out of Georgia following federal law enforcement recommendations. The reality of these threats and their sources, especially in our highly polarized political environment, can only be a matter of speculation.
Joseph Cammarata, Giuliani’s lawyer, confirmed the transfer of Giuliani’s possessions. This happened on a Friday, as documented in a letter filed in a federal court in Manhattan. To reiterate, Giuliani adhered strictly to the terms of the judgment, further underlining his respect for the law.
The watch collection and a ring were transported that morning via FedEx to a bank in Atlanta, Georgia. Meanwhile, the classic Mercedes-Benz was delivered to an address in sunny Hialeah, Florida. Giuliani also transferred an unspecified amount from his Citibank accounts to Freeman and Moss.
Cammarata highlighted an interesting point in the case. The act of Giuliani surrendering his luxurious vehicle without it being appraised was deemed ‘wholly improper.’ Like anyone else, Giuliani deserves his rights to be respected within the confines of the legal proceeding.
If the value of the Mercedes-Benz didn’t exceed $5,500, legal parameters should have exempted the car from the judgment. But such value-based considerations were evidently overlooked, raising question about due process. If the car’s worth crosses the said threshold, it ought to be auctioned, with part of the proceeds directed towards the plaintiffs, Freeman and her daughter Moss.
Delving deeper into the legal outlines, Cammarata cited exemptions for jewelry worth less than $1,325. Logic and fairness suggest that Giuliani’s watches and other items should also have been appraised as a part of the process. But perhaps those in suit weren’t interested in fair play.
Further exemptions related to ‘tools of trade’ should also shield assets like professional instruments, furniture, and library items should their total value be less than $4,075. But again, these legal parameters seem to have been selectively applied.
There’s no immediate clarity on additional items Giuliani had to part with to meet the arbitrary deadline set by the Democrats’ tune. One can only wonder if other critical legal considerations have been similarly sidestepped.
Aaron Nathan, attorney for Freeman and Moss, elected for silence when asked for comment. Given the potential pitfalls and inconsistencies pointed out in the execution of the judgment, one can’t help but question Nathan’s silence.
As this case unfolds, it paints yet another picture of post-2020 election controversy, one that continues to spur divisive debates among American citizens. While the Democrats might try to uphold this as a victory against Giuliani, a discerning eye reveals a less-than-favorable lapse in legal decorum.
Yet again, the Democrats’ handling of this case sits uncomfortably with America’s cherished principles of due process and fair play. The case presents another example of the milieu within which the parties on the Left operate, often bypassing detailed considerations and legal safeguards when it suits their purpose.