On Wednesday, former election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss presented their case before a judge in Washington, D.C., asserting that Rudy Giuliani has once again made defamatory statements against them, thereby urging the court to hold him in civil contempt. This comes after a federal court had previously deemed Giuliani liable for defaming the women during the tumultuous 2020 election.
In December 2023, the court imposed an injunction against Giuliani, who was ordered to pay Freeman and Moss an astounding $148 million in damages, coupled with an agreement to refrain from making further false assertions about their integrity and actions. Nevertheless, Freeman and Moss contend that Giuliani’s recent statements represent a blatant disregard for this legal order, asserting that Giuliani “brazenly” violated the injunction with his continued defamatory rhetoric.
Moss and Freeman’s legal representatives are now seeking an official order from the court to ensure that Giuliani is warned about potential fines for any future violations. They are also requesting a hearing to assess the amount of those fines, recognizing that civil contempt orders typically invoke sanctions and penalties, including possible jail time, to enforce compliance.
During the 2020 election, Giuliani leveled repeated and unsubstantiated accusations against Freeman and Moss, alleging they were involved in stealing the election while working as poll workers at State Farm Arena in Atlanta, Georgia. His unfounded claims spread across social media platforms, television broadcasts, and podcast appearances, echoing through the political landscape. In fact, he presented these allegations directly to former President Donald Trump, which further amplified the attacks against the two women, leading to widespread harassment.
Despite having filed for bankruptcy in response to the ordered compensation, Freeman and Moss initially believed that Giuliani’s financial struggles might lead him to cease his defaming remarks as the bankruptcy proceedings unfolded in May. However, they have observed a disheartening resurgence in his defamatory narratives only six months later.
The former mayor of New York has been noted for “unambiguously” referencing both Moss and Freeman in two recent episodes of his podcast, where he revisited his claims that they engaged in fraudulent activities during the election. According to the detailed motion filed by their attorneys, a particular November 12 broadcast of Giuliani’s show “America’s Mayor Live” included derisive comments claiming that the plaintiffs had not incurred the damages they were awarded. He insinuated manipulation by a judge and implied that he had not been granted due legal process regarding the allegations made against him.
In his podcast, Giuliani reiterated a baseless allegation that has faced multiple fact-checks, suggesting that Moss and Freeman interchanged a USB drive containing uncounted votes for Joe Biden as a means to manipulate election results. “They’re passing these little hard drives that we maintain were used to fix the machines right and they say it was candy,” Giuliani claimed, referencing a ginger mint candy, which he misidentified as a hard drive. Defiant, he admitted that he was likely to face legal repercussions for his continued defamation, stating, “I’m sorry they’re going to sue me again for saying it but what am I going to do but tell the truth.”
Moreover, in another episode on November 14, Giuliani again stated that he had video evidence showing the women supposedly quadrupling the counted votes—claims that have been thoroughly debunked. He even shared surveillance footage from State Farm Arena on social media, misrepresenting it as proof of fraud, despite investigations by various law enforcement agencies concluding that no fraud had occurred during the election process. The official final report issued by the Georgia Secretary of State on March 7, 2023, confirmed the absence of any fraudulent activity.
Faced with inquiries from the press regarding his defamatory commentary, Giuliani stood firm in his position, emphatically denying that he had defamed the election workers, insisting that his statements remain truthful. His attorneys assert in their motion that these latest claims are mere reiterations of long-debunked lies Giuliani has perpetuated over the years without regard for the consequences to the women he continually targets.
Giuliani’s team did not immediately provide comments on the civil contempt motion presented in court on Wednesday. Meanwhile, he is scheduled to appear for trial in New York on January 16, where the court will address the enforcement of the $148 million in damages previously awarded to Freeman and Moss. He has requested a delay to attend Trump’s inauguration on January 20, as well as any associated events leading up to it. In another development, lawyers representing Moss and Freeman sought the judge’s consideration to shorten Giuliani’s deadline for producing discovery materials from 30 days down to 2 weeks, stressing the urgency of expediting these proceedings.
The women’s attorney pointed out that “there is simply no reason to believe” that Giuliani would treat the New York trial any differently than he had with other cases, suggesting that earlier deadlines would help mitigate any ongoing issues with his compliance. A spokesperson for Giuliani criticized the motion as a “dishonest and duplicitous attack” aimed at limiting his rights to free speech.
How has Giuliani’s bankruptcy filing affected the defamation case brought by Freeman and Moss?
**Interview with Legal Expert on the Case Against Rudy Giuliani**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today. We have with us [Expert’s Name], a legal analyst specializing in defamation and civil rights cases. Let’s dive right into the situation surrounding Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss. Can you provide us with some background on their case against Rudy Giuliani?
**Expert:** Certainly. Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss were election workers during the 2020 election, and they became targets of baseless accusations made by Rudy Giuliani, who claimed they engaged in election fraud while working at State Farm Arena in Atlanta. These claims not only defamed them but also led to serious harassment and threats against their lives. In December 2023, a court found Giuliani liable for defamation and imposed a $148 million judgment against him, along with an injunction prohibiting him from making further defamatory statements about Freeman and Moss [[1](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67796546)].
**Interviewer:** Despite this legal ruling, it seems Giuliani has continued to make questionable statements about them. What are the latest developments in this case?
**Expert:** Just recently, Freeman and Moss presented their case in Washington, D.C., asserting that Giuliani has not only continued to make defamatory statements but has brazenly violated the court’s injunction. Their legal team is now seeking additional sanctions against Giuliani for his persistent disregard for the court order. They are pushing for an official warning regarding potential fines for future violations and even a hearing to determine those fines, underlining that civil contempt could lead to sanctions or jail time [[1](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67796546)].
**Interviewer:** That sounds quite serious. How has Giuliani responded to these accusations and the court’s injunction?
**Expert:** Giuliani has remained defiant. In recent podcast episodes, he not only reiterated his unsubstantiated claims against Freeman and Moss but also dismissed the court’s order by suggesting he had not been given due process. He characterized the allegations against him as a manipulation of the justice system and even misrepresented supposed evidence to back up his claims, which have been comprehensively debunked. For instance, he falsely asserted that Freeman and Moss were switching USB devices to alter vote counts [[1](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67796546)].
**Interviewer:** How does his bankruptcy filing complicate matters for Freeman and Moss?
**Expert:** The bankruptcy filing is significant because it raises questions about Giuliani’s ability to pay the $148 million verdict. Initially, Freeman and Moss hoped that his financial struggles would curb his defamatory behavior. However, it seems to have had the opposite effect, as he continues to make these damaging claims. Their legal strategy now not only focuses on holding him accountable for his ongoing statements, but also on ensuring that any potential sanctions are effectively imposed to prevent further defamation [[1](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67796546)].
**Interviewer:** In your opinion, what might be the consequences for Giuliani if the court finds him in civil contempt?
**Expert:** If the court finds Giuliani in civil contempt, he could face substantial fines, and in serious cases, potentially imprisonment. Contempt orders are meant to compel compliance with the court’s directives, and repeated violations can result in escalating penalties. This serves as a warning not only to Giuliani but also to others that defamation, especially in such high-stakes scenarios, will have legal repercussions [[1](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67796546)].
**Interviewer:** Thank you, [Expert’s Name], for your insights into this complex situation. It seems the legal battle for Freeman and Moss is far from over.
**Expert:** Thank you for having me. Yes, the outcomes in this case will be critical not only for Freeman and Moss but also for how defamation is treated in the context of public discourse, especially when it intersects with allegations related to elections.
