A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has ordered Rudy Giuliani to appear in person next month after the two Georgia election workers he defamed requested that he be held in contempt of court for allegedly repeating lies about the 2020 election, which resulted in a $148 million judgment against the former New York City mayor.
Giuliani filed the motion for civil contempt Wednesday morning after making several requests for public donations last week, claiming he couldn’t afford to feed himself because of debts owed to Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss.
Related Coverage:
On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell ordered Giuliani to respond to the plaintiffs’ filing by December 2 and attend an in-person hearing on December 12.
Freeman and Moss claim that Giuliani’s defamation campaign against them persisted even after they received the astronomical judgment, leading Giuliani to file for bankruptcy.
To control Giuliani’s behavior and avoid further legal action, he eventually agreed to a permanent injunction prohibiting him from making any further claims or statements indicating that the plaintiffs had “engaged in wrongdoing in connection with the 2020 presidential election.”
However, plaintiffs’ attorneys claim that the former U.S. Attorney in Manhattan has “blatantly violated that consent injunction.” The filing states (emphasis in original):
In two recent broadcasts of his nightly show, Mr. Giuliani claimed—unambiguously referring to Plaintiffs—that “they never let me show the tapes that show them quadruple counting the the the ballots ,” that his tapes showed Plaintiffs “ passing these little uh little hard drives that we maintain were used to fix the machines right and they say it was candy. Well you look at it looks like a hard drive to me and they told me it was a hard drive and there’s no proof that it was candy,” and that “ you can see if you want uh in living color her quadruple counting votes and the people uh thrown out of the Arena.” These statements repeat the exact same lies for which Mr. Giuliani has already been held liable, and which he agreed to be bound by court order to stop repeating. They constitute unambiguous violations of the Consent Injunction.
According to the motion, Giuliani’s most recent statements about Moss and Freeman “merely regurgitate the exact same lies that Giuliani has been spreading for years” and that he explicitly agreed not to repeat.
The evidence that he violated the court’s injunction is “not just ‘clear and convincing; it is overwhelming,” the plaintiff’s attorney wrote.
Howell instructed Giuliani to provide an explanation for not granting the motion for contempt, citing the statements made by the defendant during two episodes of his livestream program on November 12 and 14, 2024.
The response was due by December 2. Giuliani will also be required to recommend an “appropriate sanction to coerce defendant’s compliance” with the injunction against further defaming Moss and Freeman.
If Giuliani fails to respond to the contempt motion, it will be interpreted as “conceding that motion,” Howell stated.
Giuliani’s widespread legal troubles have recently worsened. After a federal judge in New York chastised Donald Trump’s former personal attorney earlier this month for his “ridiculous” efforts to retain valuable personal property owed to Freeman and Moss, Giuliani’s lawyers resigned without informing him. He has since hired a new attorney for the bankruptcy enforcement case.
