Share this @internewscast.com
FILE – Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer for President Donald Trump, speaks during a news conference at Four Seasons Total Landscaping on Nov. 7, 2020, in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
An attorney for Rudy Giuliani has filed a notice that he intends to appeal the $148 million defamation verdict won by former Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea’ “Shaye” Moss.
Late Tuesday, Texas-based attorney Joseph Sibley filed a notice of appeal on the docket of the Washington, D.C.-based defamation case the former New York City mayor lost after refusing to testify.
In that case, Giuliani was taken to task for a slanderous campaign against Freeman and Moss in which he falsely proclaimed the pair were engaged in fraud and had “cheated” voters in the 2020 election. Those lies were rebroadcast by former President Donald Trump — and others in his orbit — and shared far and wide. Despite being quickly and thoroughly debunked, the lies were seized upon by adherents of the 45th president, leading to hundreds of death threats — many of them racist — against the mother and daughter, who are Black.
The verdict against Trump’s longtime friend and former lawyer was issued in mid-December 2023, but almost immediately stayed after Giuliani filed for bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York. Earlier on Tuesday, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane lifted the stay on the defamation case and allowed an appeal to be filed.
“We very much appreciate the judge’s expeditious consideration of this matter and look forward to proceeding accordingly,” Giuliani’s political adviser, Ted Goodman, told Law&Crime in an email.
Payment of the damages has been a major sticking point — with the judge who found Giuliani liable once going so far as to call the beleaguered defendant “unwilling and uncooperative” after he refused to pay attorneys fees by citing his dire financial straits. At the same time, the judge noted, Giuliani was able to afford a spokesperson “who accompanied him daily to trial.”
The latest court maneuvers threaten to push payment of the civil damages owed to Freeman and Moss back even further.
Before the notice of appeal was filed, Giuliani’s attorney asked for a judgment as matter of law and a new trial in a consolidated motion — which is essentially asking the judge who oversaw the original case, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell, to initiate new proceedings at the district court level. Meanwhile, Sibley is still initiating the broader appeals process for his client in order to meet certain timelines.
The heart of the motion for new proceedings singles out the amended complaint filed by Freeman and Moss — particularly how the plaintiffs added an allegation of civil conspiracy to their original lawsuit.
“There were no co-conspirators specifically named,” the motion reads. “Later, the Court would enter a default judgment on the Complaint as a discovery sanction against Giuliani and ordered a jury trial on damages. Giuliani objected to the jury trial, but said objection was overruled. Giuliani also contended that Plaintiffs were limited to proving damages only from the pleaded conduct establishing liability based on the overt acts identified in the Complaint. The Court overruled Giuliani’s objection and permitted Plaintiffs to include unpleaded statements and unpleaded alleged conspiratorial conduct as causing Plaintiffs’ damages.”
The motion goes on to argue that the amended complaint in the defamation case “fails to properly allege conspiracy.” The motion also repeats earlier arguments made by Giuliani’s legal team that his slanderous comments were constitutionally protected opinion speech under the First Amendment — which the court has already rejected.
“Because the conduct complained of fails to adequately plead the claims for relief and/or were improperly presented to the jury despite being outside the pleadings, Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” the motion argues.
Additionally, the motion claims the intentional infliction of emotional distress damages were improperly awarded. In the alternative of a wide-ranging judgment or new trial, the motion asks the court to alter or amend the amount of damages owed to Freeman and Moss.
Since being found liable for defamation and ordered to pay the two women, Giuliani has doubled down and repeated the false allegations against Freeman and Moss, prompted the pair to sue him anew.
