In late 2023, Biden initiated a defamation suit, claiming Byrne defamed him by spreading false allegations of engaging in “heinous and traitorous acts” related to bribery and dealings with Iran. Biden stated that Byrne further associated him and these alleged offenses with the “appalling terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israel.”

These “falsehoods” were described as “particularly egregious” due to Byrne’s accusations of Biden committing a capital offense, according to the court documents.

“Byrne wrongly alleged that the Plaintiff colluded with hostile nations and terrorist groups against his own country for personal gain—essentially accusing him of treason while his father was the sitting President, claiming he agreed to assist America’s adversaries in killing Americans for financial gain,” the motion elaborated. “This equates to a baseless charge of treason—one of the most severe crimes conceivable, comparable to child molestation.”

Moreover, Biden’s legal team argued that Byrne, described as a “repeat offender,” wielded his vast wealth and “deception and malice” to damage the plaintiff’s reputation because of his disdain for Joe Biden.

“The circumstances of this case—where a billionaire persistently and aggressively asserts that the son of the then-President conspired with America’s foes for a bribe nearing one billion dollars—are indeed extraordinary. The Plaintiff suggests the closest analogous case is Freeman v. Giuliani,” the motion stated.

The difference between Biden and the defamed Georgia election workers is that he is a public figure and had Secret Service protection when Byrne made his statements, meaning Freeman and Moss were “much more vulnerable.”

As a result, Biden sought $33.3 million — 44% of the $75 million in punitive damages awarded in the Freeman case — plus $1 in nominal damages.

Forcing Byrne to pay up tens of millions of dollars in punitive damages will send a message that causes him “discomfort” while not by any means ruining him, the filing concluded, claiming that sum would be “much less” than the defendant said he paid to bankroll 2020 election challenges and supporting “families of participants” in Jan. 6.

“Even if the award does not affect his lifestyle, Plaintiff believes an award of that size will cause Byrne discomfort and so satisfy the purpose of punitive damages. But it will not ‘destroy’ or ‘cripple’ Byrne. An award of $33.33 million would be less than 5% of his most likely earnings from his recent investment of the proceeds from his Overstock.com sale,” the motion said. “It would be much less than the $40 million that Byrne publicly stated he spent on financing challenges to the 2020 presidential election and paying for living expenses for the families of participants in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol who were being prosecuted for those criminal actions.”

Read the motion here.