Judge Beryl A. Howell wrote that there is a strong danger Giuliani is likely to hide his assets from plaintiffs Ruby Freeman and Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss and is unlikely to succeed in having last week’s the jury verdict overturned or cut down on appeal.
Serious question: Why are so many of these trials starting with the judge deciding guilt before any evidence or testimony? I mean, obviously, Fuck Giuliani, but this is not the way I remember due process working, and I would hate for it to become normal to go… “Ehh, we’re sure enough that he’s guilty, so we don’t have to decide that at trial.” There are so, so many cases where that’s the wrong answer, and it’s not obvious until evidence comes out at trial, and this kind of “the judge thinks you’re guilty, so fuck you” process is only one step removed from “the cop told the judge you’re guilty, so fuck you.”
I recommend you start getting your news from other sources, preferably multiple sources. What trials have started with a judge deciding guilt before evidence or testimony? I am not aware of any such case. If your source says that is happening, then it is a very unreliable source.
In this defamation trial, Giuliani had every opportunity to prove his case and chose not to do so. Here is some reading from the past few months with details you seem to have missed.
7/26/23 - Giuliani concedes he made defamatory statements about Georgia election workers - “Rudy Giuliani concedes he made defamatory statements about Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss in an effort to resolve their lawsuit against him and to satisfy a judge who has considered sanctioning him.” After accepting Giuliani’s concession, the judge ordered him to turn over financial information and pay Freeman and Moss’ attorney fees.
8/30/23 - Giuliani loses defamation lawsuit from two Georgia election workers - Loses case because he failed to respond to subpeonas and admitted that he “could no longer contest that he made false and defamatory statements about Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss.”
9/21/23 - (Rudy Giuliani snubbed judge’s order in defamation case, election worker says)[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/giuliani-snubbed-judges-order-defamation-case-election-worker-says-rcna111484] - He was ordered to provide financial information and pay attorney’s fees and failed to do so.
None of these stories are hard to find. If you have not been seeing them, they you need to get out of your bubble and find some real news sites to visit.
What are you talking about? Giuliani admitted he made false statements and was subsequently found guilty of defamation back in August of this year. There was then a different trial to determine damages, which the jury decided came to $148 million, which he now must pay.
He committed a crime, was found guilty in court, and now has to pay for it. Thats the justice system still working as intended.
Are you confusing this with Trumps fraud trial, where his lawyers fucked up and did not request a jury trial, so he had a bench trial, where the judge found him guilty of fraud? Which also is now having a second trail to determine damages, just like this one?
Both of the men mentioned had trials and were found guilty, then had trials to determine damages, showing the justice system is working exactly like it always has. What are you rambling on about?
Actually, there was never any option for a bench trial there. The media saw the submission form, which had an unchecked box for “jury trial”, but it’s a standard form that covers multiple types of trials. Like when you go to DMV and get your driver’s license renewed, there are all sorts of options for commercial and motorcycle licenses as well but you never check those sections because they’re not applicable to you.
The article I saw on the situation didn’t mention the previous trial, or his failure to comply with discovery obligations, just that a judge ruled he was liable before this trial. Now that I realize the story is “lawyer fails to defend himself properly, so his defense goes poorly”, it makes a lot more sense.
I haven’t followed the nuances of these trials as well as I could have, but someone suggested that Guiliani has a Catch-22: he’s being sued in civil court for defaming two Georgian election workers; and at the same time he’s being prosecuted in criminal court for interfering with the Georgian election. Anything he offers in defense at the civil trial could be used by the prosecution at the criminal trial.
Something something
directed verdictdefault judgement. I don’t think Guiliani comported with his discovery obligations (didn’t hand over requested evidence and documents) so there doesn’t seem to have been much or a defense.If you don’t defend yourself show up to court or you refuse to play the game at all, you’ve in some sense waived all that and you don’t get any of the fruits of those benefits