A few weeks ago Rudy Giuliani entered a stipulation in a defamation case against him from two Georgia election workers. The stipulation stated that he had indeed said false things about them, but it was followed by a bizarre effort to claim that the stipulation didn't really mean he had said anything wrong. He was just doing it to save money. Or something.
Today a federal judge, tired of his antics, told Giuliani to pound sand:
The ruling by the judge, Beryl A. Howell in Federal District Court in Washington, means that the defamation case against Mr. Giuliani, a central figure in former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to remain in power after his election loss, can proceed to trial on the narrow question of how much, if any, damages he will have to pay the plaintiffs in the case.
....Judge Howell’s decision to effectively skip the fact-finding stage of the defamation case and move straight to an assessment of damages came after a protracted struggle by Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss to force Mr. Giuliani to turn over evidence they believed they deserved as part of the discovery process.
....“Donning a cloak of victimization may play well on a public stage to certain audiences, but in a court of law this performance has served only to subvert the normal process of discovery in a straightforward defamation case,” Judge Howell wrote.
The remedy for all of this, she added, was that Mr. Giuliani would have to pay nearly $90,000 in legal fees Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss had incurred and would suffer a default judgment on the central issue of whether he had defamed the women.
I think it's safe to say Giuliani defamed the two election workers with extreme prejudice, and it's good to see that he's going to have to pay the piper for doing it. The MAGA clowns need to learn that they can't just say anything they want and not suffer any consequences for it. If you publicly claim that someone pulled thousands of votes out of a suitcase, it's libel unless they actually did pull thousands of votes out of a suitcase.
Which they didn't. They deserve whatever they end up getting from Giuliani.
Sadly for them, Giuliani is so deep in legal trouble and legal bills that there might not be anything left for Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss. Or they'll get pennies on the dollar at Bankruptcy.
I read recently that Trump had finally (after Giuliani was practically reduced to begging on his knees) agreed to hold a fundraiser to help him with the legal fees. Whether that would include helping pay off what will no doubt be a massive damages award is less clear. Probably not.
Plus, knowing Trump, he'll probably keep most of it and give Giuliani pennies on the dollar, if anything.
They should move into his New York apartment. He’d be too broke to pay for for an eviction.
Rudy911 deserves to burn for multiple reasons, it is good to see actual justice.
But people should keep in mind the role of money here - this only happened because dude is broke. In the US, money is converts to perceived moral virtue fairly easily and he could have kept this going for years.
That's got to be on Don's mind today, too.
"In the US, money converts to perceived moral virtue fairly easily"
Could that be our problem?
That could be our problem.
Can any lawyer-types here explain why on earth Giuliani would *admit* in a filing that he did indeed defame the two elections workers, but, then insist he couldn't afford to defend himself against those claims? Or something? IANAL, but I don't think that's how anything works. It was really weird. Unsurprisingly the judge seems to have gone, "well, ok, let's proceed to the penalty phase, then!"
It’s been many years since I was involved in a defamation case so I’m far from up on current law but I think that the judge is right to say that a litigant can’t make a stipulation and then publicly go back on it. I think when Rudy made the stipulation everyone assumed that he was conceding liability and wanted to focus on damages (which is clearly the most difficult part of the plaintiff’s case because they are not wealthy and have relatively modest incomes).
Going back on the stipulation only served to further antagonize the judge, it had no legal effect whatsoever. Rudy is apparently represented by a lawyer who very likely is now worried about being sued for malpractice and is presumably documenting that all the stupid public statements made by Rudy were things he was either unaware of or had counseled against.
He was drunk, again.
I believe his argument was that while he had made false and libelous statements, the women had suffered no harm to their reputations because they are nobodies, therefore he need not pay damages.
I hope they clean him out.
The case docket can be found here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61642105/freeman-v-herring-networks-inc/
Docket entry 81 (July 11, 2023) is a motion for sanctions against Guliani for failure to preserve evidence. Docket entry 84 is Guliani's response, 86 is the rebuttal by plaintiffs, entry 90 is an updated stipulation, and entry 94 is the judge's ruling.
Guliani's response makes two arguments. First, he contends that his failure to provide discovery is all the fault of the Department of Justice, which seized his electronic devices while conducting a criminal investigation. Second, he says that, “Giuliani stipulates to all pertinent facts Plaintiffs would need from him to establish liability, making discovery sanctions and further discovery from him unnecessary.” He filed the stipulation as an attachment to the filing.
The judge rejected both arguments.
Here's my speculation on what Guliani's lawyer was thinking. He recognized that the first argument was almost certain to fail. Stipulation to all of the factual allegations in the complaint would almost certainly mean losing the case, but that would happen anyway if the judge entered a default judgement in favor of the plaintiff. If the stipulation convinced the judge not to enter a default judgement, this would leave the verdict undecided for the moment. Perhaps his lawyer thought there was a very slim chance (as opposed to no chance whatsoever) that Guiliani could still win the case despite the concessions made in the stipulation. But I think it's likely that the main reason for this strategy is that Guliani wanted to avoid sanctions because he felt they would be bad for his image. It may be hard to imagine Guliani worrying about his public image at this point, but Fox News will still interview him and I'm guessing he likes that.
“Giuliani stipulates to all pertinent facts Plaintiffs would need from him to establish liability, making discovery sanctions and further discovery from him unnecessary.”
What that says to me is that he fears discovery would reveal worse things than the simple fefamation.
Just to be clear: none of the higher-level MAGA-people have actually suffered any adverse consequences yet. And Rudy’s a good example. His legal business has basically been worthless for years and years. He’s essentially been working as a half assed fixer since he left elected office.
And being ordered to pay money is a lot different from actually paying it. Yes, Rudy’s spent like a drunken sailor and squandered millions (which is why he’s broke) but I doubt very much whether either of these women are ever going to see a penny.
Time to bring back debtors prison. Giuliani definitely belongs there.
Can a defamation award be extinguished by bankruptcy?
Yes, I believe it can. As far as I’m aware, everything except student loans and credit card debt can be extinguished in bankruptcy.
Credit card debt takes precedence over a court order of damages over defamation that resulted in death threats? Sadly, I can believe that. Gotta love the American legal system, don't ya?
This website says it is not provided:
“The Bankruptcy Code says that debts based on liability “for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to property of another entity” are specifically excluded from the scope of the bankruptcy discharge.”
https://www.cgalaw.com/are-defamation-damages-dischargeable-in-bankruptcy/
I just got that from a Google search. I have no idea otherwise.
I don't think any of the families who sued Alex Jones were particularly rich or famous, and they got a billion dollar judgement against him. Is Georgia law different in this respect or is the basis for their suit different than that against Jones, or E. Jean Carrol's against Trump?
Now getting a judgment is different from actually getting the defandant to pay up, I understand. I doubt the Sandy Hook families will ever see a dime from Jones, either, but hopefully their lawyers will make the rest of his stupid, horrible, dishonest life miserable. Same with Giuliani.
👍👍👍👍👍
The case was in federal court, so Georgia law isn't the issue (I imagine -- I'm not a lawyer). Unfortunately, I agree with your assessment of the chances that the plaintiffs ever see a payout.
That occurred to me when the news hit that he's selling his Manhattan digs. I'm guessing that's the last meaningful pot of money he has.
Remember when the Bracewell firm added him as a name partner?
Lol. They dropped that quicker than a Trump condo building could rip his name off the façade.
As to jte21's question...Why the Stipulation? Rudy was subject to very normal discovery requests....which he has avoided forever and I think even took it up on appeal on a different (?) matter...but regardless, he has steadfastly refused to turn over anything...so, in that the Defamation was easily true and provable, why not Stip to it and continue to stonewall on Discovery?
The Stip was a gambit...and so here we are. I hope this helps. Traveller
Reading up a bit more on this elsewhere, some people have been speculating that there were things that could have been turned up on discovery in this case that would have been more damaging to him in the criminal case in Fulton co., so he decided to stonewall producing the material here, take a judgment he knows he will never have to pay off because he'll just declare bankruptcy, and hope to stay out of jail in the criminal case.
No idea if that's what was going on, but that is quite a gambit, if you can call it that.
Can he be ordered to pay punitive damages (on top of actual damages) like Alex Jones was?
i believe i read that yes, punitive damages are possible
Unfortunately for the two election workers, Giuliani's goose has already been plucked. He's begging Donald Trump of all people for help with his legal fees. That is a quest certain to disappoint him and should tell you how desperate his plight really is.
He still allegedly owns a $6M condo in NYC. Take the keys and give them to the women.
I know that your primary residence and some other assets (like pension income) are usually protected in bankruptcy. Whether that applies to other legal judgments, I have no idea.
In most states the “homestead” exemption is pretty modest. The big exception is Florida. That’s why you’ll see thugs like OJ go and buy a huge mansion in Florida just before being hit by a big judgment.
Best to get a judgment ASAP and try to slap a lien on something tangible. I would anticipate that Orange Jesus will pay small amounts of his legal fees, and string him along until its pass the period whereby he could testify against him. Then he will then kick Rudy to the curb.
They can’t get a judgment until the amount of the damages is determined at trial.
"One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws." -- some idiot