It was a nefarious hoax initiated by the Hillary Clinton campaign and repeated ad nauseum by Democrat politicians and the mainstream media. But no high profile lawsuits followed and Trump chose not to have his DOJ prosecute Hillary. Why was that - because they would've had to bring the cases before a biased DC court? Regardless, it's not hard to imagine what would've happened if the situation had been reversed.
Lawfare wouldn’t be as successful if the cases were not before highly partisan judges and juries. That’s their template.
Normally, it would be sad, but because he shows no remorse, remains uncooperative, and continues to repeat his lies, he receives no compassion from me. This man ruined the lives of the two defendants and visited great harm on our country. Anyone can be forgiven, but even God does not forgive those who do not repent.
Oh, trust me, I'm not forgiving him, or any of Trump's minions for what they have done to our country.
The "Reasonable Man" principle is often applied in legal cases and verdicts, especially those involving torts. In this case it appears a reasonable person was nowhere to be found - especially in a DC court for Giuliani, a Trump associate and prominent Republican figure . This should come as no surprise considering how J6 defendants have been treated there.
The story has no morals because the principles don't apply equally to Democrats; check the lies they told about the 2016 election for reference. The lesson learned is don't be a Trump supporter or associate and get brought before a DC court.
The evidence is clear as day. It's on video. Giuliani defamed and continues to defame Freeman and Moss.
I had similar thoughts about the damages amount. I have the same thoughts when I read of traffic accident victims who were not rich become rich after a trucker is found at fault for their injuries. These people would have never earned in their entire life a fraction of the jury award. Yet juries find it easy to award vast sums.
I don't know who it was, and, just as some of the Trump co-defendants are having their legal fees paid by others, would not be improper for Freeman and Moss to have their fees paid by others who were interested in seeing them well represented. Whoever paid them, they got their money's worth. Money aside, this is a massive win for the plaintiffs.
I learned a little more about appeal bonds.
By this reasoning, Giuliani (or any other defendant in any other case) would be denied their rights to appeal an unfair civil award because they don't have enough money. Does our legal system really work that way - only those with means are allowed to appeal? Probably not - but then again, maybe it does in DC.
This jury was likely made up of peers of the plaintiffs - not the defendant, but regardless he was found guilty. The bottom line remains the same: this absurd punishment doesn't remotely fit the crime.
No doubt the Trump legal researchers are already vetting every aspect of the personal backgrounds of these "heroes of democracy." It will be interesting to see if they really are pure as the wind-driven snow, or just credible, sympathetic liars who were well coached by their prosecutorial handlers. Assuming the Federal and GA election trials ever happen, they'll be cross-examined by a different caliber of attorneys than those who represented Giuliani.
Even if they are flawed characters, they were grossly and unjustly defamed by Giuliani. The crime here is not theirs and they are not suspects. The perpetrator is Giuliani, who is now living the nightmare life he earned. The defamation is clearly documented on video, as are the victims' innocent and good-faith acts as election workers.
That's one of the complications is this question that I meant. If Giuliani is denied the ability to appeal because he cannot afford to post the appeal bond, It smacks of fundamental unfairness. Some make the same argument about cash bail. All who are arrested are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But only those who can afford or make bail are allowed to go free pending trial.
It's widely said that rich white people do better in court than people of color and people of ordinary means. Because they have money, they can hire smart lawyers and use expensive legal maneuvers that are unavailable to the rest of us.
Your point holds some water, but it is also important to recognize that actual crimes were committed. Had the crimes not been committed, the defendants would not be in the legal places they now find themselves.
I do not disagree with your criticism about the size of the financial penalty. It was a full $100 million higher than the plaintiffs sought. This is a jury verdict and they clearly wanted to make a strong statement. In that sense, they may have had more in mind than the crime itself. They may have been also thinking about the deterrent the high award will have on other would-be defamers.
There might be a problem with the heroines of democracy getting paid - the IRS. Giuliani owes them $550K. The Feds are always first in line and also have a lien on his Palm Beach penthouse, so that asset will be tied up until all taxes are paid. Then there's all of his other creditors that have considerable owed to them, so they'll be fighting for the scraps of his money and assets as well. The ladies from GA will likely never see a dime from Giuliani.
www.forbes.com
They have already been paid in a settlement with their successful lawsuit with OAN. The settlement terms are private.
That is easy. When the judgement is attached, steps can be taken for the property to be seized from Giuliani and sold. The IRS portion will come off the top and the remainder or most of the remainder will go to the plaintiffs and toward their legal costs in liquidating this asset. This is not an instant solution but the IRS lien is not a barrier to the asset being seized and liquidated.
You are correct about the other creditors, but many of them are in court. The ladies from GA have a judgement they can attach to Giuliani's assets now. I don't know much about bankruptcy laws and creditor situations like this, but I tend to think that the creditors who have judgements are in line ahead of those who do not. Judgements are immediately enforceable.
That's correct, but they'd still be money ahead. And unlike tax deadbeat Giuliani, they would be good citizens and pay their taxes.
I don't know what the applicable tax laws have to do with "fair share" in this case. If Giuliani can pay and if he claims a tax deduction for doing so, it means first and foremost the ladies got paid. And if he claims a big deduction to offset other income, he must state that income on his tax return, thereby disclosing it to the ladies, who will no doubt receive a copy of it by court order.
I thought this thread was about Giuliani.
The IRS holds the lien. They will liquidate the asset if they deem it necessary to collect the taxes owed.
For those who believe that, I have a good deal on some beachfront property in West TN. Most normal people want no part of lawsuits, especially high profile ones. The publicity is in direct conflict with their alleged fear for their safety. If what they say is true, this verdict would bring out the nut cases even more. It appears they like the attention, and the really like the money.
My issue is the size of the judgement; it's outrageous and totally out of proportion with the tort for which Giuliani was found guilty. If justice prevails, the amount will be reduced by an appeals court to a realistic level.
You know threads in this fourm drift broadly within a topic. Giuliani, his defamation, his victims. His payout or lack of it. All fair game.
Maybe or maybe not. Laws about this are complex. I did some searching on the related questions and quickly lost interest because this is the kind of legal soup trained lawyers deal with. I'm not going to get deep into it here because I would not know what I was talking about. In general, The women who received the jury verdict in favor of them and against Giuliani are in a very strong position to claim and take collections actions against the major portion of Giuliani's assets and income.
That could very well happen. It is not uncommon in medical malpractice, product liability and other such cases for a jury to award a massive sum and for that to be reduced on appeal.
