Giuliani defamed and inflicted emotional distress on Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss after falsely accusing them of election fraud, Judge Beryl Howell ruled.

This is separate from Rudy’s criminal trial with Trump, this was a civil trial between him and the election workers, where Rudy admitted that he lied about them.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    56·
    1 year ago

    Howell’s three-page ruling entered a default judgment finding Giuliani liable for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy and punitive damage claims. The court ordered Giuliani to cover Freeman’s and Moss’ attorney fees associated with discovery in the case. Giuliani will also have to pay punitive damages; that amount will be determined by a jury trial.

    Howell instructed the jury to consider that Giuliani was “intentionally trying to hide relevant discovery about his financial assets for the purpose of artificially deflating his net worth” in determining punitive damages.

    Life sure sucks for this sack of shit these days. I’m all in favor of his bullshit burying him for the rest of his life. Could have led a fat and pampered lifestyle and threw it all away. Fuck him.

    • krayj@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      18·
      1 year ago

      The only thing about this whole scenario I dislike is how much time elapsed between “fuck around” and “find out”. But it’s good to see justice catching up with that shitbag.

      Unfortunately, no matter what ends up happening, it still will never fully make right what those poor election workers went through and are still going through.

      • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
        5·
        1 year ago

        Unfortunately you are right. That said, if we get enough punitive damages to deter a second guiliani, we have done a whole lot already. Let it never happen again.

        • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
          6·
          1 year ago

          Criminals aren’t deterred by consequences, because they never expect them. Criminals commit crimes when they think they can get away with it, and unfortunately many of them do.

          I am enjoying watching Giuliani suffer, but that doesn’t mean it’s justice, or that the system is working. No amount of money can atone for his crimes, and no prison sentence will change our legal system into something closer to fair.

      • GBU_28@lemm.eeEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        That time is literally just justice occurring. In general, you should be wary of a very fast trial

      • Octavio@lemmy.world
        4·
        1 year ago

        I love how the author describes the ruling, “unsparing.” Heh.

        He assured this Court directly that he “understand[s] the obligations” because he has “been doing this for 50 years[.]” In this case, however, Giuliani has given only lip service to compliance with his discovery obligations and this Court’s orders by failing to take reasonable steps to preserve or produce his ESI. Instead, Giuliani has submitted declarations with concessions turned slippery on scrutiny and excuses designed to shroud the insufficiency of his discovery compliance.

        And that’s just page 1.

    • Jordan LundOPEnglish
      12·
      1 year ago

      It’s going to be interesting to see how “for purposes of this litigation only — does not contest the factual allegations” is going to fly in the criminal case.

      I don’t think the court system allows you to admit you lied in one case and then go “No, no, that’s only for that ONE case… this criminal case is TOTALLY different…”

      • meco03211@lemmy.world
        5·
        1 year ago

        It kinda does though. Standards of proof are different between civil and criminal trials. Your “right to remain silent” is only relevant for criminal proceedings. This is why you will never be required to take the stand in your own criminal trial. This gives you coverage for shady law enforcement inferring criminal guilt based on your silence or reluctance to answer questions.

        Contrast that with civil proceedings where you do not have the right to remain silent. In those if you refuse to answer a question, the judge/jury/finder of facts can legally infer a negative response. So if asked “Did you do the thing?” and you remain silent, they can assume you did the thing. In a criminal trial, they can’t assume you did the thing.

        This brings us back to the standards of proof. For criminal it’s “beyond all reasonable doubt”. For civil it’s “a preponderance of the evidence”. Consider these to be effectively 100% and 50% respectively. Now why this makes sense in this case is he effectively admitted that there’s a better chance someone would think he’s lying than telling the truth. He’s admitting to the 50%, but not admitting it’s provable beyond all reasonable doubt at 100%.

    • Jordan LundOPEnglish
      7·
      1 year ago

      He’s literally lost everything and, at 79 years old, he will likely die before this is all settled for good.