OBAMA APPOINTEE DENIES GIULIANI ABILITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF, RESULTS IN $148 MILLION JUDGMENT
In the case of Giuliani, the two Georgia election workers listed as plaintiffs in the suit against Giuliani sued him for saying they engaged in what amounted to election fraud. They are allowed to ask the defendant ex-mayor for documents relevant to their suit and to his defense.
These women brought their case against Giuliani in a jurisdiction that is heavily populated with Democrats. They could have sued in their home state, Georgia, but did not. They wanted a jury pool of anti-Trump democrats, so they sued in Washington, D.C.
They managed to get an incredibly biased Barack Obama-appointed, anti-Trump judge.
She is a far-left-leaning partisan who, in a speech given to a group of women, the WWCDA, in November 2023 praised the prosecution of hundreds of persons sent to jail or prison on January 6, 2021, people who were protesting election fraud:
"My D.C. judicial colleagues and I regularly see the impact of big lies at the sentencing of hundreds, hundreds of individuals who have been convicted for offense conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, when they disrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election at the U.S. Capitol .
Someone who makes a statement like this, when she is handling a case involving one who challenged the legitimacy of the vote count for the 2020 election, under the rules of judicial ethics, should never have been allowed to sit in judgment over Rudy Giuliani's case.
But she did sit in judgment on the case against Giuliani. Here is what happened.
In recent years, with computers becoming a part of our everyday lives, the court rules concerning what kind of information may be "discovered" by one party or another have changed. Parties in some cases are now allowed to request "metadata" that remains on a person's hard drives after documents have been accessed but are no longer being accessed.
In this case, they asked for all metadata information from every phone and computer he had used during the time leading up to and after January 6, 2021. This put an incredible burden on Giuliani, because
1): he wasn't sure he could even access all of that;
2) if he could access all of those devices, the costs would have been close to $400,000, and
3) the FBI seized his computers after January 6 and when he got them back, relevant data was gone.
The Plaintiffs' attorneys invoked a court rule stating that if someone should know or expect this type of information to be sought in future litigation, it must be preserved. The judge then ruled that Giuliani should have preserved this information regardless of the FBI seizing his computers and wiping off data, or that he should have made greater efforts to retrieve that missing data.
Because Giuliani could not produce all of the computer data requested, the judge struck his defenses and declared that he had committed libel, that he had no defense, and that he must now pay the plaintiffs their attorney fees, compensatory and punitive damages.
In short, Giuliani was given no opportunity to defend himself, and once again, he was given no opportunity to produce evidence in court that these two plaintiffs had, in fact, committed voter fraud.
This ruling was accomplished on August 30, 2023, in a 57-page opinion issued by Obama-appointee U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell. That set the stage for a Democrat jury in the District of Columbia to punish Donald Trump's lawyer with a substantial monetary penalty, and the jurors certainly did that.
Now you know the rest of the story.
My solid opinion here? Justice denied.
Look for a favorable appeal decision for the ex-mayor within the next 1-2 years.
Comments
Post a Comment