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.

  • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
    34·
    11 months ago

    Oh, I am just loving this.

    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 jury verdict overturned or cut down on appeal.

    Attorneys for the two women still have to enforce the judgment against Giuliani, which may involve further court proceedings. But they do not have to wait the standard 30 days to begin trying to seize his assets.

    Well, since he has refused to respond to the court’s order that he provide financial evidence (How the fuck does that work, by the way?) here is a list of some of his assets according to this link from February 2023.

    He has, or had, a net worth of around $80 million. He has an apartment in NYC (currently listed for sale at around $6 million), 12 other apartments in NY, 2 mansions in TX, 2 penthouses in Manhattan, and 950 acres of Farmland in Ohio.

    Go get 'em, ladies!

  • prime_number_314159@lemmy.world
    445·
    11 months ago

    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.”

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      301·
      11 months ago

      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?

      • athos77@kbin.socialOP
        62·
        11 months ago

        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

        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.

      • prime_number_314159@lemmy.world
        45·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • athos77@kbin.socialOP
          7·
          11 months ago

          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.

    • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
      27·
      11 months ago

      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.

      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.

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
      12·
      11 months ago

      Something something directed verdict default 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