Fogbow

Maybe KKKlayman will get a new client soon...

It's not too late!
https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status ... 99904?s=20

Rudy W. Giuliani @RudyGiuliani wrote: #RUDYPALOOZA 2023

Join us tonight in Ronkonkoma for RUDYPALOOZA 2023 by clicking the link below.

http://bit.ly/44h58Vq

Venue is a commercial building in a business park just west of the MacArthur Airport. Not a place normally used for public gatherings.

IIRC it is the Loud Majority HQ.

"Come in the back door!" lol!

https://www.theamericafirstwarehouse.co ... GPSt0KU1BA

The venue only has part of the building totaling 7000 sq ft. Smaller than a typical North Fork winery.

I realize that the recommendation of the DC Bar committee is not the final decision. What court will make that decision?

How often is the recommendation of the Bar Association overridden? How likely is it to be overridden this time?

noblepa wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2023 4:59 pm I realize that the recommendation of the DC Bar committee is not the final decision. What court will make that decision?

How often is the recommendation of the Bar Association overridden? How likely is it to be overridden this time?

The hearing committee’s findings and disbarment recommendation are the latest setback for Giuliani, but the panel doesn’t have the final say. Giuliani can challenge the report before the DC Bar’s Board on Professional Responsibility, a separate body of lawyers who will decide whether to adopt the committee’s report and recommendations.

If Giuliani loses again before the board, he could take the fight to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the city’s equivalent of a state supreme court. His law license in New York has been suspended since 2021.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... paign=copy

Don't know in DC bar how often the committee's recommendations are followed, denied or revised.

Where I live the Supreme Court pretty rubber stamps the recommendations of the hearing committee.

realist wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2023 5:19 pmDon't know in DC bar how often the committee's recommendations are followed, denied or revised.

IIRC, the D.C. Ct. App. gave Klayman some minor breaks, but upheld the basic premise, i.e., Klayman needed to be disciplined.

Volkonski wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2023 4:15 pm Venue is a commercial building in a business park just west of the MacArthur Airport. Not a place normally used for public gatherings.

Four Seasons Landscaping not available?

You can't expose Dog fearing Republicans to the distraction in the near neighbourhood

Volkonski wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2023 4:38 pm https://www.theamericafirstwarehouse.co ... GPSt0KU1BA

The venue only has part of the building totaling 7000 sq ft. Smaller than a typical North Fork winery.

How does it compare to a landscaper's parking lot?

Gregg wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 3:05 am

Volkonski wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2023 4:38 pm https://www.theamericafirstwarehouse.co ... GPSt0KU1BA

The venue only has part of the building totaling 7000 sq ft. Smaller than a typical North Fork winery.

How does it compare to a landscaper's parking lot?

It is probably smaller.

Some more about Bernie Kerik at link.

Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney wrote: JUST IN: Judge Howell threatens Rudy Giuliani with contempt of court and other “severe” sanctions for failing to provide adequate discovery to Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss in their defamation suit— despite repeated court orders.

She’s also ordering Rudy to pay about $90,000 in their attorney’s fees for recent motion.

Good.

Adam Klasfeld @KlasfeldReports wrote: One of those possible "severe" sanctions is a default judgment.

That's how Alex Jones initially lost the lawsuits filed against him by Sandy Hook families — also involving conspiracy theories and discovery violations.

It's why Jones's trials were only about damages.

The Messenger @TheMessenger wrote: NEW: Federal judge threatens Rudy Giuliani with contempt of court and other “severe sanctions” in Georgia election workers defamation suit https://trib.al/7sKiPwr

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/sta ... 82721?s=20

Rudy admits in court that he lied about election workers in Georgia

Dr. Ken wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 9:56 am Rudy admits in court that he lied about election workers in Georgia

Hmm. Not exactly, but maybe it comes to the same thing.

"without admitting to the truth of the allegations"

"solely for purposes of this litigation"

"does not contest the following allegations"

Wondering whether this will work to prevent Giuliani from being precluded from denying the allegations in other litigation if, as seems likely, there is a judgment against him in this litigation.

I doubt it. In general, I don't think that a party has the power use a stipulated reservation of rights to limit the application of issue preclusion as to other parties.

However, if the court obliges Giuliani by expressly declining to make a finding as to the matters conceded, perhaps a subsequent court would conclude that the issues were not "necessarily determined" in the first judgment. But we're way past the motion to dismiss stage, and there's already abundant evidence in the record that Giuliani's statements were false. And the court might not be so obliging. Furthermore, for purposes of issue preclusion, I don't think it matters that you choose not to contest a material issue, so long as you have "a full and fair opportunity to do so."

And it's particularly not likely to work if the subsequent court proceeding is an attorney disciplinary matter.

So I doubt that this trick will work, although I suppose that there's no reason for his lawyers not to make the attempt.

Dr. Ken wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 9:56 am Rudy admits in court that he lied about election workers in Georgia

A question for the IAALs:

There's a LOT of "weasel words" in Rudy's filing, trying to narrow the scope of liability as much as possible. In real-world litigation, will they make any difference? Can this admission still be used beyond this litigation, in spite of Roodle's attempt to prevent it?

Too also, they do not address the accusation that they made no attempt to retrieve the information from other sources (I think the original request for sanctions mentioned the provider, AT&T or whoever).

Not to mention that this document from first to last comes in at level 9.2 on the resentful, snapping, screaming whiner scale.

A tweet by Andrew Weissmann reminded me the immediate context of this "nolo contendere"* stipulation, namely that the court is teeing up a big fat sanction (i.e., punishment) against Giuliani for massive & prolonged delinquency in his discovery obligations.

His argument will be that the discovery which he didn't provide is no longer relevant, on account of his stipulation, so he shouldn't be punished for violating his obligations. Besides (he will argue), he has already in effect punished himself, because the stipulation is the equivalent of one of the remedies provided for in FRCP 37(b)(2)(A)(i) ("directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims").

Edit: Actually, he's already made the argument (see https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 0.84.0.pdf):

Furthermore, Giuliani stipulates to all pertinent facts Plaintiffs would need from him to establish liability, making discovery sanctions and further discovery from him unnecessary.

Meh. He'll still be liable for attorneys fees. Plus, there's the question of whether the evidence that he withheld, failed to preserve, or deliberately destroyed, might show willful bad conduct sufficient to overcome the first amendment defenses his stipulation purports to preserve. Also, too, punitive damages.

So, while it's probably a reasonable tactical move by Giuliani's attorneys, it's not going to help him that much.

________
* Nolo contendere is a term from criminal law. So far as I know (IANACrL), it is not frequently used in modern practice. See FRCrP 11 ("Before accepting a plea of nolo contendere, the court must consider the parties’ views and the public interest in the effective administration of justice.") While I am a fan of discriminating use of archaic terms, this one is meaningless in civil practice, so stupidly cutesy rather than witty, IMO.

Rudy W. Giuliani @RudyGiuliani wrote: CORRECTING THE RECORD

The Fake News says I admitted to lying in an overnight court filing. I didn't.

We are simply moving to a point in the case where we can file a motion to dismiss.

If you see a headline claiming I made an admission, just know it is #FakeNews.

https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status ... 87077?s=20

Rudy W. Giuliani @RudyGiuliani wrote: Frank. You should know better.

This wasn't an admission. We didn't contest this part of the case in order to get to the portion of the case that will permit a motion to dismiss.

You didn't even have the decency to call me.

Frank Luntz @FrankLuntz wrote: “The admission by Mr. Giuliani came in court papers filed on Tuesday night as part of a defamation lawsuit that the two election workers had brought against him in Federal District Court in Washington in December 2021.” https://nytimes.com/2023/07/26/us/polit ... rkers.html

Giuliani is offering a subscription on Twitter X account for the low low price of only $10/mo. In return, you will get, "...access to historical content about my life, exclusive reaction to news, original videos & behind-the-scenes footage."

I'll pass.

chancery wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 12:23 pm A tweet by Andrew Weissmann reminded me the immediate context of this "nolo contendere"* stipulation, namely that the court is teeing up a big fat sanction (i.e., punishment) against Giuliani for massive & prolonged delinquency in his discovery obligations.

His argument will be that the discovery which he didn't provide is no longer relevant, on account of his stipulation, so he shouldn't be punished for violating his obligations. Besides (he will argue), he has already in effect punished himself, because the stipulation is the equivalent of one of the remedies provided for in FRCP 37(b)(2)(A)(i) ("directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims").

Question: is this a bold move by Giuliani, by evading discovery now there will be no record that could potentially be quoted in future proceedings?

Nah. Since Giuliani claims he's going to make a motion to dismiss, presumably on the basis that his conduct was protected under the First Amendment, he can't preclude discovery into evidence of "actual malice" (roughly speaking, whether he made the false statements knowingly or with reckless indifference as to whether the statements were true or false).

Any damaging evidence would likely be relevant to the issue of actual malice. And from what little I know about the case, I suspect that his motion to dismiss will be a dead-in-the-water loser.

The "stipulation" - which should really be called a concession - might save him some money as to his own attorneys fees, but it's mostly a stunt that's not going to change the outcome of the case. Giuliani can't prevent the court from making factual findings that very likely could be used in other cases -- especially disciplinary proceedings.

A poster at the Lawyers Guns & Money blog agrees that Giuliani’s promised motion to dismiss isn’t likely to do much for him, based on the judge’s rough treatment of his First Amendment arguments earlier in the litigation.

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/20 ... ght-to-lie

Rudy admits he lied but is sticking to his free speech defense, because it was like, just his opinion, man. I doubt U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell will be pleased to see that argument a second time. [linking to the judge's decision denying Giuliani's earlier motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 0.31.0.pdf]

Giuliani’s third prong of attack on plaintiffs’ defamation claim is that all his challenged statements are protected opinion. Although, generally, opinions are not actionable because they are protected by the First Amendment, “even a per se opinion is actionable if it can reasonably be understood as implying provable facts.”
[…]
The D.C. Circuit has provided guidance on how a protected opinion can bear a defamatory implication, explaining that “[j]ust as a speaker is not immunized from liability simply by prefacing otherwise defamatory statements with the words ‘In my opinion . . . ,’ defamatory assessments based on incorrect ‘facts’ stated by the speaker are also actionable. Thus, the statement ‘In my opinion Jones is a liar because he cheats on his taxes’ could be libelous if the allegation of cheating were untrue.”
[…]
Giuliani’s alleged statements accuse plaintiffs of criminal activity—which can be proven to be true or false in court— and, consequently, he cannot seek refuge under the opinion doctrine for the same reasons articulated in Moldea v. New York Times Company. Even if Giuliani made clear that his statements were his own subjective views, those statements still included accusations of election fraud that can be verified as true or false.

It will be like receiving the rancid leftovers of a meal that you didn’t care for the first time around. And they’re being served by Giuliani.

Also, Judge Howell has lost no time in ordering Giuliani to pay a substantial portion of the attorneys fees plaintiff has sought, reserving judgment on the rest, and also reserving judgment on whether to punish Giuliani further for failure to preserve records. See the minute order filed today: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61 ... er_by=desc

This lawsuit is going to end in a bad place for Giuliani, and the only effect his stunt will have is to hurry the train down the tracks.