Rudy Guiliani defamation cost him $148 million

[Belsnickel]

(12-21-2023, 04:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed.  The problem is that it shouldn't have to be "knocked back".  The target shouldn't be order a ridiculous judgment so it can be retracted to a reasonable amount later.  The target should be make a logical judgment in the first place so the process can be concluded.

So, I know that we compare this to amounts others have faced for things seemingly more serious than this. I was listening to a legal analyst talking about this case just a few moments ago, though, and they brought up some good points.

First, it is easy to get lost in the circus of this all. Giuliani is a complete clown and makes it easy to forget just how bad this trial was for him. He refused to cooperate with discovery resulting in a summary judgement against him because of how obstinate he was. He failed to show any remorse for his actions and continued to stand by his statements that had been shown to be factually incorrect.

Second, the damage done to these two women was immense. They were the target of racist attacks, death threats, damages to reputation, etc. There was one recounting of one of them going into a job interview to have the interviewer go "this is you, right!?" and turning around a computer screen to show an article calling her a traitor. They did not get murdered, but they have had to live in fear of physical harm coming to them on a constant basis because of these actions.

Third, the amount is not outrageous when you take into account the first two points. What would normally limit the amount would be the defendant's personal wealth. However, Giuliani refused to comply with the part of discovery seeking to determine his wealth to avoid too high of a penalty. He has no one to blame but himself on this front. The punitive amount is within the reasonable limits set on those when calculated against the actual damages, as well.

The analyst also brought up a point I hadn't thought about, and that is that Giuliani will have a difficult time making any sort of appeal because of his refusal to comply. For instance, trying to appeal the amount by saying it is too much of a burden will be a problem for him since he would not comply with the discovery intended to ascertain the amount he would be able to pay.

[*Nately120*]

(12-21-2023, 05:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I know that we compare this to amounts others have faced for things seemingly more serious than this. I was listening to a legal analyst talking about this case just a few moments ago, though, and they brought up some good points.

First, it is easy to get lost in the circus of this all. Giuliani is a complete clown and makes it easy to forget just how bad this trial was for him. He refused to cooperate with discovery resulting in a summary judgement against him because of how obstinate he was. He failed to show any remorse for his actions and continued to stand by his statements that had been shown to be factually incorrect.

Second, the damage done to these two women was immense. They were the target of racist attacks, death threats, damages to reputation, etc. There was one recounting of one of them going into a job interview to have the interviewer go "this is you, right!?" and turning around a computer screen to show an article calling her a traitor. They did not get murdered, but they have had to live in fear of physical harm coming to them on a constant basis because of these actions.

Third, the amount is not outrageous when you take into account the first two points. What would normally limit the amount would be the defendant's personal wealth. However, Giuliani refused to comply with the part of discovery seeking to determine his wealth to avoid too high of a penalty. He has no one to blame but himself on this front. The punitive amount is within the reasonable limits set on those when calculated against the actual damages, as well.

The analyst also brought up a point I hadn't thought about, and that is that Giuliani will have a difficult time making any sort of appeal because of his refusal to comply. For instance, trying to appeal the amount by saying it is too much of a burden will be a problem for him since he would not comply with the discovery intended to ascertain the amount he would be able to pay.

I'd wager it's all strategic to ensure things go so badly against him that he can claim it's rigged and absurd. There seems to be legitimate benefit to being so wrong or guilty that you can claim that the entire thing is too absurd to be believed. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-21-2023, 05:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I know that we compare this to amounts others have faced for things seemingly more serious than this. I was listening to a legal analyst talking about this case just a few moments ago, though, and they brought up some good points.

First, it is easy to get lost in the circus of this all. Giuliani is a complete clown and makes it easy to forget just how bad this trial was for him. He refused to cooperate with discovery resulting in a summary judgement against him because of how obstinate he was. He failed to show any remorse for his actions and continued to stand by his statements that had been shown to be factually incorrect.

Second, the damage done to these two women was immense. They were the target of racist attacks, death threats, damages to reputation, etc. There was one recounting of one of them going into a job interview to have the interviewer go "this is you, right!?" and turning around a computer screen to show an article calling her a traitor. They did not get murdered, but they have had to live in fear of physical harm coming to them on a constant basis because of these actions.

Third, the amount is not outrageous when you take into account the first two points. What would normally limit the amount would be the defendant's personal wealth. However, Giuliani refused to comply with the part of discovery seeking to determine his wealth to avoid too high of a penalty. He has no one to blame but himself on this front. The punitive amount is within the reasonable limits set on those when calculated against the actual damages, as well.

The analyst also brought up a point I hadn't thought about, and that is that Giuliani will have a difficult time making any sort of appeal because of his refusal to comply. For instance, trying to appeal the amount by saying it is too much of a burden will be a problem for him since he would not comply with the discovery intended to ascertain the amount he would be able to pay.

This is a well stated, and fact based, post.  It directly addresses the thread and my point.  I'm still not getting anywhere close to thinking the amount of damages is anything close to reasonable.  Yes, I agree that the damage the plaintiffs sustained were substantial.  They still come nowhere near losing your life or the life of a loved one.  If you want to argue that people who, as was used as an example, lose a loved one because a doctor was drunk when they performed surgery on the loved on should get more than these women, I could be on board with that.  Of course there would be attendant consequences to such a change in damages awarded, but we'd at least be logically consistent.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-21-2023, 04:40 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It's hard to compare anything to the president's lawyer specifically calling out and lying about private citizens via the official pulpit.  Maybe if Taylor Swift told everyone that John Q Johnson of Upper Uppington was a kiddie diddler when she had no reason to think it was true we'd have a better comparison. 

In such a circumstance I'd have the same opinion.  

[*Nately120*]

(12-21-2023, 06:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is a well stated, and fact based, post.  It directly addresses the thread and my point.  I'm still not getting anywhere close to thinking the amount of damages is anything close to reasonable.  Yes, I agree that the damage the plaintiffs sustained were substantial.  They still come nowhere near losing your life or the life of a loved one.  If you want to argue that people who, as was used as an example, lose a loved one because a doctor was drunk when they performed surgery on the loved on should get more than these women, I could be on board with that.  Of course there would be attendant consequences to such a change in damages awarded, but we'd at least be logically consistent.

Important and rich people get off light for killing people, too. I think talking about this situation as if it were normal is the biggest impasse here. 

[*pally*]

Rudy in his bankruptcy filings is claiming up to $500,000,000 with assets of $10,000,000. I can't wait to see the actual numbers he has to prove

[hollodero]

(12-21-2023, 10:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: That's fine. What I'm trying to get across is the people who support P01135809 blindly feel everything done to him and the people who support him (even people arrested for their part in Jan 6) are simply being attacked because of P01135809/politics.  "It's a witch hunt!" so to speak.

There may be a minority who simply feel that amount is "too much" so maybe saying "half" is too lazy a way of stating what I just said...but the largest majority of those opposed to the amount are also against the conviction because of politics.  

I agree, but at the same time this majority is set in stone anyways, hence the minority is more important. They could make or break the next election based on their assessment. And when they hear a sum of 148 million, they might question the unpolitical fairness of the process. I mean, people wrongfully imprisoned can get up to 30 millions in damages for over three decades in jail and that's that. And while I don't know the objectively fair amount in this case either, a sum signficantly higher than that don't seem to make sense without factoring politics into it. An impression quite magnified when hearing the more democrat leaning news stations, reacting all in a gleeful and retaliatory tone about this enormous sum (that Rudy can never pay for anyways, btw.) - a climate that, it might appear, the judges pandered to. At least there's no way I could argue against that impression in good faith really.

As for the argument that the severity is particularly high for it attacks the fabric of free elections - I do not know exactly how your legal system works, but I wonder if that really should factor into a civil case about individual damages. I could understand it factoring into sentencing after a criminal trial, but that wasn't that.

(12-21-2023, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What you're seeing from the people defending this ridiculous amount is a willingness, or more accurately an eagerness, to use civil litigation as a weapon.  Civil litigation is intended as a remedy, to redress a wrongdoing and make the victims as whole as possible.  What you're seeing now is it being used as a tool to both crush offenders and to serve as a warning to anyone who might dare step out of line down the road.  They're saying this openly, in this very thread.  They're basically advocating for lawfare.  If you dare comment on the absurdity of the dollar amount, well then you're a Trump defender who doesn't care about our democracy.

The problem with using the law as a threat and a weapon instead of a framework for a civil society is that, as with any such tool, it can easily be used against you when those in power change.  I honestly don't know which is more obscene, the people who view these trials solely as witch hunt, or the ones who celebrate their excesses like they're at a public execution.

Your initial impression is understandable, though I also did comment on the absurdity of the amount and was not called a Trump defender by anyone. I also disagree a bit with the notion that Rudy was just punished for daring to step out of line. He also did quite wrong by these women while doing so. Therefore the danger that this weapon could be used on anyone next is not really that apparent to me. I still don't see that happening when one does not do the nefarious things Rudy did.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-24-2023, 02:54 AM)hollodero Wrote: Your initial impression is understandable, though I also did comment on the absurdity of the amount and was not called a Trump defender by anyone. I also disagree a bit with the notion that Rudy was just punished for daring to step out of line. He also did quite wrong by these women while doing so. Therefore the danger that this weapon could be used on anyone next is not really that apparent to me. I still don't see that happening when one does not do the nefarious things Rudy did.

Respectfully, you're misinterpreting my position.  In no way shape or form have I defended Rudy, nor would I attempt to.  My statement is in regard to the people who reacted to this verdict with undisguised glee and continue to attempt to defend the insane dollar amount awarded.  If you view this type of judgment as a "deterrent" an argument that has been raised several times in this thread, then you are absolutely advocating for a chilling effect on speech caused by lawfare.  The next example won't have to be as obviously egregious as Rudy's.  My point, when boiled down to its essence, is that the dollar value awarded is intentionally outrageous and disproportionate to what people who have actually lost the loved ones have received.  This is not justice, this is revenge.  While the justice system is not, and never will be, perfect, there are times when doing the right thing is more obvious, and easily achieved than others.  This is one of those times, and those involved failed on every level possible.  A reduction on appeal to something approximating a just amount doesn't change any of that.

[hollodero]

(12-24-2023, 03:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Respectfully, you're misinterpreting my position.  In no way shape or form have I defended Rudy, nor would I attempt to.  My statement is in regard to the people who reacted to this verdict with undisguised glee and continue to attempt to defend the insane dollar amount awarded.  If you view this type of judgment as a "deterrent" an argument that has been raised several times in this thread, then you are absolutely advocating for a chilling effect on speech caused by lawfare.  The next example won't have to be as obviously egregious as Rudy's.  My point, when boiled down to its essence, is that the dollar value awarded is intentionally outrageous and disproportionate to what people who have actually lost the loved ones have received.  This is not justice, this is revenge.  While the justice system is not, and never will be, perfect, there are times when doing the right thing is more obvious, and easily achieved than others.  This is one of those times, and those involved failed on every level possible.  A reduction on appeal to something approximating a just amount doesn't change any of that.

Oh, I was not trying to imply you meant to defend Mr. Giuliani in any way. I'm also mostly siding with your position on this - I just tripped over that one sentence "it can be easily used against you" when those in power change. I just don't think that's entirely true. Imho, it can still not be easily used against anybody, but just against people who do similar deeds than America's fallen mayor. And if one were to do similar things, even if in the name of liberals, I am not certain that too many people would actually cry foul if that person gets sentenced to absurd amounts of damages either.