@Teri_Kanefield@GottaLaff Looking forward to the developed evidence of the damages to these women. It's not nothing to be under attack by the President.
@Teri_Kanefield my first take was that it was a risk calculation RE: outstanding discovery. The comms may put him (and whomever else) at greater risk for criminal exposure. I've seen a few others also pick up on this. Thoughts?
@Teri_Kanefield How on earth is this nolo contendere? It's a civil case, not a criminal case. The very link you posted says "In a criminal proceeding, a defendant may enter a plea of nolo contendere, in which the defendant does not accept or deny responsibility for the charges but agrees to accept punishment."
The last of these, Rudy’s nolo contendere declaration, may be an attempt to put all these discovery disputes behind him by simply stipulating that the information he would have turned over had he complied with discovery would show that he made the defamatory claims about Freeman and Moss and there was no basis for them. His stipulation is limited to this case, so could not be used in an 18 USC 241 case against him.
Rudy is attempting to stop digging himself deeper in a hole."
@Teri_Kanefield This isn’t as satisfying from the peanut gallery as I might have liked, but I hope this means the plaintiffs can collect significant damages and move on to their next steps in life. Nothing undoes the damage, but continuing to spend energy and their lives on this comes at a cost, too. I hope this turns out to be the best option for them long term.
@Teri_Kanefield Actually, DOES it mean that? Giuliani's stipulation says that he "does not contest . . . the factual elements of liability" and a few other things. But does it matter whether he contests them or not? The plaintiffs have the burden of proof, which I would have thought means that they still have to persuade a jury of the elements of liability by a preponderance of evidence. A defendant's decision not to contest the point makes that a lot easier, of course, but does it make the requirement completely vanish? A criminal defendant can simply stand mute at trial and hope the government can't meet its burden; I've never heard of a civil defendant doing that, but it seems like it should work the same way. If it does, then the plaintiffs still have a burden of production, so I don't see how this move gets Giuliani out from under having to comply with discovery demands. But maybe that's because I'm clueless about both federal courts and civil litigation.
@Teri_Kanefield I wish the media would confer with people like you before publishing breathless articles that Giuliani has "admitted" to the conduct.
Not contesting does not mean "admitting."
Back in my criminal law days, neither the prosecutor nor defense was blind by the other side's offer to stipulate (often I'm an attempt to limit damning evidence). Presumably the election workers are not similarly bound, and (if they really wanted to) could still proceed with discovery and proving their case to obtain a jury finding?
@Teri_Kanefield The first ‘Giuliani admits’ report I read to the end and saw it quote Giuliani’s lawyer saying ‘Giuliani admits nothing’ and so was left wondering what makes people read one thing, direct quote it correctly, and yet indirect quote it as another thing entirely.
The main difference is the no contest plea cannot be used against him in a future civil proceeding. That's literally it. For criminal sentencing, it's the same as admitting guilt. He's gonna get the same criminal punishments, he just isn't opening himself up to further civil lawsuits.
I'm speaking in layman's terms just like you were. When laymen argue that no-contest is somehow allowing them to circumvent punishment (and it isn't), they're talking about the layman's idea of guilt. Not the legal concept. That's the disconnect.
For all social (lay) intents and purposes except for the allowance of a future civil verdict based on the no-contest plea, it is the same thing as a guilty plea. You face the punishment handed down by the court.
@Teri_Kanefield I read the citation. Just b/c it's common doesn't mean it makes sense. The only advantage to govt is saving time & expense of a trial but govt always has more time & money than a def. Take them to court and drive them into bk if that's how they want to play. This is what drives me crazy about law.
Add comment