• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Federal investigators search Giuliani apartment: reports

It's not supposed to be a portrait. It's a court record for media publication. Perhaps Rudy should try to look less like a screaming gibbon.
It's both: a portrait is an image of a human meant to represent them. And he doesn't look like a screaming gibbon, he looks like a vomiting bulldog. Note the dewlaps and hanging jowls. A gibbon would have the mouth wide open and fangs displayed, and would also be inherently cuter.
 
Sir this is a court, if you are looking for the senior's art appreciation class it's at the bottom of the hall.
 
I haven't seen anyone yet who looks good in a courtroom sketch. It's not apparently an art form that generally flatters the subject. However, Giuliani has the special trait of not looking good in courtrooms. It's not just that he's 80 years old and looks much older; he seems to have a habit of lashing out and screaming at judges. You reap what you sow.
 
It's both: a portrait is an image of a human meant to represent them. And he doesn't look like a screaming gibbon, he looks like a vomiting bulldog. Note the dewlaps and hanging jowls. A gibbon would have the mouth wide open and fangs displayed, and would also be inherently cuter.
Rudy always looks like Simon Bar Sinister to me.

1736474968676.jpeg
 
There was some buzz in the news this morning when Giuliani appeared to have failed to appear at this morning's hearing. Then the BIG news.

Rudolph W. Giuliani has reached a settlement with two Georgia election workers who he repeatedly, and falsely, claimed had helped to steal the 2020 election...The full details of the settlement have yet to be released, but a letter signed by both sides in the case said that, once certain conditions were met, it would result “in the conclusion of all litigation.”

Joseph Cammarata, a lawyer for Mr. Giuliani, said outside the courthouse on Thursday that the negotiations were hammered out “over the last 72 hours,” and that his client was satisfied with the outcome. New York Times article link

The terms of the agreement are not clear but it is being reported the agreement allows Giuliani to retain his Manhattan coop and Palm Beach condo.
 
I hope the settlement has language in there for him to stop telling lies about the election workers. If there is, he'll end up violating it, I'm sure.
 
It's possible that they saw how pathetic Rudy is and took pity upon him. If they did, it is well intentioned but also misplaced. Rudy chooses to be the pathetic person that he is.
 
Makes me wonder if some wealthy benefactor stepped in and wrote a check.
I saw in one article that he was at Mar-a-Lago talking about how much he loves it there and that he looks forward to spending a lot of time in Washington with Trump. So it's entirely possible Trump pulled some levers. I don't think Trump paid for anything himself but perhaps he used a connection to get someone to help the Ghoul out.
 
Moss and Freeman said:

“Today is a major milestone in our journey. We have reached an agreement and we can now move forward with our lives. We have agreed to allow Mr. Giuliani to retain his property in exchange for compensation and his promise not to ever defame us.”

I suspect the amount of money that Moss and Freeman will actually get will not be disclosed.
 
It's not common to disclose the amount of settlements publicly.

The part I hope will be disclosed is the terms of the promise not to defame Moss and Freeman further. How exactly will that be enforced? It's not as if the courts have had much luck enjoining Giuliani's behavior to date. It would have to be some kind of judgment in abeyance connected to a contractual tripwire—something like a stipulation that would move any subsequent defamation immediately to an OSC posture.
 
I wish Giuliani would also issue a retraction of the accusations he made and make a public apology to Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss. That would help us all to move past this sad affair. But I don't expect Giuliani to do that.
 
It's not common to disclose the amount of settlements publicly.

The part I hope will be disclosed is the terms of the promise not to defame Moss and Freeman further. How exactly will that be enforced? It's not as if the courts have had much luck enjoining Giuliani's behavior to date. It would have to be some kind of judgment in abeyance connected to a contractual tripwire—something like a stipulation that would move any subsequent defamation immediately to an OSC posture.
Hopefully the tripwire leads to double the compensation. Rudy can sell his own properties if needs be.
 
I wish Giuliani would also issue a retraction of the accusations he made and make a public apology to Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss. That would help us all to move past this sad affair. But I don't expect Giuliani to do that.
On the basis of this an apology seems to me to be unlikely: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/16/rudy-giuliani-defamation-trial
Giuliani later shared on X that he had “reached a resolution of the litigation with the plaintiffs that will result in a satisfaction of the plaintiffs’ judgment”.

"This resolution does not involve an admission of liability or wrongdoing by any of the parties. I am satisfied with and have no grievances relating to the result we have reached,” he wrote.
 
Last edited:
Some of the law pundits are speculating that Giuliani has arranged for title to those major properties to pass to Moss and Freeman upon his (likely imminent) death, or has done so and will continue to live as a tenant until his death.

Regarding the admission of guilt, there's a typical tap dance that happens here. While Giuliani does not admit wrongdoing in this case, the agreement not to defame Moss and Freeman further comes with a stipulation of the underlying facts. You have to go back to one of the various contempt actions to see it.

Giuliani was supposed to swear and sign a stipulation of facts that would effectively prevent him from offering any sort of defense in any future action. Essentially it says, "I, American's Mayor Rudi Giuliani, stipulate under oath to the fact that Moss and Freeman did absolutely nothing to undermine the 2020 Presidential election." If he defames them again, they can almost literally just show that stipulation to any judge with jurisdiction and win what almost amounts to summary judgment against him. This stipulation can be considered legally separate from an admission of guilt in the pending case.
 
Some of the law pundits are speculating that Giuliani has arranged for title to those major properties to pass to Moss and Freeman upon his (likely imminent) death, or has done so and will continue to live as a tenant until his death.

Regarding the admission of guilt, there's a typical tap dance that happens here. While Giuliani does not admit wrongdoing in this case, the agreement not to defame Moss and Freeman further comes with a stipulation of the underlying facts. You have to go back to one of the various contempt actions to see it.

Giuliani was supposed to swear and sign a stipulation of facts that would effectively prevent him from offering any sort of defense in any future action. Essentially it says, "I, American's Mayor Rudi Giuliani, stipulate under oath to the fact that Moss and Freeman did absolutely nothing to undermine the 2020 Presidential election."
If he defames them again, they can almost literally just show that stipulation to any judge with jurisdiction and win what almost amounts to summary judgment against him. This stipulation can be considered legally separate from an admission of guilt in the pending case.
So what? They already won the judgment. And yet they can't collect on it. Rudy has been as bad a scofflaw as I have ever seen. And yet they have been unable to collect. What difference would it make if Rudy in a year's time resumes his defamation. What's he going to say on his podcast?
 
Rudy has been as bad a scofflaw as I have ever seen.
And I. But in fact he was probably inches from jail.

What difference would it make if Rudy in a year's time resumes his defamation.
When a settlement agreement contains a provision that a party agrees not to do something, it can specify fairly draconian penalties for failure. In this case it could include a provision that Giuliani loses title immediately to both his properties and is estopped from trying to protect them.

None of this is ideal.
 
And I. But in fact he was probably inches from jail.


When a settlement agreement contains a provision that a party agrees not to do something, it can specify fairly draconian penalties for failure. In this case it could include a provision that Giuliani loses title immediately to both his properties and is estopped from trying to protect them.

None of this is ideal.
As I mentioned above.

But I expect if the clause was invoked (and it seems almost inevitable that it will), Rudy will simply start contesting that breach, which is delaying tactics again.

It should really have been that titles were awarded to Moss and Freeman, and Rudy allowed tenancy like any other renter. So he could be evicted at any time for any reason.
 
And I. But in fact he was probably inches from jail.


When a settlement agreement contains a provision that a party agrees not to do something, it can specify fairly draconian penalties for failure. In this case it could include a provision that Giuliani loses title immediately to both his properties and is estopped from trying to protect them.

None of this is ideal.
When I was in High School I won the Washington State Debate Championship. I wanted to be a lawyer. But I decided against it after my undergraduate work and learned more about how the law operates. Not to mention the challenges of making a living as a lawyer. But watching how the law operates as it pertains to the wealthy and well connected these last four years, my discouragement has reached a new low. Especially when it is juxtaposed against how I see everyone else is treated. It makes me sick to my stomach. Anyone who says the law is blind is full of excrement.
 
But I expect if the clause was invoked (and it seems almost inevitable that it will), Rudy will simply start contesting that breach, which is delaying tactics again.
That's why you do it as a stipulation. It bars you from attempting a lot of stuff that you would otherwise be entitled to try. But yeah, not ideal.

Especially when it is juxtaposed against how I see everyone else is treated. It makes me sick to my stomach. Anyone who says the law is blind is full of excrement.
Yeah, there's a famous line from the book Sleepers. I don't know if it made it into the movie: "They say justice is blind. Not in Hell's Kitchen. Out here that [b-word] got eyes."
 
And I. But in fact he was probably inches from jail.


When a settlement agreement contains a provision that a party agrees not to do something, it can specify fairly draconian penalties for failure. In this case it could include a provision that Giuliani loses title immediately to both his properties and is estopped from trying to protect them.

None of this is ideal.
So far he's got away with obstruction that I would have thought was contempt of court.
 
Yeah, there's a famous line from the book Sleepers. I don't know if it made it into the movie: "They say justice is blind. Not in Hell's Kitchen. Out here that [b-word] got eyes."
Movie Sleepers quote: "The street is the only thing that matters. Court is for uptown people with suits, money, lawyers with three names. If you got cash you can buy court justice. But on the street, justice has no price. She's blind where the judge sits but she's not blind out here. Out here the bitch got eyes."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom