Guiliani Suspended from Practicing Law

JayUtah said:
I am more interested in WHY they would have bailed him out.
Click to expand...
Pity is all I can think of. As you say, he has no political value and might now be a political liability.
Click to expand...
Hey, maybe that's the key.

A millionaire who supports the democrats bailed him out because they recognize how much of an embarrassment Giuliani is to republicans, and figure its more valuable having him run around being himself, rather than seeing him skulk off into the shadows under massive court judgements.
 
JayUtah said:
True enough, but I wonder how that would translate to any actual leverage. Trump is essentially untouchable at this point. You can't prosecute him, and there would be a statute of limitations problem anyway. And I can't imagine Trump being susceptible to any kind of decades-old underworld leverage.
Click to expand...

You're probably right, but when it comes to Trump he could have had his fingers in anything. Who knows what could have been swept under the rug? He was a US Attorney for the SDNY. They have a reputation of handling some pretty ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up cases. He might have all sorts of dirt we don't know about on Trump!
 
"Rudy Giuliani has reached a settlement with Dominion Voting Systems in its $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit over his baseless 2020 election-rigging claims.
The two sides said in a filing in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Friday that they have agreed to permanently dismiss the suit against the former New York City mayor and former personal lawyer to President Donald Trump.
The brief filing doesn’t cite the settlement terms. Spokespeople for Giuliani and the Colorado-based company said Saturday that the terms are confidential and declined to comment further."

apnews.com

Rudy Giuliani and Dominion Voting Systems settle defamation suit over his 2020 election claims

Rudy Giuliani has reached a settlement with Dominion Voting Systems in its $1.3 billion defamation suit over his baseless 2020 election-rigging claims.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
Orphia Nay said:
"Rudy Giuliani has reached a settlement with Dominion Voting Systems in its $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit over his baseless 2020 election-rigging claims.
The two sides said in a filing in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Friday that they have agreed to permanently dismiss the suit against the former New York City mayor and former personal lawyer to President Donald Trump.
The brief filing doesn’t cite the settlement terms. Spokespeople for Giuliani and the Colorado-based company said Saturday that the terms are confidential and declined to comment further."

apnews.com

Rudy Giuliani and Dominion Voting Systems settle defamation suit over his 2020 election claims

Rudy Giuliani has reached a settlement with Dominion Voting Systems in its $1.3 billion defamation suit over his baseless 2020 election-rigging claims.
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...
Hopefully it includes turning states evidence against Donny's corrupt business schemes and involvements with nefarious foreign entities.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Hopefully it includes turning states evidence against Donny's corrupt business schemes and involvements with nefarious foreign entities.
Click to expand...
a_unique_person said:
I don't think a civil case can do that.
Click to expand...
I think the idea was that a settlement in a civil case cannot mandate such a specific performance in matters otherwise unrelated to the parties in the incident action. And that's largely correct.

In theory a civil suit settlement is just contract law and can conceivably include any terms, obligations, and performances. In practice a civil suit settlement is supposed to be narrowly tailored to the interests and abilities of the parties. In any case, the judge must approve the settlement even if it's confidential. The purpose of that approval is to prevent inappropriate leverage or other unconscionable elements. A provision that requires Giuliani to perform specifically in a matter not before the court or plausibly connected to the matter before the court will not pass muster.

More specifically, much of what what Giuliani did with respect to Donald Trump was in the capacity of Trump's attorney. Someone trying to elicit testimony in that regard could certainly try to roll the dice with the crime/fraud exception, but in general the attorney-client privilege remains so long as Giuliani was advising Trump as his attorney in good faith. Any provision of a settlement that presumptively removes the attorney-client privilege would be a hard pass for the judge in the civil matter.

So no, it's not going to happen.

In matters for which Giuliani was not Trump's attorney, Giuliani would be compelled to testify or otherwise provide evidence anyway if a criminal investigation were made against Trump for any of that. There's no point to making it a special provision of an otherwise unrelated contract.

Darat said:
Sounds like Dominion has people with empathy in charge. Woke nonsense!!!
Click to expand...
Haha, indeed!

But more seriously and more likely, Giuliani's assets are stripped. He is broke and has only limited future earning power. At this point he is essentially immune to any further judgements. Dominion understands they aren't going to get any actual assets from Giuliani, so they might as well stop trying.
 
In general, courts prefer to make plaintiffs whole by means of money. They don't like ordering defendants to do specific things—a "specific performance," in law terms. Who supervises the performance to make sure it's done? What if Rudi Giuliani just does a half-assed retraction? In the specific case of forcing Giuliani to blame Pres. Trump, Trump is not a party to this action so why should he be punished? And so on and so forth. Ordering specific performance is messy. Ordering monetary damages is exact and straightforward.

The same goes for settlement contracts. Ongoing performances as required by a contract require supervision by a court. Who pays for it? Who actually does it? Who decides whether the contracted-for performance was satisfactory?

The nexus between embarrassing Giuliani (assuming that's possible) and making Dominion whole just isn't there as far as the courts are concerned. It's already a matter of judicially recognized fact that Giuliani's statements were defamatory. There's no further benefit to obtain by having him admit to that in public, and it's not as if any apology Giuliani might be compelled by contract to offer would be heartfelt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom