My understanding is this:

• Rudy was sued for defamation related to statements about election fraud.

• The plaintiffs demanded evidence from Rudy.

• Rudy could not provide that evidence because it was items that were seized by the FBI, so not in his possession. So, it was impossible for him to turn it over. Therefore, he did not turn over the evidence that he did not have.

At this point, the plaintiff CAN file motions to demand the turning over of evidence, and a judge CAN hold a hearing to "show cause" as to why Rudy did not turn over the evidence.

At such a hearing, Rudy could have provided evidence that the items had been seized and so it was impossible for him to comply.

At that point, either the evidence cannot be presented, or the judge does not believe him and holds him contempt (should be a couple more steps, but this is the final result).

At that point, Rudy could appeal and would win (unless the appeals court is also corrupt, which it likely is), because no person can be forced to do something that is impossible to do.

Since Rudy did not turn over the evidence, even though he could not, the case could be decided for the plaintiff (maybe), or dismissed.

But that did not happen.

Instead, the judge just threw out rule of law and decided that he would be found liable for defamation, along with plenty of fees thrown at him, because he did not provide the evidence.

Judge is acting outside of the law.

But Rudy is now in position to appeal, and if my set of facts are correct, and if the appeals court is not corrupt, the judge's decision should be thrown out.

Furthermore, this would also constitute "fraud on the court" because of the judge's erroneous decision, which would make the decision void, if Rudy goes that direction. That would dismiss the case once and for all.

So ... let's see if Rudy appeals and what happens there.

My understanding is this:

• Rudy was sued for defamation related to statements about election fraud.

• The plaintiffs demanded evidence from Rudy.

• Rudy could not provide that evidence because it was items that were seized by the FBI, so not in his possession. So, it was impossible for him to turn it over. Therefore, he did not turn over the evidence that he did not have.

At this point, the plaintiff CAN file motions to demand the turning over of evidence, and a judge CAN order a hearing to "show cause" as to why Rudy did not turn over the evidence.

At such a hearing, Rudy could have provided evidence that the items had been seized and so it was impossible for him to comply.

At that point, either the evidence cannot be presented, or the judge does not believe him and holds him contempt (should be a couple more steps, but this is the final result).

At that point, Rudy could appeal and would win (unless the appeals court is also corrupt, which it likely is), because no person can be forced to do something that is impossible to do.

Since Rudy did not turn over the evidence, even though he could not, the case could be decided for the plaintiff (maybe), or dismissed.

But that did not happen.

Instead, the judge just threw out rule of law and decided that he would be found liable for defamation, along with plenty of fees thrown at him, because he did not provide the evidence.

Judge is acting outside of the law.

But Rudy is now in position to appeal, and if my set of facts are correct, and if the appeals court is not corrupt, the judge's decision should be thrown out.

Furthermore, this would also constitute "fraud on the court" because of the judge's erroneous decision, which would make the decision void, if Rudy goes that direction. That would dismiss the case once and for all.

So ... let's see if Rudy appeals and what happens there.