She issued a default judgement. This did it for two reasons.
- Rudy did not turn over discovery information including about his finances.
He was already sanctioned for this earlier and told to turn it over by the end of June. He didn't and the judge warned him in July, he could lose the case because of it.
- Rudy said he did defame them and conceded an "a default liability"
HOWEVER, he did not say this in straight forward way
He entered a "nolo contendere stipulation" that was so confusing the judge called it "puzzling" and made him issue it again so it was clear what he was stipulating to. This stipulation was like a "nolo contendre" plea in criminal case where you don't plead guilty, but you don't contest a guilty verdict.
Here's his "stipulation" from July It's a headscratcher.
Here's his clarifying "superseding stipulation" from Aug 8.
*Rudy conceded what he said about them was false Or as he put it, "his actionable statements were false. But he also said it was "purposes of this litigation only" and he wanted to avoid any "unnecessary expenses."
*Rudy also stipulated he defamed them but also wanted say to his statements were protected speech. and they didn't cause any damages to Moss or Freeman.
He conceded the liability in this case should be treated as "a default liability."
It seems he wanted to race to get to an appeal.
The judge said he was trying to have his cake and eat it too. She said since he has been a lawyer for 50 years she didn't believe his excuses for not turning over discovery and that it must be a deliberate strategy to avoid disclosing information that could hurt him in other civil and criminal cases
She issued a default judgement. This did it for two reasons.
- Rudy did not turn over discovery information including about his finances.
He was already sanctioned for this earlier and told to turn it over by the end of June. He didn't and the judge warned him in July, he could lose the case because of it.
- Rudy said he did defame them and conceded an "a default liability"
HOWEVER, he did not say this in straight forward way
He entered a "nolo contendere stipulation" that was so confusing the judge called it "puzzling" and made him issue it again so it was clear what he was stipulating to. This stipulation was like a "nolo contendre" plea in criminal case where you don't plead guilty, but you don't contest a guilty verdict.
Here's his "stipulation" from July It's a headscratcher.
Here's his clarifying "superseding stipulation" from Aug 8.
*Rudy conceded what he said about them was false Or as he put it, "his actionable statements were false. But he also said it was "purposes of this litigation only" and he wanted to avoid any "unnecessary expenses."
*Rudy also stipulated he defamed them but also wanted say to his statements were protected speech. and they didn't cause any damages to Moss or Freeman.
He conceded the liability in this case should be treated as "a default liability."
It seems he wanted to race to get to an appeal.
The judge said since he has been a lawyer for 50 years she didn't believe his excuses for not turning over discovery and that it must be a deliberate strategy to avoid disclosing information that could hurt him in other civil and criminal cases