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.
You can search it for Discovery. The other defendants (Herring Networks parent co of OANN settled in 2022.)
Deadlines for discovery were set back in April 2022 to be completed by February 2023.
fact discovery due by 11/22/2022;
expert disclosures due by 12/16/2022;
rebuttal expert designation due by 1/27/2023;
all discovery due by 2/17/2023.
This obviously didn't happen. Rudy was sanctioned in June for failing to produce discovery
Rudy could have provided evidence that the items had been seized and so it was impossible for him to comply.
This isn't the case though. For one Rudy didn't comply on a host of discovery productions, not just his seized phones.
Also Rudy did have his phones seized in a case that is now closed. But he has access to all his data from those phones.
The DOJ turned over a database of the what they collected. Rudy used a eDiscovery Vendor to storage, manage and search that database. The vendor is called TrustPoint. First Rudy was claiming he couldn't turn over these records because he owed $320,000 to TrustPoint. In legal terms he was in "arrears."
This "Joint Status Report" was filed on June 30. The judge said show us your financial records to prove you can't pay TrustPoint
the Court directed Defendant to produce his financial records to Plaintiffs by May 30, so that Plaintiffs could evaluate Defendant’s claim of inability to cover the costs associated with searching the TrustPoint database;
By May 30 somebody paid Rudy's bill and Rudy asked not to turn over his financial information. (That someone appears to be the Save America PAC.)
Defendant filed a declaration .... apprising the Court that Defendant
had secured funding from a third-party to cover his arrearage to TrustPoint and >requesting that the Court reconsider its order directing Defendant to produce his >financial information to the Plaintiff,
So by May 30 Giuliani could have turned the seized phone info over. He didn't.
Thank you for this thorough account. The way I interpret it is that Rudy is intentionally delaying for a more important purpose. I would guess it is at Q's direction & it probably has to do with the ideal timing for this information to go public for the sake of bringing down the cabal
The two women involved were given medals by Biden. I would imagine Rudy didn’t want to give up the materials before the GA case with Trump. Not enough eyes on Rudy; lots of eyes on Trump - maximum impact that way.
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.
*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
It seems like in a lot of the voting fraud cases the white hat associates are holding back in strange ways. I don't get too emotionally invested in them for that reason.
I mean it seems like they should have to prove they werent tampering with votes, for "defamation" to apply. Just saying "that isnt what we did" does not refute his allegations
What Trump did by taunting GA DA to indict him was to actually put 'them' on trial! They took the bait and indicted him. Now he has subpoena power, which he doesn't need anyway because he has all the GA election fraud/steal evidence. Let's laugh and watch as they fumble and scramble like cock roaches to keep the trial afloat!
I never trusted Giuliani. I'm old enough to remember Giuliani was Mayor of NY during 9/11. He put the New York City Emergency Management on a floor of the World Trade Tower, which was a target of terrorist attack before, not good move.
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.
Thank you for this! This is the best explanation I have seen thus far. Great work!
A lot of what you said already happened. This case has been going on for a while.
Here's the docket. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61642105/parties/freeman-v-herring-networks-inc/
You can search it for Discovery. The other defendants (Herring Networks parent co of OANN settled in 2022.)
Deadlines for discovery were set back in April 2022 to be completed by February 2023.
This obviously didn't happen. Rudy was sanctioned in June for failing to produce discovery
This isn't the case though. For one Rudy didn't comply on a host of discovery productions, not just his seized phones.
Also Rudy did have his phones seized in a case that is now closed. But he has access to all his data from those phones.
The DOJ turned over a database of the what they collected. Rudy used a eDiscovery Vendor to storage, manage and search that database. The vendor is called TrustPoint. First Rudy was claiming he couldn't turn over these records because he owed $320,000 to TrustPoint. In legal terms he was in "arrears."
This "Joint Status Report" was filed on June 30. The judge said show us your financial records to prove you can't pay TrustPoint
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.77.0.pdf
By May 30 somebody paid Rudy's bill and Rudy asked not to turn over his financial information. (That someone appears to be the Save America PAC.)
So by May 30 Giuliani could have turned the seized phone info over. He didn't.
In fact instead of turning over discovery and his financial information Giuliani entered a NOLO CONTENDERE stipulation. More info here https://greatawakening.win/p/17r98yUjnF/x/c/4TwT1K1jldX
Thank you for this thorough account. The way I interpret it is that Rudy is intentionally delaying for a more important purpose. I would guess it is at Q's direction & it probably has to do with the ideal timing for this information to go public for the sake of bringing down the cabal
The two women involved were given medals by Biden. I would imagine Rudy didn’t want to give up the materials before the GA case with Trump. Not enough eyes on Rudy; lots of eyes on Trump - maximum impact that way.
Yup...They didn't want all the good stuff getting revealed in discovery - essentially blowing their ammo before Trump's case and fking it all up.
Giuliani took a knee so Papa T can take us all the way.
That's what I was thinking.....becoming the sacrificial lamb for the real meat later down the road.
lawfare. The judge declared him guilty without a trial. it's just a msm headline
She issued a default judgement. This did it for two reasons.
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.
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
Very level headed rundown friend.
It seems like in a lot of the voting fraud cases the white hat associates are holding back in strange ways. I don't get too emotionally invested in them for that reason.
How is it possible Judge Beryl Howell has the Giuliani Civil Case and the President Trump criminal J6 case brought by Jack Smith?
There's only a certain number of federal judges in a district. She's one of dozen district judges in DC.
Well they sure are defaming him! And President Trump! and the others. All presumed guilty.
So when these corrupt dimocraps get caught they call it being defamed, when in reality it's exposed!
Maybe full 👀 on Ruby Freeman and Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss… sometimes the guilty give up free info when the think they are in the clear
I mean it seems like they should have to prove they werent tampering with votes, for "defamation" to apply. Just saying "that isnt what we did" does not refute his allegations
This Obama appointee rushed to judgment because Rudy didn’t turn over his personal devices.
What Trump did by taunting GA DA to indict him was to actually put 'them' on trial! They took the bait and indicted him. Now he has subpoena power, which he doesn't need anyway because he has all the GA election fraud/steal evidence. Let's laugh and watch as they fumble and scramble like cock roaches to keep the trial afloat!
I never trusted Giuliani. I'm old enough to remember Giuliani was Mayor of NY during 9/11. He put the New York City Emergency Management on a floor of the World Trade Tower, which was a target of terrorist attack before, not good move.
This is all I ever think about when I see him. All that he hid, all that he knows about 9/11. Maybe this is some karma.
A good defense would be to present proof that the workers did tamper with votes!
What happened to this 'discovery' thingy in law as defense?
The judge is saying that Rudy provided none. Trying to get to the bottom of it and learn more.