Rudy Giuliani: What in the ever loving fuck is wrong with him?

[Chew Toy McCoy]

At some point these verdicts should include mandatory prison time. Giuliani, Trump, and Alex Jones all get these massive fines thrown at them and they’re still walking free talking shit and in some cases grifting their rubes into paying the fines. Zero deterrent. If you asked any of them if they’d rather be near homeless or in prison they’d proudly give you a tour of the refrigerator box they plan to live in, but they’ll never get close to that because they have enough connections where they’ll never be homeless. Severely diminished lifestyle, boo hoo. Still a major step up from prison time. Anybody would take that option.

 

[Cmaier]

At some point these verdicts should include mandatory prison time. Giuliani, Trump, and Alex Jones all get these massive fines thrown at them and they’re still walking free talking shit and in some cases grifting their rubes into paying the fines. Zero deterrent. If you asked any of them if they’d rather be near homeless or in prison they’d proudly give you a tour of the refrigerator box they plan to live in, but they’ll never get close to that because they have enough connections where they’ll never be homeless. Severely diminished lifestyle, boo hoo. Still a major step up from prison time. Anybody would take that option.

Defamation is a civil cause of action, not a criminal offense (in most places). Freedom of speech and all that. You can say what you want, as long as you are willing to compensate any injured parties.

 

[rdrr]

Defamation is a civil cause of action, not a criminal offense (in most places). Freedom of speech and all that. You can say what you want, as long as you are willing to compensate any injured parties.

I think the point is that the ultra wealthy have too many loopholes and places that they can hide that wealth that they don't feel the pain of the verdict. They are without any teeth.

Actual fines that hurt them without dragging it out in appeal for years. One appeal that has to be filed within 1 week and resolved within 6 months. Also a personal in front of cameras admittance of wrong doing, and an apology. For Trump and his cronies that would be the most painful.

I know, I know, that is how the court system works. But... @Chew Toy McCoy is right, these "wins" mean nothing, if all the defendant has to do is claim they don't have the money (but do), and then defame the same people again.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Defamation is a civil cause of action, not a criminal offense (in most places). Freedom of speech and all that. You can say what you want, as long as you are willing to compensate any injured parties.

I understand that’s how it’s currently setup, but at some point the amount rewarded becomes absurd on top of countless “and they’ll never see the money” realities. And clearly these people haven’t learned their lesson because within 24 hours they’re right back to doing what they got found guilty of and supposedly punished for.

It would be like being found guilty of murder and immediately after the sentence is handed down shooting a member of the press reporting on it because the sentence was laughably meaningless.

 

[Citysnaps]

The concept of defamation (libel and slander) doesn’t apply when the facts are true (at least in the United States).

However, various states (but not all) have laws about public disclosure of private facts.

Under common law, “public disclosure of private facts” requires:

1. Giving publicity to a matter that concerns the private life of another,
2. Where the matter would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
3. The matter is not of legitimate public concern

Truthfulness is typically not a defense, though if the “private fact” is a matter of public record, that would typically be a defense. But it does vary quite a bit state-by-state.

Some states have “intrusion upon seclusion” which is similar:

• The defendant intentionally intruded upon the plaintiff's seclusion or private concerns.
• The intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
• The intrusion caused the plaintiff anguish and suffering

In any event, if the statement is true, then you would likely be relying on some sort of invasion of privacy cause of action (like the two mentioned above) that would vary state-by-state.

Long story...

The above reminds me of some of the four invasion of privacy torts that could apply to making photographs of people on the street - with respect to capture and to publication - that I learned about years ago when I started making photographs. Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, and appropriation of name or likeness (for commercial purposes). And being careful to not step into that realm.

That became a real concern of mine when a photo partner and I started publishing (and selling) journals of SF photographs - especially with respect to appropriation, outside of journalistic or fine art purposes (a safe area). The other three I felt pretty good about, but I still wanted to get an opinion from an attorney familiar with that area of law.

Turns out in California there's a group called California Lawyers for the Arts - a non-profit organization that specializes in hooking up artists/photographers with member attorneys in the area (San Francisco) who specialize in what I remember being called media law. For $35 you'd get a half hour meeting with an attorney.

That worked out great for us, and the attorney ended up meeting with us for around an hour in his financial district hi-rise law office. That went really well. He said we were in good shape with respect to our project.

I still had one concern and that was using a photograph of a person on our published journal's cover (without a release or even verbal permission (not that that would hold up). My concern was even though the project was a journalist/fine-art endeavor, could putting an identifiable person on the *cover* be a concern. He said no problem - it's journalistic. I pushed back a bit and asked if being on the cover (as opposed to inside pages), could that be construed as appropriation for a commercial purpose as it *could* entice a person to purchase the journal - a commercial transaction. He thought about it for a bit and then pulled out a book apparently looking for similar past cases.

Not finding anything, he concluded it could be a possibility, but couldn't say for sure. And that would be a case he'd definitely be interested in defending us should we be sued. We all had a good laugh. We ended up putting a person on the cover that could not be identified.

 

[ArgoDuck]

OT, but under ‘defamation per se’ item 4 this means an increasing number of climate scientists have been defamed in recent years, and would have a case?

 

[Yoused]

Ordered to start paying now, Mr. Drippy 'has called the size of the judgement "absurd"'.

Of course, if you continue to spew malicious absurdities, such a level of consequence seems just.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Rudy Giuliani’s Desperate Attempt To Make Some Quick Cash Is A New Low

Rudy keeps finding new ways to hit rock bottom.

uproxx.com

 

[Yoused]

Rudy begins the next chapter of his life: 11

 

[rdrr]

Rudy begins the next chapter of his life: 11

Just saw that and rolled my eyes at that "surprise". I am only shocked that he wasn't quicker on the trigger.

 

[Yoused]

Mr. Meltyman:

"And when I was asked … do you regret anything? … And I thought about it, and I said no because I did it for my country. Now you may elect to believe that or not …You may think I'm self-aggrandizing. I did it all for my country because I knew something my fellow countrymen didn't know …"​

Well, then, if you did it for your country, you should probably move back there.

 

[fooferdoggie]

Just saw that and rolled my eyes at that "surprise". I am only shocked that he wasn't quicker on the trigger.

it went help him in the case he just lost or the new ones.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Well, Rudy, you did it for your country. Thanks, I guess. I’m happy to report you’ve been relieved of your duties as country intelligence officer, and you can now focus all of your work and energy for your two remaining clients, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss. This is pro-bono work. In fact, it’s even better - you will pay them everything you make. You don’t have to worry about legal work, your only purpose is to make money for them. And lots of it. You have complete freedom - you can keep pushing Balance of Nature pills on your podcast, or you can sell your ass on the streets. Just keeps the checks coming in the mail!

 

[Yoused]

Mr. G seems to have raised more than $800K, which would go toward paying his legal bills. The judgement part, though, that could take 4 or 5 generations.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Mr. G seems to have raised more than $800K, which would go toward paying his legal bills. The judgement part, though, that could take 4 or 5 generations.

Soon enough him and Trump will be fighting over which one gets to live in the washer or dryer box.

 

[Citysnaps]

Soon enough him and Trump will be fighting over which one gets to live in the washer or dryer box.

Or bottom bunk vs top bunk, sharing a cell.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Or bottom bunk vs top bunk, sharing a cell.

That made me think of those mob movies where the incarcerated members are in the kitchen making quality Italian meals, except in this case it would be Donald and Rudy in the salon sharing hair dye tips.

 

[fooferdoggie]

Or bottom bunk vs top bunk, sharing a cell.

well trump will always be on top. Just saying.