Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why? It was the jury who made the awards. In a civil case.This post leads me to believe even stronger that the so-called federal justice system is persecuting Giuliani, and any other Trump ally that they can.
Perhaps you missed this question when I posed it to you the first time:This post leads me to believe even stronger that the so-called federal justice system is persecuting Giuliani, and any other Trump ally that they can.
But in this case "the justice" system didn't make the call on the dollar amount, a jury did.This post leads me to believe even stronger that the so-called federal justice system is persecuting Giuliani, and any other Trump ally that they can.
If I was on the jury, I would have voted "not guilty." I don't believe that he lied. Because if someone believes that he, or she, is really telling the truth, then that person is not lying.... even if others believe that the "facts", or interpretation of the facts, are different than what the defendant believes is true.Perhaps you missed this question when I posed it to you the first time:
What, in your opinion, would be an appropriate amount for someone like Giuliani who's not only rich on his own, but has wealthy friends and legions of supporters willing to pay his debts? How much is enough to punish him and deter him and others like him from being lying jerks in the future?
If I recall correctly, the jury pool for this civil case was drawn from a very liberal, anti-conservative district. However, I could be wrong about that. After all, I ain't omniscient.Why? It was the jury who made the awards. In a civil case.
A federal jury on Friday ordered former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani to pay a total of $148 million to two former Georgia election workers who were at the center of baseless claims he spread in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, a stunning award worth nearly $100 million more than the women had sought.What federal justice system? This was a civil case brought by two private individuals and decided by a jury made up of 8 random individuals.
If I was on the jury, I would have voted "not guilty." I don't believe that he lied. Because if someone believes that he, or she, is really telling the truth, then that person is not lying.... even if others believe that the "facts", or interpretation of the facts, are different than what the defendant believes is true.
How about you recall a bit harder. Else it seems like a desperate attempt at blaming 'very liberal, anti conservative' elements, which admittedly means you don't have to think of any other reason why it was high. Or enter into any discussions about damages in civil case in general. Much easier to blame people you don't like for things you don't like happening.If I recall correctly, the jury pool for this civil case was drawn from a very liberal, anti-conservative district. However, I could be wrong about that. After all, I ain't omniscient.
Except he had no evidence to 'believe' what he was saying. Just the opposite in fact.If I was on the jury, I would have voted "not guilty." I don't believe that he lied. Because if someone believes that he, or she, is really telling the truth, then that person is not lying.... even if others believe that the "facts", or interpretation of the facts, are different than what the defendant believes is true.
How do you know that is true? Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had no evidence to believe what he was saying?Except he had no evidence to 'believe' what he was saying. Just the opposite in fact.
The amount is way too high because the plaintiffs didn't ask for that much money as was awarded, and also it is triple the amount of the defendant's net worth.How about you recall a bit harder. Else it seems like a desperate attempt at blaming 'very liberal, anti conservative' elements, which admittedly means you don't have to think of any other reason why it was high. Or enter into any discussions about damages in civil case in general. Much easier to blame people you don't like for things you don't like happening.
And as I understand it, the defendent's legal eagle gets to object to jurors they think would be detrimental to his clients case. The process of voir dire is apparently pretty comprehensive in the US. Jury selection - Wikipedia.
So in that case, whether you actually were right or wrong is largely irrelevant anyway.
Yeah. Sixty cases taken to court and all thrown out. And thrown out because there was no evidence. Here's Rudy admitting to that well known fact:How do you know that is true? Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had no evidence to believe what he was saying?
At least we've moved on from 'He might not have known what he was saying wasn't true'. That notwithstanding, the extra money was punitive damages. That is "You done wrong and you gotta pay as a punishment'.The amount is way too high because the plaintiffs didn't ask for that much money as was awarded, and also it is triple the amount of the defendant's net worth.
I'm glad that you got plenty of time to do that kind of research. But you still haven't changed my mind that the damage payout in this case is far, far, too much.At least we've moved on from 'He might not have known what he was saying wasn't true'. That notwithstanding, the extra money was punitive damages. That is "You done wrong and you gotta pay as a punishment'.
Now if you spend an hour or so investigating theories and articles and various papers and legal opinions on damage payouts as I have just done then you can offer some considered opinions as to why you think it was high and perhaps unfair and some means by which you think it could be seen to be fairer.
For the third time, how much have been the right amount?I'm glad that you got plenty of time to do that kind of research. But you still haven't changed my mind that the damage payout in this case is far, far, too much.
Why do you think I'm here to change your mind?I'm glad that you got plenty of time to do that kind of research. But you still haven't changed my mind that the damage payout in this case is far, far, too much.
Why are you here?Why do you think I'm here to change your mind?
Wow, you are a persistent person, ain't ya?For the third time, how much have been the right amount?
That's a silly question.Why are you here?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?