Giuliani Loses By Default Judgment in Election Workers’ Defamation Lawsuit

Rudy Giuliani was found liable by a federal court in Washington, D.C., Wednesday for defaming two Georgia election workers he accused of falsifying ballots to make Donald Trump lose the 2020 presidential election.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell represented a default judgment after Giuliani declined to turn over electronic records sought by election workers Wandrea "Shaye" Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, in their lawsuit.

The former New York City mayor and lawyer for Trump said he should have no obligation to turn over the records because Moss and Freeman sued only to harass him.

He claimed a First Amendment right of free speech for any of his accusations, which have been proven to be false. He also claimed the rights of an attorney to act in the best interests of his client, namely Trump.

Giuliani said federal investigators interfered with his ability to comply with a discovery order when they seized his cell phone in 2021.

Howell suggested Giuliani’s true motives might have been to limit his liability as he faces the potential for other civil and criminal liability for trying to overturn the 2020 election. He was indicted this month in Georgia on criminal charges that include allegations similar to the defamation lawsuit.

“Perhaps, he has made the calculation that his overall litigation risks are minimized by not complying with his discovery obligations in this case,” Howell wrote in her 57-page opinion. “Whatever the reason, obligations are case specific and withholding required discovery in this case has consequences.”

The judge ordered Giuliani to pay nearly $90,000 and his businesses to pay more than $43,000 to reimburse Moss and Freeman’s legal fees. The next step in the case is a civil trial to determine how much Giuliani must pay in damages.

Moss and Freeman said they endured death threats and harassment after Giuliani accused them by name of falsifying ballots to help Joe Biden win the election. He compared them to drug dealers.

The judgment Wednesday found Giuliani liable for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. For the trial to assess the damages he must pay, Giuliani will have further obligations to turn over evidence.

He admitted in a court filing last month that some of his statements against the mother and daughter were inaccurate but the judge said his qualified admissions “hold more holes than Swiss cheese.”

“Donning a cloak of victimization may play well on a public stage to certain audiences, but in a court of law this performance has served only to subvert the normal process of discovery in a straight-forward defamation case, with the concomitant necessity of repeated court intervention,” Howell’s opinion said.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

Judge Orders Television Reporter to Disclose Source for Spy Story

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., set off a free press dispute recently by ordering a former Fox News journalist to identify an anonymous source for her report that the FBI was investigating a Chinese American scientist.

The judge ordered Catherine Herridge, now a CBS News correspondent, to sit for a deposition in a lawsuit the scientist filed against the FBI.

Herridge reported that scientist Yanping Chen was being investigated as a possible Chinese spy. She was president of the University of Management and Technology in Arlington, where one of her specialities was artificial intelligence.

Chen never was charged with any criminal offense. Nevertheless, the FOX News report included information from FBI interviews and photos of Chen wearing a Chinese military uniform.?

Chen said in her lawsuit the FBI violated the Privacy Act by leaking information about the investigation of her. She subpoenaed Herridge, seeking the source for the leaked information.

Herridge and Fox News refused to comply with the subpoena. They cited First Amendment protections for freedom of the press.

Herridge’s attorney filed a motion to quash the subpoena, writing, “Confidential sources, and the information they provide, are essential for informing the public on matters relating to national security, including information relating to the military, espionage, government surveillance, and homeland security. Fear of exposure will make sources less likely to serve as whistleblowers or otherwise act as confidential sources for such matters.”

Judge Christopher Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with Chen.

He wrote in his order, “The Court recognizes both the vital importance of a free press and the critical role that confidential sources play in the work of investigative journalists like Herridge. But applying the binding case law of this Circuit, the Court concludes that Chen’s need for the requested evidence overcomes Herridge’s qualified First Amendment privilege in this case.”

The order fell under swift condemnation from media advocacy organizations, such as Reporters Without Borders and the Coalition of Women in Journalism. They said Herridge’s case shows the need for stronger federal laws to protect information-gathering by journalists.

The leading pending bill in Congress is the Protect Reporters from Exploitive State Spying (PRESS) Act. It would shield journalists' records of communications from the government unless the information represented a threat of terrorism or imminent violence.

It is running into opposition from conservatives who say it could create national security risks by protecting confidential sources who disclose military information.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

D.C. Attorney General Starts Campaign to Raise Awareness of Red Flag Law

The District of Columbia attorney general’s office is starting a public awareness campaign to alert residents about a local Red Flag law that could help protect them from gun violence.

Red flag laws authorize state courts to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who they believe may present a danger to others or themselves.

A judge makes the determination to issue the Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) based on statements and actions made by the gun owners, usually after notification from the police, family members or acquaintances.?

They can file petitions to have the guns removed from the owners, normally for about two weeks. If a judge finds the threat is ongoing after two weeks, the guns can be removed for a year or more.

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have enacted some form of Red Flag laws. They include Maryland and Virginia.

The D.C. Council approved its Red Flag law in December 2018. Since then, guns have been removed from 51 lawful owners.

D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb and Councilmember Charles Allen (D-Ward 6) say the number is far too low as gun violence surges in the Washington area. This year is on track to more gun-related homicides than in the past 20 years.

They also are motivated by an increase in permits to carry guns.

Until 2017, D.C. law would grant gun permits only to persons who could prove to police they had a “good reason” to carry a concealed gun. Normally a good reason meant they were under threat of death or serious injury from one or more potential assailants.

In 2017, a federal court struck down the “good reason” requirement as a violation of Second Amendment rights to bear arms. Until then, only 123 people in Washington had active concealed-carry permits.

After the court ruling, the number of permits to carry guns in the city rose to 15,268 this year, according to police statistics. About a third of them belong to D.C. residents. The others belong to people who live outside Washington.

Schwalb explained his new public awareness campaign in a statement saying that “enforcing D.C.’s Red Flag law and ensuring residents are aware of how ERPOs work are just two ways our office works to address the scourge of gun violence in our community.”

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

ABA Denounces Claims Against Firms With Fellowships to Promote Diversity

The American Bar Association’s effort to continue law firm diversity programs spilled over last week into a “deeply troubled” denunciation of advocacy groups that are suing to oppose law firm affirmative action programs.

The groups are drawing support from the Supreme Court decision in June that overturned affirmative action in college admissions.

Based on the Supreme Court precedent, the conservative American Alliance for Equal Rights sued the law firms Perkins Coie LLP and Morrison Foerster LLP, saying the firms' fellowships that benefit minorities represent illegal racial discrimination.

The lawsuit filed last week against Morrison Foerster refers to Florida’s Rules of Professional Conduct in saying, “The ethical rules punish lawyers who ‘engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law’ that discriminates ‘on account of race.’

“Yet Morrison has been racially discriminating against future lawyers for more than a decade. The firm’s Keith Wetmore 1L Fellowship for Excellence, Diversity, and Inclusion excludes certain applicants based on their skin color. These lucrative positions are six-figure jobs that come with five-figure stipends. Yet applicants do not qualify unless they are ‘African American/Black, Latinx, Native Americans/Native Alaskans, and/or members of the LGBTQ+ community.’

Days later, the American Bar Association issued a statement saying, "The legal profession needs to create a more diverse workforce."

It mentioned that 6 percent of lawyers are Hispanic despite the fact Hispanics make up 19 percent of the U.S. population. Similarly, Black people make up 13 percent of the population but only 5 percent of lawyers.

The American Bar Association has adopted goals intended to promote diversity and “full and equal participation" of minorities in the legal profession.

"Diversity also is good for business and something more clients are demanding," the American Bar Association statement says.

The association is urging law firms to continue their policies that encourage diversity but to avoid conflicts with the Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.

The Court held that minority preferences in admissions policies of the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate principles of equal protection embodied in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Title VI says, “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

Environmentalists Sue Virginia Governor Over Withdrawal from Regional Agreement

Environmentalists are suing Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin over his effort to withdraw the state from a regional agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Youngkin (R) filed notice of withdrawal from the 11-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative at the end of July. The effective date will be Dec. 31.

The Southern Environmental Law Center filed a lawsuit last week in Fairfax County Circuit Court to block the withdrawal. The organization is representing several environmental groups.

The RGGI uses a carbon credit market strategy to compel states to reduce emissions that contribute to global warming.?

Under the strategy, greenhouse gas emissions for each participating state are capped and credits are assigned representing a certain tonnage of the gasses. The credits are used to allocate emissions among regulated sources of pollution. States can auction and exchange credits but they cannot exceed their allocation.

The strategy seeks to use market forces to drive down carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions.

Youngkin and other critics of the strategy say it unfairly increases prices for consumers. Dominion Energy, Virginia’s largest utility, says complying with the RGGI agreement adds about $2.39 to the average customer’s monthly utility bill.

Participation in the RGGI won authorization from the Virginia General Assembly during the governorship of Ralph Northam, the predecessor to Youngkin. State lawmakers refused Youngkin’s directives to withdraw from the agreement.

As a result, Youngkin is now trying a regulatory approach that circumvents the General Assembly.

In June, the State Air Pollution Control Board approved withdrawal from the RGGI. Most of the board’s members were appointed by Youngkin.

Based on the board’s vote, Youngkin claimed he had authority to move ahead with the withdrawal.

“RGGI remains a regressive tax which does not do anything to incentivize the reduction of emissions in Virginia,” State Secretary Travis Voyles said in a statement.

The Southern Environmental Law Center was joined by Democratic state lawmakers in saying Youngkin is exceeding his authority.

“It is critical that we continue our participation in RGGI, a proven climate solution,” Nate Benforado, the center’s senior attorney, said in a press release. “Virginians know that we need this program and that we have no time to waste. We will be doing everything we can — as quickly as we can — to enforce the law and maintain this successful program.”

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.