Just curious- What happened to the two lawyers who were charged with preparing Molotov cocktails for use against the NYPD during the riots of 2020? What if any disciplinary proceedings transpired and what was the result?
Parenthetically, if you want to see another unfortunate example of the influence of the woke world on the legal profession, check out the recent issues of the NYS Bar Association which unfortunately has gone full tilt woke on systemic racism , gender issues and climate change.
Precedent or not it is clearly within the rules of the court under which all attorneys that practice there must abide. § 1240.9 Interim Suspension While Investigation or Proceeding is Pending. The disciplinary committee and Chief Attorney have pretty broad power in these cases if you read the actual rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters: https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad2/pdf/Part1240-JointOrder-Signed.pdf
Nice try but there never is "precedent" until there is. All "precedents" are not automatically unconstitutional either just because you don't like them. Objectively, we've never seen an attorney act in the unprecedented manner in which Rudi G has acted so if precedent needs to set so be it. Rules are always selectively invoked based on the actions of those breaking the rules. Just because no one ever broke a rule doesn't mean the rule is invalid. I really think you should go defend Mr. Guiliani if you feel so strongly that by following the black letter guidelines from the Appellate court that I have provided you, that the court has infringed on his "constitutional rights". I will watch with great interest. Thank you for engaging on the subject and sharing your views and allowing others to share theirs.
The same rules would seemingly apply to attorneys who pled guilty for throwing Molotov cocktails at police cars during the riots-yet the legacy media as far as I know and recall has been quiet about these two cases
What does this mean then? Under 18 USC Section 1001, it is a felony to make a “false statement” to an agent or agency of the federal government in connection with a federal matter. Making false statements to a federal court is NOT a felony even though this statute clearly states that it is? Please explain.
I know of no case where anyone was prosecuted for making a false statement to a court? Under your theory would a not guity statemet by a guilty defendant be a crime?
Really Alan? You have never heard of Martha Stewart, Rod Blagojevich, Michael T. Flynn, Rick Gates, Scooter Libby, Bernard Madof or Jeffrey Skilling? It's not My theory, it's federal law and you should really know it before you go to court again..
Are you claiming all those people were convicted of making false declarations or statements to a court without legal representation by lawyers? I find that to be an extraordinary assumption of the facts. It's hardly the point though is it? The point is there are statutes that prohibit lawyers or defendants from lying to courts even when not under oath and you know it. Rudi G. knows it full well too.
All litigators draft pleadings which are predicated on facts that may or may not be found legally insufficient or even inadequate by a court That is called zealous advocacy and permissible snd not a basis for sanctions or a disciplinary complaint
Can you be disciplined/disbarred for making misrepresentations to a Court while NOT under oath?
To clarify, I agree with your position, though. This was 100% because he was supporting former President Trump. I didn’t say anyone be investigated when there were accusations made that Trump had colluded with Russia for the 2016 election, which turned out to be completely without any basis or evidence.
Alan, you make excellent points, I love how your writing is concise and clear. There's genius in simplicity. Clearly, society is choosing to censor conservative voices, including Giuliani. The Supreme court siding with the cheerleader, even one who posts a string of obscenities is a great reminder that those who want to say there was fraud in the election or that the virus started in the Wuhan lab or that the vaccine causes heart problems should not be censored by big tech, universities, or the government. We need a healthy respectful open debate, not communist style crushing of political dissidents. Those who choose to censor are just afraid their ideas will not stand up to scrutiny. Are Facebook and Twitter going to apologize to all those they wrongly cancelled over the Wuhan Lab speculation? I bet they won't.
Perhaps,based on what we now know about the partnership between the Democrats, the FBI and pre Musk Twitter about the suppression of any information about the Hunter Biden laptop, and its contents , Giulani should seek reinstatement of his law license .
Look at what is not happening to the two lawyers who were ready to throw firebombs at NYPD vehicles during the riots of 2020https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/the-biden-justice-departments-shameful-pandering-to-bomb-throwing-rioters/?taid=629f3e7a7385bc0001a4f864&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter In contrast, the NY woke legal establishment could not get to the courthouse quick enough to commence a disciplinary proceeding against Giulani. Don't bet on either of the two suspects ever serving a day in jail or losing their licenses
I think that the appellate court in New York went out of its way to send a message of intimidation to the bar- Anyone who raised a legitimate issue as to violations of the Electors Clause by having judges and bureaucrats determine who were electors as opposed to constitutionally required legislators and the failure of state and federal courts to consider the evidence of fraud on a substantial if not massive level in several states on the merits was beyond the pale.
Giulani , whose papers failed to address the constitutional issues and who alleged and then withdrew claims of fraud, did not aid Trump's case-which, if presented properly, would have made the issues in Bush v Gore look minuscule in comparison
The term used by the judicial department making the ruling "uncontroverted evidence" SHOULD get you to understand that they have the proof they needed. If it doesn't, the problem is YOU.
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that there is uncontroverted evidence
that respondent communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts,
lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald
J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump’s failed effort at reelection
in 2020. These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent’s narrative
that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential
election was stolen from his client. We conclude that respondent’s conduct immediately
threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law,
pending further proceedings before the Attorney Grievance Committee (sometimes AGC
Mark. I challenge you to post the entire appellate court decision so readers can decide for themselves who is telling the truth about whether they included out of court as well
as in court statements . You will see they did. Go ahead and post it.
In fact, I never claimed that they didn't include out of court statements in their decision but you did in fact claim in your initial public statement that they relied "heavily" on out of court statements. Please point to the page and paragraph in the court document where it states that they "relied heavily" on those statements.
Including out of court statements does not mean that their decision was based on out of court statements. It is simply supporting evidence that what he actually represented in court was not a one time, accidental slip of the tongue or he forgot what he meant. They are statements that demonstrate his intent when he WAS in court.
Fine then, You go to court, under oath or not and make knowingly and easily proven false statements and see what happens to your license to practice. Good luck Alan.
Perhaps they didn't get caught or their false statements were not so easily proven? You have less "evidence" that the suspension of G's license was based on politics than the judiciary has that is is based on recorded court statements. Among the examples of conduct cited by the order was what it called Giuliani’s repeated false claims to a federal judge in Pennsylvania after Election Day that Trump’s campaign “was pursuing a fraud claim” in a lawsuit related to voting, “when indisputably it was not.” Instead, the order noted, the campaign was making an equal protection claim, “not based on fraud at all.” I'm surprised that you don't know all of this actually.
"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that there is uncontroverted evidence that respondent communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump’s failed effort at reelection in 2020."
They made a judgement that there was "uncontroverted evidence" that Giuliani "communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts" but yet they didn't bother to present one shred of evidence to support their claim, just accusations and a statement that their narcissistic opinion is indisputable and not open to question even after they denied Giuliani his constitutional right to defend against the accusations. I think their anti-Constitutional and unethical arrogance is going to bite them in the ass.
Mark E Heiden wrote, "The term used by the judicial department making the ruling "uncontroverted evidence" SHOULD get you to understand that they have the proof they needed. If it doesn't, the problem is YOU."
I couldn't help but notice that they didn't use the word "lie" or write that "Giuliani lied" anywhere in the entire document, therefore when you wrote below "Once he lied to a court he committed a crime" you wrote a verifiable false statement therefore you either intentionally misrepresented the ruling with a lie or you ignorantly inserted your parroting opinion into the argument.
Here's a logical fact that appears to be alluding you; all lies are false statements but not all false statements are lies.
I told you earlier that lie has a very specific meaning, you appear to be ignoring that meaning, it appears that the court did not ignore the meaning. Your assertion of fact that Giuliani lied and committed a crime is verifiably false and at this point it's defamation.
Courts rarely if ever use the term "lie". They use "intentionally misled" or in this case: "respondent communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large ". If you can define the difference between a lie and a knowingly false or misleading statement then you win the entire argument. The rest of the world understands there is no difference but if you want to say you are right because of a synonym knock yourself out.
You can rationalize this all you want but YOU are the one that chose to use the word lie, not the court. A lie is a very specific thing. Again; all lies are false statements but not all false statements are lies.
Hanlon's razor should be applied to many of the things that Giuliani has stated but unfortunately people that are consumed by their anti-Trump obsession jump straight into believing malice while disregarding ALL other possibilities, it's unethical.
Like I wrote elsewhere in this thread, "I think Rudy Giuliani is an unethical dirt bag" but even an unethical dirt bag has rights, heck even you and I have rights. Any way a critically thinking individual looks at this, Giuliani's rights were violated when he was denied an evidentiary hearing, what the court did was unconstitutional.
I'm done arguing with you and your rationalizations and spin.
I think Rudy Giuliani is an unethical dirt bag but he should take this all the way to the United States Supreme Court, Giuliani is actively being persecuted by a United States court for Constitutionally protected free speech. This ruling cannot stand.
Absolutely nothing wrong with me Jeff. As stated, Rudi's lies outside court are not relevant. Once he lied to a court he committed a crime and that's what got his license suspended. He's been lying to the public for as many years as he's been "representing" Donald Trump but no action had been taken on his law license until he lied in court about the election. My original statement is 100% correct. What's wrong with YOU Jeff?
Mark E Heiden wrote, "Once he lied to a court he committed a crime..."
A lie is a very specific thing.
You just made a claim that needs to be supported with facts; what exactly did Giuliani lie about in court? Be specific; what was the exact lie to the court.
Maybe what Giuliani said in court was just something that turned out to be false but was not actually known to be false when he stated it. Fake news and spin is how the political left claimed that President Trump lied over 16,000 times, is this what you're doing with Giuliani's statement(s)?
I don't have to be specific, the court and subsequently the licensing board have the "specifics". They don't suspend licenses without proof and definitely not of a high profile attorney unless they have proof. Your use of the term Fake news spin gives away your obvious political bias which appears to be keeping you from accepting reality.
Proof consists of evidence tested by the adversary process, incuding cross examination. Under your approach, if a court says youre guilty, thats the end. Fortunately thats not our system.
By all means, tell the judicial department that the uncontroverted evidence that they have and you don't doesn't amount to "proof" or that it doesn't meet the standard necessary to suspend a license according to their rules of professional conduct. See where that gets you.
Mark E Heiden wrote "I don't have to be specific, the court and subsequently the licensing board have the "specifics". "
So you are parroting what you've heard or read and you cannot prove what you claim and on top of that you claim that you don't have to support what you claim. That's typical political hackery and far too common in todays unethical and hyperbolic political environment. Try to think critically and stop parroting what you hear or read just because it fits a narrative you like, take responsibility for what you say and write.
Mark E Heiden wrote "They don't suspend licenses without proof and definitely not of a high profile attorney unless they have proof. "
Where's the proof Mark? Here's a link to the actual ruling...
...please quote the sections of that document where they prove that Giuliani lied in court. Remember what Alan wrote above, "Proof consists of evidence tested by the adversary process, including cross examination." Simply stating that someone lied is not proof, it's an accusation.
What's clear to me is that they violated Giuliani's Constitutionally protected civil rights with this ruling and it also seems to me that you don't care that they violated his rights.
Mark E Heiden wrote "Your use of the term Fake news spin gives away your obvious political bias which appears to be keeping you from accepting reality."
Your ad hominem is an unethical personal insult and my reply to such nonsense is "bite me". You should try to communicate here without ad hominems.
I'll post it again for your reading pleasure. It's right in the document you posted. "Among the examples of conduct cited by the order was what it called Giuliani’s repeated false claims to a federal judge in Pennsylvania after Election Day that Trump’s campaign “was pursuing a fraud claim” in a lawsuit related to voting, “when indisputably it was not.” Instead, the order noted, the campaign was making an equal protection claim, “not based on fraud at all.”
It's cute that you call my reply an "ad hominem is an unethical personal insult" when your statement that I was replying to was: "Fake news and spin is how the political left claimed that President Trump lied over 16,000 times, is this what you're doing with Giuliani's statement(s)?" I suppose you think that is a well reasoned factual statement.. Ha. You and Alan should take your case that Rudi's constitutional "rights" were violated by suspending his license to court. This will be a good one..
You asked: Mark E Heiden wrote "They don't suspend licenses without proof and definitely not of a high profile attorney unless they have proof. "
Where's the proof Mark?
My statement claims there are no examples. If you claim I'm wrong it would be easy to provide a list of high profile attorneys that HAVE had their licenses suspended without proof. I can't prove a negative but you should easily be able to prove your claim. I'll wait for the list.
Mark E Heiden wrote "They don't suspend licenses without proof and definitely not of a high profile attorney unless they have proof. "
I wrote, "Where's the proof Mark?"
Mark E Heiden wrote, "My statement claims there are no examples. If you claim I'm wrong it would be easy to provide a list of high profile attorneys that HAVE had their licenses suspended without proof. I can't prove a negative but you should easily be able to prove your claim. I'll wait for the list."
That's some nicely twisted spin Mark, it nonsense but it's nice.
I didn't ask you to prove a negative that they don't suspend licenses without proof, I asked you where the proof is. Your "logic" fails the smell test. You know what you can do with your spin.
Nonsense Alan. Rudi's license was suspended for lying to a COURT! His public statements as you stated are protected but he was NOT suspended for those statements. You are also misleading the public with your statements!
The law must be applied equally anf without regard to partisan considerations.
Just curious- What happened to the two lawyers who were charged with preparing Molotov cocktails for use against the NYPD during the riots of 2020? What if any disciplinary proceedings transpired and what was the result?
Parenthetically, if you want to see another unfortunate example of the influence of the woke world on the legal profession, check out the recent issues of the NYS Bar Association which unfortunately has gone full tilt woke on systemic racism , gender issues and climate change.
Thats what i like about Substack— civil debate rather than twitter name calling.
The point is that is no precedent for this suspension. If you think there is , cite it
Precedent or not it is clearly within the rules of the court under which all attorneys that practice there must abide. § 1240.9 Interim Suspension While Investigation or Proceeding is Pending. The disciplinary committee and Chief Attorney have pretty broad power in these cases if you read the actual rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters: https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad2/pdf/Part1240-JointOrder-Signed.pdf
The lack of precedent demontrates selective invocation of the rules.
Nice try but there never is "precedent" until there is. All "precedents" are not automatically unconstitutional either just because you don't like them. Objectively, we've never seen an attorney act in the unprecedented manner in which Rudi G has acted so if precedent needs to set so be it. Rules are always selectively invoked based on the actions of those breaking the rules. Just because no one ever broke a rule doesn't mean the rule is invalid. I really think you should go defend Mr. Guiliani if you feel so strongly that by following the black letter guidelines from the Appellate court that I have provided you, that the court has infringed on his "constitutional rights". I will watch with great interest. Thank you for engaging on the subject and sharing your views and allowing others to share theirs.
MH.
The same rules would seemingly apply to attorneys who pled guilty for throwing Molotov cocktails at police cars during the riots-yet the legacy media as far as I know and recall has been quiet about these two cases
Appellate Division improperly relird heavily on his out of court tv and radio statements.
You’re also wrong sbout in court lies being crimes— only if under oath. Get your facts straight
What does this mean then? Under 18 USC Section 1001, it is a felony to make a “false statement” to an agent or agency of the federal government in connection with a federal matter. Making false statements to a federal court is NOT a felony even though this statute clearly states that it is? Please explain.
I know of no case where anyone was prosecuted for making a false statement to a court? Under your theory would a not guity statemet by a guilty defendant be a crime?
Really Alan? You have never heard of Martha Stewart, Rod Blagojevich, Michael T. Flynn, Rick Gates, Scooter Libby, Bernard Madof or Jeffrey Skilling? It's not My theory, it's federal law and you should really know it before you go to court again..
Those were not prosecuotions based on statements made by lawyers in court. Please get your facts straight.
Are you claiming all those people were convicted of making false declarations or statements to a court without legal representation by lawyers? I find that to be an extraordinary assumption of the facts. It's hardly the point though is it? The point is there are statutes that prohibit lawyers or defendants from lying to courts even when not under oath and you know it. Rudi G. knows it full well too.
All litigators draft pleadings which are predicated on facts that may or may not be found legally insufficient or even inadequate by a court That is called zealous advocacy and permissible snd not a basis for sanctions or a disciplinary complaint
Can you be disciplined/disbarred for making misrepresentations to a Court while NOT under oath?
To clarify, I agree with your position, though. This was 100% because he was supporting former President Trump. I didn’t say anyone be investigated when there were accusations made that Trump had colluded with Russia for the 2016 election, which turned out to be completely without any basis or evidence.
Alan, you make excellent points, I love how your writing is concise and clear. There's genius in simplicity. Clearly, society is choosing to censor conservative voices, including Giuliani. The Supreme court siding with the cheerleader, even one who posts a string of obscenities is a great reminder that those who want to say there was fraud in the election or that the virus started in the Wuhan lab or that the vaccine causes heart problems should not be censored by big tech, universities, or the government. We need a healthy respectful open debate, not communist style crushing of political dissidents. Those who choose to censor are just afraid their ideas will not stand up to scrutiny. Are Facebook and Twitter going to apologize to all those they wrongly cancelled over the Wuhan Lab speculation? I bet they won't.
Without the open marketplace of ideas we will never learn the truth about the virus and other disputed issues. Censorship is the enemy of truth.
Perhaps,based on what we now know about the partnership between the Democrats, the FBI and pre Musk Twitter about the suppression of any information about the Hunter Biden laptop, and its contents , Giulani should seek reinstatement of his law license .
Look at what is not happening to the two lawyers who were ready to throw firebombs at NYPD vehicles during the riots of 2020https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/the-biden-justice-departments-shameful-pandering-to-bomb-throwing-rioters/?taid=629f3e7a7385bc0001a4f864&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter In contrast, the NY woke legal establishment could not get to the courthouse quick enough to commence a disciplinary proceeding against Giulani. Don't bet on either of the two suspects ever serving a day in jail or losing their licenses
I think that the appellate court in New York went out of its way to send a message of intimidation to the bar- Anyone who raised a legitimate issue as to violations of the Electors Clause by having judges and bureaucrats determine who were electors as opposed to constitutionally required legislators and the failure of state and federal courts to consider the evidence of fraud on a substantial if not massive level in several states on the merits was beyond the pale.
Giulani , whose papers failed to address the constitutional issues and who alleged and then withdrew claims of fraud, did not aid Trump's case-which, if presented properly, would have made the issues in Bush v Gore look minuscule in comparison
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/560563-giulianis-suspension-from-the-law-is-unconstitutional
IN AGREEMENT
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17505/supreme-court-first-amendment
IN AGREEMENT
Sheila C Bundgus, M.Ed., RD, LD, RN
I want to assist in this case.
Alan,
I commend you for your direct involvement in the commentary.
Thank you.
Steve
Happy to engage with serious critics, but not ad hominems.
The term used by the judicial department making the ruling "uncontroverted evidence" SHOULD get you to understand that they have the proof they needed. If it doesn't, the problem is YOU.
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that there is uncontroverted evidence
that respondent communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts,
lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald
J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump’s failed effort at reelection
in 2020. These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent’s narrative
that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential
election was stolen from his client. We conclude that respondent’s conduct immediately
threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law,
pending further proceedings before the Attorney Grievance Committee (sometimes AGC
or Committee).
Mark. I challenge you to post the entire appellate court decision so readers can decide for themselves who is telling the truth about whether they included out of court as well
as in court statements . You will see they did. Go ahead and post it.
In fact, I never claimed that they didn't include out of court statements in their decision but you did in fact claim in your initial public statement that they relied "heavily" on out of court statements. Please point to the page and paragraph in the court document where it states that they "relied heavily" on those statements.
You did say that. Check it. The court did rely heavily on out of coirt statements. Read it.
Including out of court statements does not mean that their decision was based on out of court statements. It is simply supporting evidence that what he actually represented in court was not a one time, accidental slip of the tongue or he forgot what he meant. They are statements that demonstrate his intent when he WAS in court.
https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/calendar/List_Word/2021/06_Jun/24/PDF/Matter%20of%20Giuliani%20(2021-00506)%20PC.pdf
The evidence was controverted. But G was denied an evidentiary hearing to contovert it.
Fine then, You go to court, under oath or not and make knowingly and easily proven false statements and see what happens to your license to practice. Good luck Alan.
I have never made a misstatement to a court but ive seen dozens of lawyers do so.
Good for you, I hope you continue that record. Those dozens that you have seen do so should be held accountable.
But if they arent, we shouldn’t tolerate selective suspension based on politics.
Perhaps they didn't get caught or their false statements were not so easily proven? You have less "evidence" that the suspension of G's license was based on politics than the judiciary has that is is based on recorded court statements. Among the examples of conduct cited by the order was what it called Giuliani’s repeated false claims to a federal judge in Pennsylvania after Election Day that Trump’s campaign “was pursuing a fraud claim” in a lawsuit related to voting, “when indisputably it was not.” Instead, the order noted, the campaign was making an equal protection claim, “not based on fraud at all.” I'm surprised that you don't know all of this actually.
"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that there is uncontroverted evidence that respondent communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump’s failed effort at reelection in 2020."
They made a judgement that there was "uncontroverted evidence" that Giuliani "communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts" but yet they didn't bother to present one shred of evidence to support their claim, just accusations and a statement that their narcissistic opinion is indisputable and not open to question even after they denied Giuliani his constitutional right to defend against the accusations. I think their anti-Constitutional and unethical arrogance is going to bite them in the ass.
https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/calendar/List_Word/2021/06_Jun/24/PDF/Matter%20of%20Giuliani%20(2021-00506)%20PC.pdf
Mark E Heiden wrote, "The term used by the judicial department making the ruling "uncontroverted evidence" SHOULD get you to understand that they have the proof they needed. If it doesn't, the problem is YOU."
I couldn't help but notice that they didn't use the word "lie" or write that "Giuliani lied" anywhere in the entire document, therefore when you wrote below "Once he lied to a court he committed a crime" you wrote a verifiable false statement therefore you either intentionally misrepresented the ruling with a lie or you ignorantly inserted your parroting opinion into the argument.
Here's a logical fact that appears to be alluding you; all lies are false statements but not all false statements are lies.
I told you earlier that lie has a very specific meaning, you appear to be ignoring that meaning, it appears that the court did not ignore the meaning. Your assertion of fact that Giuliani lied and committed a crime is verifiably false and at this point it's defamation.
Actual facts are a funny thing.
I think we can be done with this conversation.
Have a nice day Mark.
Courts rarely if ever use the term "lie". They use "intentionally misled" or in this case: "respondent communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large ". If you can define the difference between a lie and a knowingly false or misleading statement then you win the entire argument. The rest of the world understands there is no difference but if you want to say you are right because of a synonym knock yourself out.
Youre right. The selective use of the word “lie” proves my point:- selective injustice
Mark,
You can rationalize this all you want but YOU are the one that chose to use the word lie, not the court. A lie is a very specific thing. Again; all lies are false statements but not all false statements are lies.
Hanlon's razor should be applied to many of the things that Giuliani has stated but unfortunately people that are consumed by their anti-Trump obsession jump straight into believing malice while disregarding ALL other possibilities, it's unethical.
Like I wrote elsewhere in this thread, "I think Rudy Giuliani is an unethical dirt bag" but even an unethical dirt bag has rights, heck even you and I have rights. Any way a critically thinking individual looks at this, Giuliani's rights were violated when he was denied an evidentiary hearing, what the court did was unconstitutional.
I'm done arguing with you and your rationalizations and spin.
I think Rudy Giuliani is an unethical dirt bag but he should take this all the way to the United States Supreme Court, Giuliani is actively being persecuted by a United States court for Constitutionally protected free speech. This ruling cannot stand.
The first amendment should apply to out of court statements made by lawyers—as well as out of school statements made by cheerleaders.
Absolutely nothing wrong with me Jeff. As stated, Rudi's lies outside court are not relevant. Once he lied to a court he committed a crime and that's what got his license suspended. He's been lying to the public for as many years as he's been "representing" Donald Trump but no action had been taken on his law license until he lied in court about the election. My original statement is 100% correct. What's wrong with YOU Jeff?
Mark E Heiden wrote, "Once he lied to a court he committed a crime..."
A lie is a very specific thing.
You just made a claim that needs to be supported with facts; what exactly did Giuliani lie about in court? Be specific; what was the exact lie to the court.
Maybe what Giuliani said in court was just something that turned out to be false but was not actually known to be false when he stated it. Fake news and spin is how the political left claimed that President Trump lied over 16,000 times, is this what you're doing with Giuliani's statement(s)?
https://stevewitherspoon.home.blog/2019/11/07/take-individual-responsibility-for-how-you-debate/
I don't have to be specific, the court and subsequently the licensing board have the "specifics". They don't suspend licenses without proof and definitely not of a high profile attorney unless they have proof. Your use of the term Fake news spin gives away your obvious political bias which appears to be keeping you from accepting reality.
Proof consists of evidence tested by the adversary process, incuding cross examination. Under your approach, if a court says youre guilty, thats the end. Fortunately thats not our system.
By all means, tell the judicial department that the uncontroverted evidence that they have and you don't doesn't amount to "proof" or that it doesn't meet the standard necessary to suspend a license according to their rules of professional conduct. See where that gets you.
The evidence cant be uncontrovertrd when the defendant sought but was denied an evidentiary hearing.
Mark E Heiden wrote "I don't have to be specific, the court and subsequently the licensing board have the "specifics". "
So you are parroting what you've heard or read and you cannot prove what you claim and on top of that you claim that you don't have to support what you claim. That's typical political hackery and far too common in todays unethical and hyperbolic political environment. Try to think critically and stop parroting what you hear or read just because it fits a narrative you like, take responsibility for what you say and write.
Mark E Heiden wrote "They don't suspend licenses without proof and definitely not of a high profile attorney unless they have proof. "
Where's the proof Mark? Here's a link to the actual ruling...
https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/calendar/List_Word/2021/06_Jun/24/PDF/Matter%20of%20Giuliani%20(2021-00506)%20PC.pdf
...please quote the sections of that document where they prove that Giuliani lied in court. Remember what Alan wrote above, "Proof consists of evidence tested by the adversary process, including cross examination." Simply stating that someone lied is not proof, it's an accusation.
What's clear to me is that they violated Giuliani's Constitutionally protected civil rights with this ruling and it also seems to me that you don't care that they violated his rights.
Mark E Heiden wrote "Your use of the term Fake news spin gives away your obvious political bias which appears to be keeping you from accepting reality."
Your ad hominem is an unethical personal insult and my reply to such nonsense is "bite me". You should try to communicate here without ad hominems.
I'll post it again for your reading pleasure. It's right in the document you posted. "Among the examples of conduct cited by the order was what it called Giuliani’s repeated false claims to a federal judge in Pennsylvania after Election Day that Trump’s campaign “was pursuing a fraud claim” in a lawsuit related to voting, “when indisputably it was not.” Instead, the order noted, the campaign was making an equal protection claim, “not based on fraud at all.”
It's cute that you call my reply an "ad hominem is an unethical personal insult" when your statement that I was replying to was: "Fake news and spin is how the political left claimed that President Trump lied over 16,000 times, is this what you're doing with Giuliani's statement(s)?" I suppose you think that is a well reasoned factual statement.. Ha. You and Alan should take your case that Rudi's constitutional "rights" were violated by suspending his license to court. This will be a good one..
You asked: Mark E Heiden wrote "They don't suspend licenses without proof and definitely not of a high profile attorney unless they have proof. "
Where's the proof Mark?
My statement claims there are no examples. If you claim I'm wrong it would be easy to provide a list of high profile attorneys that HAVE had their licenses suspended without proof. I can't prove a negative but you should easily be able to prove your claim. I'll wait for the list.
Mark E Heiden wrote "They don't suspend licenses without proof and definitely not of a high profile attorney unless they have proof. "
I wrote, "Where's the proof Mark?"
Mark E Heiden wrote, "My statement claims there are no examples. If you claim I'm wrong it would be easy to provide a list of high profile attorneys that HAVE had their licenses suspended without proof. I can't prove a negative but you should easily be able to prove your claim. I'll wait for the list."
That's some nicely twisted spin Mark, it nonsense but it's nice.
I didn't ask you to prove a negative that they don't suspend licenses without proof, I asked you where the proof is. Your "logic" fails the smell test. You know what you can do with your spin.
Nonsense Alan. Rudi's license was suspended for lying to a COURT! His public statements as you stated are protected but he was NOT suspended for those statements. You are also misleading the public with your statements!
Actually, Giuliani has been disciplined for allegedly lying in *and* out of court. What's wrong with you, Mark?