excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 18,320
- 34,795
- 2,290
Seeing this for what it really is.
The “lie” he told was that evidence exists of fraud in the 2020 presidential election. You are not allowed to say that in America. You can be held in prison without trial for even thinking it.
A tenet of Western Civilization, expressed in the Magna Carta, affirmed at this nation’s founding, and embodied in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, is that litigants are entitled to zealous advocacy before legal tribunals.
John Adams represented British soldiers in their trial for gunning down patriots during the Boston Massacre. His courageous act enhanced his standing among patriots.
Giuliani has been suspended from the practice of law for his representation of Donald Trump. His suspension did not arise from a process in which he had a right to present evidence and mount a defense. It was an interim suspension, done without a hearing.
As the New York court ruling on the matter noted: “Interim suspension is a serious remedy, available only in situations where it is immediately necessary to protect the public from the respondent’s violation of the Rules.”
In layman’s terms, that means interim suspension is a remedy reserved for the lawyer who misses trial, drunk at a bar, while hiding exonerating evidence in his briefcase. That person, and not America’s Mayor, presents a danger to his clients.
The court described Giuliani’s offenses as, “statements [he] made following the 2020 election at press conferences, state legislative hearings, radio broadcasts (as both a guest and host), podcasts, television appearances and one court appearance.”
Here, context is important. Pennsylvania lawyers Trump had hired before the election withdrew on the eve of the hearing, the court denied a continuance, and Giuliani was inserted into the fray at the last minute.
Even if he made slight errors while getting up to speed in the very complex case, can statements made by a lawyer challenging an election really grounds for disbarment?
In Conley v. Gibson, 355 US 41 (1957), the Supreme Court “reject[ed] the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive….”
Conley is not exactly on point but is certainly analogous. It recognizes that initial pleadings in a civil case are meant to be refined in discovery and pretrial procedure, and lawyers should not be held to early allegations.
By way of comparison, in 2000 prominent New York attorney David Boies represented the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate, Al Gore, in his election challenge to George Bush’s victory.
The premise of the challenge was that votes had been improperly counted in certain Florida precincts and that Gore actually won the election.
...
thenationalpulse.com
The “lie” he told was that evidence exists of fraud in the 2020 presidential election. You are not allowed to say that in America. You can be held in prison without trial for even thinking it.
A tenet of Western Civilization, expressed in the Magna Carta, affirmed at this nation’s founding, and embodied in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, is that litigants are entitled to zealous advocacy before legal tribunals.
John Adams represented British soldiers in their trial for gunning down patriots during the Boston Massacre. His courageous act enhanced his standing among patriots.
Giuliani has been suspended from the practice of law for his representation of Donald Trump. His suspension did not arise from a process in which he had a right to present evidence and mount a defense. It was an interim suspension, done without a hearing.
As the New York court ruling on the matter noted: “Interim suspension is a serious remedy, available only in situations where it is immediately necessary to protect the public from the respondent’s violation of the Rules.”
In layman’s terms, that means interim suspension is a remedy reserved for the lawyer who misses trial, drunk at a bar, while hiding exonerating evidence in his briefcase. That person, and not America’s Mayor, presents a danger to his clients.
The court described Giuliani’s offenses as, “statements [he] made following the 2020 election at press conferences, state legislative hearings, radio broadcasts (as both a guest and host), podcasts, television appearances and one court appearance.”
Here, context is important. Pennsylvania lawyers Trump had hired before the election withdrew on the eve of the hearing, the court denied a continuance, and Giuliani was inserted into the fray at the last minute.
Even if he made slight errors while getting up to speed in the very complex case, can statements made by a lawyer challenging an election really grounds for disbarment?
In Conley v. Gibson, 355 US 41 (1957), the Supreme Court “reject[ed] the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive….”
Conley is not exactly on point but is certainly analogous. It recognizes that initial pleadings in a civil case are meant to be refined in discovery and pretrial procedure, and lawyers should not be held to early allegations.
By way of comparison, in 2000 prominent New York attorney David Boies represented the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate, Al Gore, in his election challenge to George Bush’s victory.
The premise of the challenge was that votes had been improperly counted in certain Florida precincts and that Gore actually won the election.
...
The Persecution of Rudy Giuliani. - The National Pulse
Rudy Giuliani, former mob-busting US Attorney, ex-mayor of New York, and one-time presidential aspirant, was suspended from the practice of law for “lying” to a Pennsylvania court. The “lie” he told was that evidence exists of fraud in the 2020 presidential election. You are not allowed to say...
thenationalpulse.com
