The NY Supreme Court granted an interim suspension of Rudy Giuliani from the practice of law based on complaints from the Attorney Grievance Committee.
The suspension was granted on an interim basis allegedly due to the damage he might continue to do to our democratic institution [They care about election integrity? Who knew?].
How much of this is part of the witch hunt? I guess we’ll find out.
The court wrote: The risk that respondent will continue to engage in future misconduct while this disciplinary proceeding is pending is further borne out by his past, persistent and pervasive dissemination of these false statements in the media.
Giuliani is accused of lying for months about the number of ballots Pennsylvania mailed out. When challenged before the court, he didn’t defend the claim but blamed an unnamed staff member for feeding him the information. The court found there’s no proof that ever happened. (p.9 Footnote)
While thousands listened live, Giuliani allegedly lied to a District Judge in Pennsylvania about the status of a pending lawsuit. Allegedly, he “repeatedly represented to the court that his client, the plaintiff, was pursuing a fraud claim, when indisputably it was not.” (p.10)
The court discounted Giuliani’s free speech argument:
Respondent raises an overarching argument that the AGC’s investigation into his conduct violates his First Amendment right of free speech.2 He does not attack the constitutionality of the particular disciplinary rules; he seemingly claims that they are unconstitutional as applied to him. We reject respondent’s argument. This disciplinary proceeding concerns the professional restrictions imposed on respondent as an attorney to not knowingly misrepresent facts and make false statements in connection with his representation of a client. It is long recognized that “speech by an attorney is subject to greater regulation than speech by others”
Mr. Giuliani said he did not knowingly do so and the court dismissed his argument:
Respondent also raises lack or absence of knowledge as a general defense, stating that even if his statements were false or misleading, he did not make the statements knowing they were false when he made them. We agree that the Rules of Professional Conduct only proscribe false and misleading statements that are knowingly made. Both rules 3.3 and 4.1, expressly provide for an element of knowingness. Rule 8.4 (c), however, contains no such express element. In New York there are no cases which directly hold that a violation of rule 8.4(c) must be knowing, although there is authority that implies it.
-
The Importance of Prayer: How a Christian Gold Company Stands Out by Defending Americans’ Retirement
Most didn’t form their opinions based on Rudy. They formed them based on the corrupt process and the unlikelihood of Biden winning 81 million people.
Then there’s the fact that nothing is proven until he has his full disciplinary hearing.
READ THE DOCUMENT YOURSELF
Matter of Giuliani (2021-00506) PC on Scribd
wpDiscuz
