notobtuse wrote: » Forget the local news versus national news, as that's irrelevant. If a lawyer goes on TV and says my client was a subject of police brutality, and it is proven not to be the case... is it not the same thing?
Smee_Again wrote: » Rush’s problem is that he was saying one thing in public, that there was voter fraud, but arguing something completely different in court. None of his court submissions actually allege any fraud and are all based on procedural issues. That’s what’s led to him being suspended.
notobtuse wrote: » If that were the case ObamaCare should have been killed. Obama was selling ObamaCare to the people as it not being a tax, but when his lawyers went to court for him they were arguing to the courts it was a tax, and therefore allowed. Seems to me it's what is said in court, not out in public, that really matters.
notobtuse wrote: » I don't know about that as it sounds awfully convoluted to say he was merely refused bail. They are taking his livelihood away from him without a fair trial or due process. Sure sounds like they've made themselves prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Forget the local news versus national news, as that's irrelevant. If a lawyer goes on TV and says my client was a subject of police brutality, and it is proven not to be the case... is it not the same thing?
Deleted User wrote: » Actively deliberately lying would be unacceptable, in this case he lied in a courtroom so not even simply lying on a tv. Plus creating baseless lawsuits etc. Pretty much abused his role entirely. On top of that he's facing charges on other things including illegal lobbying.https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2018/december-2018/when-is-it-okay-for-a-lawyer-to-lie--/https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/rudy-giuliani-s-law-license-suspension-likely-won-t-teach-n1272308 So you say his civil rights have been violated, if he doesn't take a successful case will you accept his rights were not violated?
notobtuse wrote: » Lawyers sue for police abuse all the time as a counter suit. When it is proven to be false, should their license be suspended? I'm not understanding your 'if he doesn't take a successful case.' It might be merely a phrase in your country I'm not familiar with.But honestly, I don't much trust the court system in New York. If he is disbarred unfairly, can he take it to the New York Court of Appeals, then the 2nd Federal District Court of Appeals and finally the US Supreme Court?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » he did get a fair trial. he had representation. if he fails to meet the ethic standards of his profession then he doesn't deserve to continue in that profession. Don't worry there will be a full trial soon at which I'm sure Rudy will blind us all with a magnificent defence.
notobtuse wrote: » Lawyers sue for police abuse all the time as a counter suit. When it is proven to be false, should their license be suspended? I'm not understanding your 'if he doesn't take a successful case.' It might be merely a phrase in your country I'm not familiar with. But honestly, I don't much trust the court system in New York. If he is disbarred unfairly, can he take it to the New York Court of Appeals, then the 2nd Federal District Court of Appeals and finally the US Supreme Court?
Smee_Again wrote: » Not even remotely comparable.
notobtuse wrote: » I don't believe he got a fair trial as all the issues were not explored. Also, disbarment are almost always reserved for lawyers convicted of a crime, and seemingly never for a lawyer making statements in public. But I can see them disbarring him, as it seems to be merely a kangaroo court hell bent on a witch hunt against anyone brave enough to align themselves with Trump in a liberal state.
Deleted User wrote: » Knowingly lying is different to representing a client. Giuliani lied in court, multiple times. He opened multiple cases based on lies. Examples of multiple lies included here..https://www.factcheck.org/2021/06/rudy-giulianis-bogus-election-fraud-claims/
ohnonotgmail wrote: » do you have a source for the part in bold?
notobtuse wrote: » I would like to respond but we're not allowed to talk about those type of things in the past election, you know.
notobtuse wrote: » Of course...https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2021/0625/Witch-hunt-or-justice-Rudy-Giuliani-s-law-license-suspended
Interim suspensions are often a precursor to disbarment but are typically “reserved for lawyers convicted of a crime,” said Bruce Green, a former federal prosecutor who directs the Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics at the Fordham University School of Law. “It’s rarely done in cases involving lying lawyers.”
Leroy42 wrote: » There you go again with statements as if you actually have any idea what you are talking about. What, in particular, did this court do that made the ruling unlawful, outside norms or a 'kangaroo court' as you alledge? Almost always, so not always and in that there are probably cases such as Guilianis. Have you checked that this the only time it has happened? This 'kangaroo court that is hell bent on a witch hunt'? Who else have the nailed. I mean, with that level of power and corruption then I assume anybody even remotely related to Trump is done. It wasn't that he made statements in public. He brought frivolous lawsuits, and knew they were frivolous.
Leroy42 wrote: » God, you can't even that get right. It isn't disbarment that is unusal So its rarely done, which means it is perfectly within the rules and remit of the court. That you think it is unfair is of no relevance.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » not forgetting the lies he told in both oral and written submissions to courts.
notobtuse wrote: » If one side wins and one loses in a lawsuit, it probably means one side has lied some throughout the process (the losing side). Funny, I don't see half the lawyers getting their licenses suspended or disbarred.
Deleted User wrote: » He lied and that's why he's been disbarred. He's also in trouble for illegal lobbying. So you're claiming his civil rights are being abused... They're not and he's not the first lawyer to be disbarred for lying. Good riddance to trash. The fact you can't even argue your claim without going into conspiracy theories is telling. :rolleyes:
Tippex wrote: » Not the first time the poster has linked to an article that doesn’t state what they think it states
notobtuse wrote: » I’ve found accusations of conspiracy theories flow quick and freely from people like you regarding anything associated with Trump. But we do know from experience the truth takes longer. Remember back to... There was no Russian collusion. Or the Trump campaign was spied on. Both “conspiracy theories” according to your side, which happened to be TRUE given proper time to investigate.
notobtuse wrote: » Then please explain rather than merely making those accusations without supporting evidence.
Leroy42 wrote: » God, you can't even that get right. It isn't disbarment that is unusal Interim suspensions are often a precursor to disbarment but are typically “reserved for lawyers convicted of a crime,” said Bruce Green, a former federal prosecutor who directs the Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics at the Fordham University School of Law. “It’s rarely done in cases involving lying lawyers.” So its rarely done, which means it is perfectly within the rules and remit of the court. That you think it is unfair is of no relevance.
everlast75 wrote: » Defending Rudy and Dersh - the dregs of humanity. Waiting for the defence of Bannon and Stone. Lol.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d78fd5f5292e11c2974bcd779ad2a2f0.svg)
