Giuliani Suspended (in NY)
- Thread starter HGMilstead
- Start date
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Well it's a temporary suspension.
They suspended him without giving him a chance to defend himself,
I thought it was the New York Barr that susp[ended folks but I guess it is democrat Judges.
Anyway he has 20 days to appeal.
Of course he could stay suspended for years as the Judges put off a fair hearing until far in the future.
It is of course unfair, but it's also New York, and Guilianni is probably licensed in other states as well.
They suspended him without giving him a chance to defend himself,
I thought it was the New York Barr that susp[ended folks but I guess it is democrat Judges.
Anyway he has 20 days to appeal.
Of course he could stay suspended for years as the Judges put off a fair hearing until far in the future.
It is of course unfair, but it's also New York, and Guilianni is probably licensed in other states as well.
How’s the weather in Houston?
Clem72
Well-Known Member
Do you think he took the bar exam in multiple states, because that isn't normal. Normally they have reciprocity (i.e. they recognize each other's licenses, like doctors and nurses) rather than redundant licensing. So I assume if he gets his license suspended in his actual home state then he would be effectively cut off in all 50 states unless he pursues a new license.
If the suspension sticks and he goes to take the exam in another state he will also have to learn that state's idiosyncrasies as part of the exam is specific to state law. That said, the dude is almost 80. Maybe he has the time and energy, but it seems unlikely to happen.
We all understand that this was a political hit job, right?
My understanding is that after passing the state bar you are also entitled to standing in Federal courts beyond state boundaries as well. And since he was not disbarred he could still appear before District courts if he has applied for permission to appear.
Absolutely!
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
That's what I mean by asking if it isn't the state Barr and not Judges that suspend a lawyer.
Well yeah.....almost all of us. All but the original poster....
Last edited:
CPUSA
Well-Known Member
Well, he's/she's/it's a retarded cuck...er, I mean commie, so....
Another good analysis by the Canadian lawyer. Personal feelings about Giuliani aside, any clear thinking person knows that this is all about punishing anyone connected with the political outsider who wasn't supposed to win the POTUS chair and challenge the authority of our rulers and masters.
Slow Joe gonna nuke us. He said so.
PJay
Well-Known Member
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
This is nothing new. It's from New York, but didn't the Justice Department do Flynn the same way?
Politicizing the law is old hat to the Democrats.
They ignore Hunter Biden, they ignore the "Big Guy" take a peek at how they ignored the FBI deep state..
The Justice Department is suing a Georgia for making it's own laws in it's own State.
A law that most states already have.
Obama planted his seed in every Government agency while he was President, and we are now seeing the growth of the plant.
Fascism and using the law to destroy their enemies. It's been done before and the Judges faced trial at Nuremburg, hopefully one day these destroyers of Justice will face the same..
Politicizing the law is old hat to the Democrats.
They ignore Hunter Biden, they ignore the "Big Guy" take a peek at how they ignored the FBI deep state..
The Justice Department is suing a Georgia for making it's own laws in it's own State.
A law that most states already have.
Obama planted his seed in every Government agency while he was President, and we are now seeing the growth of the plant.
Fascism and using the law to destroy their enemies. It's been done before and the Judges faced trial at Nuremburg, hopefully one day these destroyers of Justice will face the same..
Giuliani's Suspension: Questionable Statements, But Not by Him
What was bizarre about this ruling, especially to any experienced lawyer, is that Giuliani was suspended before it was even determined preliminarily that an investigation of him should be opened. The court disqualified Giuliani on an emergency ad hoc basis, implicating Trump's Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Giuliani's First Amendment right to free speech. The court's ruling also does not find problematic the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, requiring a due process hearing before any deprivation of a right, privilege, or property interest.
So what justified this pre-hearing, pre-investigation suspension, based on conduct not even remotely involving the State of New York? The court was concerned that Giuliani might cast doubt on the legitimacy of the duly elected president, Joseph R. Biden, a claimed legitimacy the court repeated to distraction. The ruling claims that Giuliani's "false statements intended to foment a loss of confidence in our elections and resulting loss of confidence in government generally." Moreover, Giuliani "tarnishes the reputation of the entire legal profession" besides "the falsehoods themselves caus[ing] harm." After all, we would not want the trusting public to think some lawyers are sleazy; that our government would lie; or, horrors, that a local urban government would be incompetent.
What is so shockingly dangerous to the public about Giuliani's words? Hold on to your hats.
To set up one of Giuliani's main outrages, we offer preface regarding the slight nuances between a fraud claim and an allegation of fraudulent conduct. Often a legal complaint pleads a fraud claim, which must be pleaded with "particularity." But many other claims have allegations of fraudulent conduct as part of the underlying basis. For example, claims of real estate broker malpractice may be based upon fraudulent statements, whether a separate claim of fraud is made or not. Same with trade secret, patent, unfair competition, and even breach of contract claims. So an allegation of fraudulent conduct is not the same as a claim of fraud. Easily understood, right? Apparently not by a court that may not have wished to understand it.
What was bizarre about this ruling, especially to any experienced lawyer, is that Giuliani was suspended before it was even determined preliminarily that an investigation of him should be opened. The court disqualified Giuliani on an emergency ad hoc basis, implicating Trump's Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Giuliani's First Amendment right to free speech. The court's ruling also does not find problematic the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, requiring a due process hearing before any deprivation of a right, privilege, or property interest.
So what justified this pre-hearing, pre-investigation suspension, based on conduct not even remotely involving the State of New York? The court was concerned that Giuliani might cast doubt on the legitimacy of the duly elected president, Joseph R. Biden, a claimed legitimacy the court repeated to distraction. The ruling claims that Giuliani's "false statements intended to foment a loss of confidence in our elections and resulting loss of confidence in government generally." Moreover, Giuliani "tarnishes the reputation of the entire legal profession" besides "the falsehoods themselves caus[ing] harm." After all, we would not want the trusting public to think some lawyers are sleazy; that our government would lie; or, horrors, that a local urban government would be incompetent.
What is so shockingly dangerous to the public about Giuliani's words? Hold on to your hats.
To set up one of Giuliani's main outrages, we offer preface regarding the slight nuances between a fraud claim and an allegation of fraudulent conduct. Often a legal complaint pleads a fraud claim, which must be pleaded with "particularity." But many other claims have allegations of fraudulent conduct as part of the underlying basis. For example, claims of real estate broker malpractice may be based upon fraudulent statements, whether a separate claim of fraud is made or not. Same with trade secret, patent, unfair competition, and even breach of contract claims. So an allegation of fraudulent conduct is not the same as a claim of fraud. Easily understood, right? Apparently not by a court that may not have wished to understand it.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
I didn't need Giuiliani to lose confidence in our elections. The democrats have given me more then enough evidence of this joke of an election to make me lose confidence, and then after this greatest of all cheat, they try to pass a phony law so that they can more easily cheat in the next election. And then to tarnish the reputation of the legal profession?? LMAO, anyone who has dealt with lawyers already has made that decision also. Any "trusting" public who doesn't know many lawyers are sleazy has never dealt with one.
New York jumped the shark on this one and hopefully Giuliani will shove it right up their Butts.
New York jumped the shark on this one and hopefully Giuliani will shove it right up their Butts.