Rudy Giuliani ordered to pay $150 million in defamation case

a reply to: matafuchs

Not that bit.

You are cherry picking.

There's 31 pages of it.

Why don't you mention all the rest of it?

Damning stuff.

Not because of his views or talk.

Deliberately and falsely misleading the Court.

But no, you just ignore all that and claim he's some sort of martyr.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

No. I stated the first paragraph which is what it is about. I asked you for what you feel are the damning things because I do not have the same opinion.

How is having a legal opinion, as a lawyer, misleading the court? He did not lie and WIN any cases. If he did, disbar him immediately.

I am asking very straightforward questions.

a reply to: matafuchs

Straightforward answer, it's all set out in the disciplinary Tribunals findings.

Nothing to do with winning.

Straw man.

Read the actual findings.

Nothing to do with having a "legal opinion".

Deliberately falsifying stuff and misleading the Court.

Falsifying. Deliberately.

But I see I am wasting my time with you.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

But I see I am wasting my time with you.

Cite an example. Twice now, all you have said is 'it is in there' and I am wasting time you don't understand.

I read it. I do not see anywhere he mislead anything that would have an affect on anything.

You can't. No worries. It just shows, like many of us are saying, is that it is bull#.

a reply to: matafuchs

Doesn't matter if it had an affect on anything.

That's just your ill informed opinion.

So, you think deliberately falsifying evidence and misleading the Court is only naughty if he had won?!!!!!!

That's not how it works.

It's an ignorant straw man.

And yes, it's in there. In 31 pages, FFS.

a reply to: matafuchs

You didn't see anything?

Get some better specs?

31 pages.

Doesn't matter if it had an affect on anything.

Suppose I falsified evidence and deliberately mislead a Court.

Judge: "Mr ......., I find that you have deliberately falsified evidence and have mislead the Court."

"Yes, M'Lord, but I haven't won"?

"Oh, OK. That's fine. Never mind. It's all good then".

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Looks like you have 31 pages of nothing.
You could post 1 thing, if you had it, right?
Back your claim up with something other than “31 pages ermagerd”.

a reply to: Vermilion

31 pages of actual stuff.

But stick your fingers in your ears and go "Ner, Ner, not listening".

Carry on, Counselor.

31 pages of reasoned findings.

Not enough for you?

Right?

im no lawyer but some bits do stand out as to why he has been disbarred

The Referee found that, in violation of rules 4.1, 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h),
respondent falsely and dishonestly asserted that 2,000 affidavits attesting to firsthand
knowledge of fraud had been filed in court cases brought in support of former President
Trump’s reelection. Respondent made the alleged offending statements while testifying
under oath before Missouri state legislators on December 14, 2020.
19
During his March 22, 2022, deposition before the AGC, respondent testified that
his statements were true. However, the AGC conducted an extensive search and
determined that the number of affidavits that had been filed in court cases in support of
then-President Trump’s reelection came to 564, with 314 having been filed more than
once, which brought the total number of affidavit filings to 878. Respondent did not
dispute the AGC’s search methods or the results of the search. Nevertheless, respondent
maintained that “when he made his claim as to two thousand affidavits attesting to
firsthand knowledge of fraud and filed in court, he did so honestly and with a good faith
basis and meant to refer to both affidavits actually filed and affidavits which were
available for filing if a court hearing were granted and evidence presented.”
The Referee found that “[r]espondent’s assertion that he misspoke, yet again, in
the manner he claims, is difficult to square with what he swore to on two occasions.” The
Referee also found that his defense was also not credible because respondent not only
quadrupled the number of affidavits actually filed, but he also misrepresented the
content of the affidavits themselves.

pg19

So seemingly under oath, he inflated the number of affidavits he had submitted and also submitted some more than once

God dam reading that crap, no wonder lawyers get paid well, its boring as anything

Is this enough to be barred, hell i dont know but lying under oath and being found to do so is never a good look

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Not...one...thing. .Just 31 pages huh? Just like 32 Felonies?

What falsified evidence? This is the same as Falsified Business records. Who was mislead? Because he said the election was stolen? I know a TON of lawyers including HRC, who ran, who STILL say the election was stolen so please, tell me, why is she not disbarred? Spreading falsehood right?

I asked for ONE thing that was actually illegal. YOu could not do it. Someone else did.

Affidavits. He said he had the wrong amount of affidavits. OK. A simple mistake. Fine him. (Next)

a reply to: UpIsNowDown2

Pretty much, yes. Being a a lying little toad and deliberately falsifying evidence is fine with some folks if it suits them.

Not so much with Courts.

a reply to: matafuchs

OK.

He wasn't charged with any felonies.

Or anything "illegal".

Affidavits are sworn documents.

If you deliberately lie under Oath, it's a bad thing.

Read the damn finding and stop arguing with me.

It is what it is.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

No one is arguing.

You said the evidence is overwhelming.

I asked for a specific item. You were in law. You know how it works.

Cite one item that would show he committed a true crime worthy of being barred. If you can't, no one wins or loses but it removes discussion.

Right now you are just agreeing and not offering a reason.

a reply to: matafuchs

Crime?

It was a Disciplinary Tribunal. No crimes alleged.

a reply to: matafuchs

I still am in law.

There are 31 pages of reasons.

"Illegal"?

Breaches of his duties to the Court and his Code of Conduct are not crimes but they are grounds to disbar him.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

No crime. Ha. You know exactly what I meant and you are trying the 'let me find a word out of context to make my argument better and theirs worse' routine. So, if you want to say nothing criminal then unethical?

Disbarment is usually a punishment for unethical or criminal conduct but may also be imposed for incompetence or incapacity.

Nothing he said was unethical. Nothing. If a lawyer cannot submit/discuss what "they" feel is correct regarding a case or law to argue how is it even an actual court?

Everyday people and lawyers bring forth cases that are far reaching. They say lots of things.

You really do not find it odd he has practiced law for 50 years and when he questions an election he is disbarred?

He is a great man who did wonderful things for NY and is now attacked and belittled by the #os on the left.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: matafuchs

I still am in law.

There are 31 pages of reasons.

"Illegal"?

Breaches of his duties to the Court and his Code of Conduct are not crimes but they are grounds to disbar him.

I know of a lawyer who actually was just convicted of 3 felonies yet only got his law license suspended.
See the two tier justice system under these partisan hacks now?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: matafuchs

If Rudi is the answer, it must have been a really stupid question?

Prolly one you asked.

a reply to: matafuchs

Deliberately misleading the Court is unethical but at this point I give up.

I said all I have to say.

Carry on.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I really hope you are not a trial lawyer. I know I would not hire you. At no time did you actually answer the question. It is so simple also.

Carry nothing. You dropped the ball on an easy question. As soon as you are pressed you say 'just read it'. Is that what you would tell a judge or a jury or a Tribunal as you put it?

Link

“The seriousness of respondent’s misconduct cannot be overstated,” the decision reads. Giuliani “flagrantly misused” his position and “baselessly attacked and undermined the integrity of this country’s electoral process.” “In so doing, respondent not only deliberately violated some of the most fundamental tenets of the legal profession, but he also actively contributed to the national strife that has followed the 2020 Presidential election, for which he is entirely unrepentant,” the court wrote.

Undermined the integrity of the electoral process? Eat a bag of donkey dicks Tribunal Board. A big bag of donkey dick.

Again, why is HIllary Rodham Clinton not disbarred? At 1:05. She is saying the same things as Rudi.