Rudy effectively does a hari kari number on his law license, as described in detail in the court’s ruling, with numerous examples of his grifting lawyering for The Steal
[ Editor’s Note: It could not happen to someone more deserving than Rudy, but Sidney Powell and Lin Wood should be concerned after reading this New York Supreme Court ruling.
I went thought the whole thing with a highlighter so I can review when needed. How it never occurred to Rudy that he was going to lose his law license and his meal ticket to being a high flying grifter political attorney is beyond me.
I recommend a full read on the ruling below, as it is an historic document. But I have typed up some of the closing comments which are like nails being banged into a cross. I sure wouldn’t want to be in Rudy’s shoes at this point, with criminal investigations still pending.
Toward the end of the 32 pages, the decision lays blame for January 6 right at the feet of those who fed the endless lies about the election being stolen.
Like prosecutors in a court room they not only nail Rudy on his false charges, they demonstrated why they were false and how all the evidence that Rudy purported to have was never substantiated.
The judges list all the claims he put out in press interviews, in courtrooms, depositions and his endless radio shows. Even after he was on notice for the initiation for removing his law license, he continued to make claims that had been debunked, and the court hung those all around his neck in this ruling.
The court went into detail to demonstrate why they were canceling his law license prior to having a full evidentiary record in order to show that he was continuing activity that was a danger to the public by repeating The Steal lies and undermining faith in elections which numerous courts have ruled were fair.
The methodology appears to be a template for other jurisdictions to follow for the likes of Sidney Powell and Lin Wood. The court wants to send a message to any other grifter attorneys out there who think they can fraudulently claim bogus elections and then hide their claims under freedom of speech, that they are gambling their law license away… Jim W. Dean ]
…page 30, Accordingly, the AGC’s motions should be granted and respondent, [Rudy] is suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, effectively immediately, This country is being torn apart by continued attacks on the legitimacy of the 2020 election and our current president, Joseph R. Biden. False statements intended to foment a loss of confidence in our elections and resulting loss of confidence in government generally damage the proper functioning of a free society.
When those statements are made by an attorney, it also erodes the public’s confidence in the integrity of attorneys admitted to our bar and damages the profession’s role as a crucial source of reliable information. Where, as here, the false statements are being made by respondent, acting with the authority of being an attorney, and using his large megaphone, the harm is magnified.
One has only to look at the ongoing present discord over the 2020 elections, which erupted in violence, insurrection and death on January 6, 2020 at the U.S. Capitol, to understand the extent of the damage that can be done when the public is misled by false information about the elecitons.
…page 31, The [Court[ contends that the repondent’s conduct (Rudy), directly inflamed tensions that bubbled over into the events of January 6, 2021 in this nation’s Capitol. The Respondent’s response is that no casual nexus can be shown between his conduct and those events. We need not decide any issue of ‘casual nexus” to understand that the falsehoods themselves cause harm. This event only emphasizes the larger point that the broad dissemination of false statement, casting doubt on the legitimacy of thousands of validly cast votes, is corrosive to the public’s trust in our most important democratic instituions.
…page 32, Before Judge Braun in the Boockvar case, respondent himself stated: ” I don’t know what’s more serious that being denied your right to vote in a democracy.”
We agree. It is the very reason why espousing false factual information to large segments of the public as a means of discrediting the rights of legitimate voters is so immediately harmful to it and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law.
Accordingly, the AGC’s motions should be granted and respondent is suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, effectively immediately, and until further order of this Court.