Giuliani condo/apartment being raided

#302
#302
GVF said:
The current administration does that every day. They would have enough ammo with the other 2 allegations. I also understood them to say it was temporary. So, if by the above rules, if he corrects his statements to the courts, would his license then be reinstated ??
Click to expand...

"Shucks, I didn't think there would be any consequences for my BS, but now that I've found out there could be, let's agree to let bygones be bygones."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb and GVF
#304
#304
VolStrom said:
I find it ironic that it's against the law to lie to an FBI agent, but not the opposite.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention that. I watch a lot of those crime shows (Murder Tapes, Murder in the Heartland, etc.). It dawned on me just how much LE lies to the perps in the interrogations to hopefully get them to say what they want to hear from them. And they readily admit it as part of their questioning strategy on camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#305
#305
golfballs said:
Lawyer speak. Lie vs “Mischaracterize”
Click to expand...


The line is not as murky as you think. Here's an example.

I had a trial a month ago involving a false arrest claim. The incident involved several deputies searching for contraband and for the bulk of the case everyone believed video showed one deputy waiting on others after it was found. Everyone assumed that meant he found it. As we prepared for trial and discussed it with a couple of other witnesses, we figure out a different deputy found it then went and got his car to field test it -- the one we thought found it was standing there to mark the spot to go back to.

We alerted the other side and the Court so that no one committed themselves to a version of the facts that was inaccurate. The characterization debate was over whether the contraband likely matched that which the Defendant deputy believed he had seen thrown from the suspect's car. So we corrected the factual assumption everyone had made and that was the correct way to handle it, not spring a gotcha moment on the other side and have it become a sideshow.
 
#306
#306
lawgator1 said:
The line is not as murky as you think. Here's an example.

I had a trial a month ago involving a false arrest claim. The incident involved several deputies searching for contraband and for the bulk of the case everyone believed video showed one deputy waiting on others after it was found. Everyone assumed that meant he found it. As we prepared for trial and discussed it with a couple of other witnesses, we figure out a different deputy found it then went and got his car to field test it -- the one we thought found it was standing there to mark the spot to go back to.

We alerted the other side and the Court so that no one committed themselves to a version of the facts that was inaccurate. The characterization debate was over whether the contraband likely matched that which the Defendant deputy believed he had seen thrown from the suspect's car. So we corrected the factual assumption everyone had made and that was the correct way to handle it, not spring a gotcha moment on the other side and have it become a sideshow.
Click to expand...
So what you did was find the other side in a lie and once you pointed out the lie they were caught and had to admit that they "didn't see" the evidence? Crooked is as crooked does.
 
#307
#307
VolStrom said:
So what you did was find the other side in a lie and once you pointed out the lie they were caught and had to admit that they "didn't see" the evidence? Crooked is as crooked does.
Click to expand...
He said that both sides had the same misunderstanding. So… he was lying against his own client?

A lie is when you know or should know that the truth is different than your characterization. If you don’t know, the truth is ambiguous, or it’s an honest mistake, that’s not a lie.
 
#308
#308
VolStrom said:
So what you did was find the other side in a lie and once you pointed out the lie they were caught and had to admit that they "didn't see" the evidence? Crooked is as crooked does.
Click to expand...


No, no. Sorry if I was unclear. This was my mistake. I was the one who advanced the wrong fact throughout and realized the error so clarified it. The other side believed the same thing. So did the court. Everyone watching the video made that mistake.

But I was the one in there asserting abc happened, when it was more like abd.
 
#309
#309
lawgator1 said:
No, no. Sorry if I was unclear. This was my mistake. I was the one who advanced the wrong fact throughout and realized the error so clarified it. The other side believed the same thing. So did the court. Everyone watching the video made that mistake.

But I was the one in there asserting abc happened, when it was more like abd.
Click to expand...
Florida is so overrated. An 8-4 team at best in 2021.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt2496 and 0nelilreb
#310
#310
RockyTop85 said:
Most jurisdictions treat the practice of law as a privilege bestowed by the state rather than a right or property. When you’re admitted, you agree to abide by certain behavioral standards. So my recollection is that most jurisdictions will not recognize a first amendment challenge to a disciplinary proceedings in circumstances like this.

It’s hard to violate those standards enough to get disbarred without stealing or commingling client money, because the profession doesn’t want to stifle zealous advocacy and creativity, but once you do, there aren’t many silver bullet defenses to it.

Supposedly he has really good lawyers so he should get a fair shake.
Click to expand...
Maybe I’m under a misconception but isn’t the bar association not related to state government? A stand alone entity?
 
#312
#312
hog88 said:
Since most politicians are lawyers they are intertwined.
Click to expand...
Intertwined but separate as far as who tests, licenses, disciplines and revokes licenses. The state Gov. is not involved in that process, that’s the bar association from my understanding and what I was hoping to clarify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#313
#313
NurseGoodVol said:
Intertwined but separate as far as who tests, licenses, disciplines and revokes licenses. The state Gov. is not involved in that process, that’s the bar association from my understanding and what I was hoping to clarify.
Click to expand...

Yeah I’m sure it’s supposed to be but birds of a feather. The BAR will do their brothers bidding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#314
#314
NurseGoodVol said:
Maybe I’m under a misconception but isn’t the bar association not related to state government? A stand alone entity?
Click to expand...
It’s like a state licensing board, same as for beer sales or beauticians or nurses.

Lawyers are just treated differently.

Ramsey v. BD. OF PRO. RESP., 771 SW 2d 116 - Tenn: Supreme Court 1989 - Google Scholar

There’s a lengthy discussion near the middle of this case of how TN applies 1A to lawyers and why it is different. It starts with “In dealing with First Amendment questions…”

In this case, attorney criticized the judge during trial. Speech was protected, but IIRC the court sets forth some caveats like “good faith” and “misrepresent.”
 
#316
#316
NurseGoodVol said:
Intertwined but separate as far as who tests, licenses, disciplines and revokes licenses. The state Gov. is not involved in that process, that’s the bar association from my understanding and what I was hoping to clarify.
Click to expand...
No. The bar association is a professional org like the American Association of Pediatrics or something.

Tennessee’s Board of Professional Responsibility issues my license.
I’m not even a current member of the ABA, TBA, or CBA.
 
#323
#323
RockyTop85 said:
He said that both sides had the same misunderstanding. So… he was lying against his own client?

A lie is when you know or should know that the truth is different than your characterization. If you don’t know, the truth is ambiguous, or it’s an honest mistake, that’s not a lie.
Click to expand...

So is lying by omission not a lie? As you are fully aware, lawyers work hard to exclude damaging testimony and evidence form the courtroom. In fact, that seems often to be what it's all about - keeping the other side from scoring any points. If you find a way to exclude on a technicality something that you know is true and damaging, is that not in essence a lie?
 
#324
#324
AM64 said:
So is lying by omission not a lie? As you are fully aware, lawyers work hard to exclude damaging testimony and evidence form the courtroom. In fact, that seems often to be what it's all about - keeping the other side from scoring any points. If you find a way to exclude on a technicality something that you know is true and damaging, is that not in essence a lie?
Click to expand...
That’s too fact specific for a generic answer because it isn’t necessarily covered by the duty of candor to the court and it could conflict with other rules of ethics etc.

In my opinion, the same rule of thumb applies: you shouldn’t make statements or omissions in bad faith. Just with omissions the scope of what is good faith may be slightly broader.

Example: if my client made contemporaneous Facebook posts that implicate him in a crime and the state doesn’t know about it, I sure as hell don’t have to (and should not) call anybody’s attention to it. But I also can’t elicit evidence that gives the impression that he didn’t make any Facebook posts. I could probably ask the detective if he looked through social media and saw anything incriminating because it goes to the police doing a half assed investigation. Strategically, I probably wouldn’t, but it would likely be ethical.

Generally the same in the civil side. They gotta do their own preparation. But I also can’t hide it from them in discovery if they make a request that covers it and it’s discoverable.

In some administrative proceedings that aren’t adversarial, I may have to turn over unfavorable evidence.
 
#325
#325
AM64 said:
So is lying by omission not a lie? As you are fully aware, lawyers work hard to exclude damaging testimony and evidence form the courtroom. In fact, that seems often to be what it's all about - keeping the other side from scoring any points. If you find a way to exclude on a technicality something that you know is true and damaging, is that not in essence a lie?
Click to expand...

Several years ago, a Rutherford County girls basketball coach lost his case, his job, and his license because the prosecution successfully blocked entrance of photographs of his yard into evidence.

He was being sued for sexual harassment against members of the team for his behavior at the end of season pool party at his house.

Thanks to the prosecution, it was inadmissible that he did not, in fact, have a pool.

He won the appeal very quickly but not before his career and personal life were irreparably harmed. The girls wanted a new, younger coach. Their lawyer knew there was no pool. Yep, lie by omission.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top