Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a former U.S. Attorney, was officially disbarred in New York this week for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
In a 31-page ruling.pdf), a judicial panel, the First Department of the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, noted that Giuliani was charged with "demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts" in an attempt to return his client, former President Donald Trump, to office.
Giuliani's law license was first suspended in 2021 over the claims.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
"These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent's narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client," the panel of judges wrote in Tuesday's ruling.
According to the filing, a court-appointed referee reported findings after hearing testimony from three witnesses, including Giuliani.
The referee found that the Attorney Grievance Committee proved 16 charges against Giuliani.
"Regarding the proven charges, respondent essentially conceded most of the factual predicates supporting the alleged acts of misconduct as gathered from the stipulated facts, the documentary evidence and the testimony presented," the ruling noted. "Instead, respondent fundamentally presented the defense that he lacked knowledge that statements he had made were false and that he had a good faith basis to believe the allegations he made to support his claim that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen from his client."
ALSO READ: How to survive Supreme Court stupidity without losing your mind
However, the court referee rejected Giuliani's arguments and found that he made "knowing falsehoods," and each falsehood was made "with the intent to deceive."
The court rejected Giuliani's claim that he had a First Amendment right to make false statements in court.
"Contrary to respondent's allegations, there is nothing on the record before us that would permit the conclusion that respondent lacked knowledge of the falsehood of the numerous statements that he made, and that he had a good faith basis to believe them to be true," the panel said. "On the contrary, as the Referee properly found, the 16 acts of falsehoods carried out by respondent were deliberate and constituted a transparent pattern of conduct intended and designed to deceive."
"As to the sanction, the Referee's disbarment recommendation is amply supported by the record and should be confirmed. The seriousness of respondent's misconduct cannot be overstated," the ruling added.
