Dear Rudy -sorry about the DC Bar suspension. How quickly will other district courts will follow suit?

Also Lin how’s the mental health evaluation going - I mean putting the Georgia State Bar’s disciplinary committees home addresses in your filing unredaxted - what is wrong with you?

As previously noted on June 24, 2021 - Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department temporarily suspended Rudy Giuliani’s License to practice law during the pendency of the Attorney Grievance Committee into Giuliani’s conduct. I’ll give you a simple non-legalese analogy - in June the first domino fell and you shouldn’t be surprised that the DC Bar followed suit (pun not intended])

Earlier this week the DC Bar followed suit because it was required - I had to log into the DC Bar to obtain the copy but I uploaded it to my public drive

…on consideration of a certified copy of an order of the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, suspending respondent from the practice of law pending further disciplinary proceedings in that state, it is

ORDERED pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(d), that the respondent is suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pending final disposition of this proceeding, effective on the date of entry of this order.

D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(d) - which reads in part:

One thing to note is what I red lined in the July 7th Order - DC Bar Giuliani suspension pending the determinative outcome of the New York matter. His suspension in DC is effective immediately

Temporary suspension and show cause order.
Upon receipt of a certified copy of an order demonstrating that an attorney subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court has been suspended or disbarred by another disciplining court, the Court shall forthwith enter an order (1) suspending the attorney from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pending final disposition of any reciprocal disciplinary proceeding, and (2) directing the attorney to show cause within thirty days why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed. Disciplinary Counsel shall reply to the attorney's response to the show cause order no later than fifteen days after service of the response. Alternatively, no later than fifteen days after the attorney's response was due, Disciplinary Counsel may object to the imposition of reciprocal discipline based upon the factors set forth in subsection (c) of this section. In either case, Disciplinary Counsel shall provide the Court with the relevant portions of the record of the proceeding in the other disciplining court, the statute and the rules that governed it, and a short statement identifying all of the issues that the matter presents. 

On July 8, 2021 the DC Bar published the following press release

Information About Attorney Discipline in the District

July 08, 2021

The D.C. Bar routinely receives inquiries from members of the public about disciplinary actions against members of the Bar.

Complaints against D.C. Bar members for ethical misconduct are investigated and prosecuted by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), and the adjudication of disciplinary cases and the administration of the attorney discipline system are handled by the Board on Professional Responsibility (BPR). The D.C. Bar has no authority to investigate, prosecute, or discipline its members, nor does it have authority to speak on behalf of ODC or BPR.

Read “A Primer on Lawyer Discipline in the District” to learn more about the attorney discipline process in the District of Columbia, or visit the ODC website.

As for what to be on the lookout for:

• United States Supreme Court

• United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

• United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

• United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

Nov 17, 2020 - Petition Pro Hac Vice, PETITION FOR SPECIAL ADMISSION (PRO HAC VICE) by Marc A. Scaringi on behalf of All Plaintiffs Attorney Rudolph William Giuliani is seeking special admission WDPA-ECF Doc 156 (or via my public drive).

Nov 17, 2020 - ORDER granting Special Admission WDPA-ECF doc 158 or via my public drive

As the saying goes - once one domino falls - others fall too - now in somewhat related news - turns out Trump’s Kraken-Team, specifically L.Lin Wood filed suit on March 23, 2021 against Members of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar of Georgia.

see NDGA-ECF or via my public drive —on a side note given how rabid and violent QANON and MAGA have proven their tendency to use violence, I personally think it’s reckless and irresponsible of Lin Wood for disclosing the home addresses of the Members of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar of Georgia. He could and should have filed a redacted complaint ,

“…the Defendants, acting under color of state law, custom, practice and usage, have compelled the Plaintiff to submit to an involuntary medical examination by a medical doctor of their choosing despite the absence of any complaint by any client regarding his conduct or competency as an attorney, and their lack of citation to any evidence that he suffers from any mental illness, cognitive impairment, alcohol abuse…”

This state action also poses an imminent threat of irreparable harm to the Plaintiff and his ability to practice his livelihood should he fail to consent to undergo such a medical evaluation. It also constitutes an unwarranted, governmental invasion of his constitutional right to privacy as protected by the First and Ninth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

I would now like to draw your attention to Document No 35, full disclosure I have not read the full filing because it’s over 1,600+ pages long. I uploaded the document to my public drive but I will say a cursory read there are some very interesting facts proffered and they relate directly to Giuliani & Powell & Trump.

Last month the Court (on June 9, 2021) Issued the Following Order -and Wood quickly filed his notice of Appeal

Defendants’ motion [34] to dismiss is granted. Wood’s motion [27] for a preliminary injunction is denied as moot; the motion [54] to stay is also moot.