Pennsylvania judge has heard enough from Rudy Giuliani -- and cancels scheduled evidentiary hearing
Published 38 mins ago on November 18, 2020
By Brad Reed
A federal judge based in Pennsylvania has heard enough from Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani.
Judge Matthew Brann of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Wednesday announced (PDF) that he was formally canceling an evidentiary hearing that had been scheduled to take place on Thursday.
“The evidentiary hearing previously scheduled for Thursday, November 19, 2020 is CANCELLED,” the judge wrote in his order, which also denied a motion by Trump attorney Linda Kerns to sanction opposing counsel for a supposedly “threatening” phone call.
As Law and Crime News reporter Adam Klasfeld notes, Judge Brann telegraphed this move in court on Tuesday when he said that he didn’t see the need to hold an evidentiary hearing based on the claims being made by the Trump campaign.
“Context: Rudy Giuliani admitted in court yesterday, ‘This is not a fraud case,'” writes Klasfeld in explaining why the judge saw no need to hold a hearing on fraud evidence when Giuliani said that the case didn’t actually involve fraud allegations.
more
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/11/pennsylvania...ary-hearin
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214576136
5. Judges take a rather dim view of people wasting the Court's time.
As a retired paralegal, I've seen my fair share of judicial lectures, tantrums and downright blowups towards attorneys who either a) didn't know what the hell they were doing or b) knew what they were doing but kept trying to advance frivolous arguments. Judges (no matter their political leanings and as a general rule) take very seriously the fact that the Court systems are paid for by the people, and it is "the peoples'" time these fools are wasting. There's also a little judicial arrogance mixed in, and that results in a cocktail no attorney wants poured over their head.
It's obvious from what I read yesterday that Giuliani is no constitutional or legal scholar, and hasn't practiced in some time. He was so in over his head it was laughable -- but the Judge doesn't appear to be amused.
Chalk up another win for our side!
Published 38 mins ago on November 18, 2020
By Brad Reed
A federal judge based in Pennsylvania has heard enough from Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani.
Judge Matthew Brann of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Wednesday announced (PDF) that he was formally canceling an evidentiary hearing that had been scheduled to take place on Thursday.
“The evidentiary hearing previously scheduled for Thursday, November 19, 2020 is CANCELLED,” the judge wrote in his order, which also denied a motion by Trump attorney Linda Kerns to sanction opposing counsel for a supposedly “threatening” phone call.
As Law and Crime News reporter Adam Klasfeld notes, Judge Brann telegraphed this move in court on Tuesday when he said that he didn’t see the need to hold an evidentiary hearing based on the claims being made by the Trump campaign.
“Context: Rudy Giuliani admitted in court yesterday, ‘This is not a fraud case,'” writes Klasfeld in explaining why the judge saw no need to hold a hearing on fraud evidence when Giuliani said that the case didn’t actually involve fraud allegations.
more
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/11/pennsylvania...ary-hearin
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214576136
5. Judges take a rather dim view of people wasting the Court's time.
As a retired paralegal, I've seen my fair share of judicial lectures, tantrums and downright blowups towards attorneys who either a) didn't know what the hell they were doing or b) knew what they were doing but kept trying to advance frivolous arguments. Judges (no matter their political leanings and as a general rule) take very seriously the fact that the Court systems are paid for by the people, and it is "the peoples'" time these fools are wasting. There's also a little judicial arrogance mixed in, and that results in a cocktail no attorney wants poured over their head.
It's obvious from what I read yesterday that Giuliani is no constitutional or legal scholar, and hasn't practiced in some time. He was so in over his head it was laughable -- but the Judge doesn't appear to be amused.
Chalk up another win for our side!
