A Terroristic Divorce

Rule 3.10 is similar to Model Rule 3.8(0, but its operative language is broken into two parts – the text of the rule itself, which contains the simple injunction that a prosecutor shall not subpoena an attorney to provide evidence about a current or former client without “prior judicial approval,”
– followed by a “Comment.”

The unique feature of Rule 3.10 appears in the comment, which begins as follows:
It is intended that the required “prior judicial approval” will normally be withheld unless.., the court finds
(1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by Rule 1.6, the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine …. (Emphasis added.)

PENNSYLVANIA RULES Rule 3.10 cmt.

What makes this provision striking is the fact that Rule 1.6 defines an attorney’s ethical obligation of non-disclosure of client information.

In short, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explicitly and unambiguously set out to convert an attorney’s personal ethical obligation of non-disclosure into an evidentiary rule equal in stature to the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine
and enforceable against the government in the person of the prosecutor.

They deliberately made it illegal to prosecute crimes… or to address the failure of the system.

When the judiciary and the entire legal profession dismissed the basic rights of the people, they created a void, an imbalance, an irreparable violation of the public trust. You can’t fix it when you have destroyed and killed so many people deliberately to conceal the sedition and treason.

America was so pre-occupied blaming everyone else for the failure, so preoccupied with protecting freedom by denying freedom… America never noticed the judiciary initiated an anarchy that has torn so many people’s lives apart.

The Judiciary broke the Constitution.
The Legislative watched.
The Executive Branch prepares for martial law, because it’s a likely outcome once the anarchy crosses a threshold.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is a deliberate, intentional and pivotal part of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It is also a completely unnecessary element of any forum which sincerely seeks the truth.

Each entry in the Rules of Professional Conduct has a contrary nullifying entry. Rule 1.6, 3.3, 3.8, 4.2 are frequently cross-referenced and manipulated to propose a decision in any direction.

They are impediments, both in law or practice, that jeopardise the administration of justice and the rape every rule of law and human rights standard.

CONSIDERING MODEL RULES 3.3, 3.8 AND 4.2 IS A MOCKERY OF ANY LEGITIMATE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

The rules discussed above are contrary to existing federal law, the principal concern is not with whether the rules would be sensible in a legal system. It is necessary to question whether they are appropriate as ethical standards. You may remember that the Rules of Professional Conduct are a minimum ethical standard. The most Minimum ethics would be none. They hit their mark. They were going for none.

[Could this be why the legal profession is so caught up with conferring honorable titles upon each other.]

The three rules represent a new, troubling and ultimately illegitimate use of the process of professional self-regulation for lawyers. These rules are an abuse of the ethics regulation process, even if viewed only from within the confines of the bar.

An even more profound difficulty with these rules flows from the fact that their enforcement would markedly change the parameters of basic constitutional rights, principally the right to counsel, and would alter the character of a fundamental institution of the criminal justice system, the grand jury.

When combined with Rule 1.6 the confidentiality results in the complete denial of rights AND a litigant is left with no possible way to address it.

By design and intent the Rules of Professional Conduct – the LAW enacted by the Judiciary – has clear designs to ignore constitutionally protected rights and leave you without any recourse.

The denial of your constitutionally protected rights has been legalized.

While remaining unconstitutional, you are abandoned unrepresented to be further victimized by injustice with no possible escape because IT IS THE LAW.

IT IS ONLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO YOU. AND YOU MUST BE THE ONE TO DISCOVER AND PRESENT THAT TO THE FEDERAL COURT.

Todd Krautheim and Terance Healy found it… in civil, criminal and family courts… in every state… undermining the judiciary… and mandating injustice… filed the CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE of RULE 1.6 on August 8, 2013 in the US Federal District Court in Philadelphia.

Every lawyer, every prosecutor, every District Attorney, every Attorney General, every Judge knew of the ethical and moral black hole in the judicial system. BUT, when implemented the same combination of LAWS made it illegal and unlawful to do anything to correct the sin of the judicial branch of government.

Todd & Terance are not lawyers. They found it. LAWFULLY. They lawfully petitioned the federal courts to declare the the deliberately unethical and immoral Rules of Professional Conduct UNCONSTITUTIONAL. LAWFULLY.

At that point, the Constitution will be resurrected. Justice will be restored. And the injustice caused by the unconstitutional law can be addressed with those responsible.

The EVIL realization is that you can search on any internet search engine for Rule 1.6 in combination with any word describing ethics and morale and propriety… and you will find published law review documents and student writings and professional documentation which proves the entire legal profession was aware. Very aware. THEY FUCKING KNEW. THEY ALL FUCKING KNEW.

The judicial branch of the government let their system terrorize people to poverty, homelessness and suicide.

The entire judicial branch made themselves unconstitutional. A nullity. Which does not exist; that which is not properly in the nature of things. In a figurative sense, and in law, having no more effect than if it did not exist, and also the defect which prevents it from having such effect. That which is absolutely void. By design, and in accordance with the US Constitution they are void.

The judicial branch and everyone working within had no professional or personal sense of self-respect or morality or humanity to resolve the systemic crisis. For that violation of the public trust, the punishment should most definitely fit the crime.

The judicial branch can no longer be self-r trusted to be self regulating. They blew it.

Protecting Democracy, Civil Liberties, and the Rule of Law.

Free debate within the United States is essential to the long-term vitality of American democracy and helps bolster democracy globally. Excessive surveillance and unjustified secrecy can threaten civil liberties, public trust, and the core processes of democratic self-government.

All parts of the government, including those that protect our national security, must be subject to the rule of law.

PDF file