A Terroristic Divorce

Non pudeat dicere, quod non pudet sentire.
“Let no man be ashamed to speak what he is not ashamed to think.”

In a document titled
COMPLIANCE, CREATIVE DEVIANCE, AND RESISTANCE TO LAW: A Theory of the Attorney-Client Privilege,
Norman W. Spaulding begins with the latin phrase, and the following paragraph.

“The legal profession has not been candid about the purpose of the attorney-client privilege. Our lack of candor now verges on duplicity. We seem to be ashamed to admit what we do for our clients under cover of the privilege. And with our shame and circumlocution, confusion and controversy about the doctrine has multiplied.

We should not be ashamed. The time has come to be “full and frank,” as the saying goes.”

---

I disagree… It’s 30 years late… The time had long since passed for ‘full and frank’ discussions.

There is great shame in what the American Bar Association has done to destroy the integrity of the judiciary, and to rape the public trust.

The ABA deception shames an entire nation who mourns the victims of deliberate deviant “professional” efforts who did not survive, while millions upon millions have lost everything to the avarice and greed of a twisted organization without ethics, morality or humanity.

Yet, while they hide behind the client – real or imaginary, a lawyer could never break a law.

This is fact, but only while every lawyer crime may be concealed by the ‘professional ethics’ of the lawyer… and the sun has set on those days. The Constitutional Rights of the innocent victim will not be ignored any further.

As I indicated to the American Bar Association in August 2013.
“I know what you have done. I am coming for my Constitutional Rights.” – Terance Healy

THERE IS CAUSE FOR ALARM. THERE IS NOTHING THAT THE ABA WOULD NOT DO TO CONTINUE IN THEIR LAWLESSNESS. BEHEADINGS, EBOLA, GENOCIDE, NO LIMITS TO ANY AND ALL METHODS TO KEEP PEOPLE DISTRACTED FROM THE 30 YEAR RAPE OF THE PUBLIC TRUST WHILE THE JUDICIARY WAS HELD HOSTAGE.

The AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION has beheaded Liberty and shit down her throat for the last 30 years.

Where those who permit injustice while ignoring the rule of law and the principles contained in the Constitution are causing liberty to be in peril; holding justice hostage; undermining the essence of judicial independence; and usurping the authority of the judicial branch while concealing continued corruption by unethical, immoral and unscrupulous actions in the name of ‘integrity’,…

Every American has a responsibility to take action to preserve, protect, support and defend the integrity of the judiciary from any further jeopardy.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct was improperly enacted by the state Supreme Court(s) when presented by the American Bar Association within their Model Rules of Professional Conduct causing the collateral, indirect, and absolute denial of rights secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States while denying and preventing any protection of the law to a litigant who has been the victim of fraud concealed from disclosure by every person, and organization, directly mandated to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct – who include all lawyers, all judges, and all law enforcement within each state, within each state government, and within the federal government.

By freeing the courts from a crippling shameful burden and further self-sabotage, we restore the integrity of the judiciary, reestablish authority and jurisdiction, and return the government provided by the Constitution of the United States to purpose: to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

By our own necessity, and on behalf of the People of the United States of America,
We respectfully and sincerely petition for your immediate attention and action.

PERSEVERE. JUSTICE IS COMING.

Attorney-Client Privilege is the name most associated with Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information. But, ACP is a only one aspect of it’s broad non-disclosure mandate.

Rule 1.6 MANDATES that a lawyer must conceal fraud by their client, without concern for the innocent victim, or the truth, or the misrepresentation to the court. The lawyers tradition and sacrosanct belief is that their clients constitutional rights REQUIRE AND COMPEL the attorney-client privilege – included as part of the broader Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of information.

There was much debate about this when developing their Rules of Professional Conduct. There is little evidence of much concern for the constitutional rights of anyone else – like an innocent victim. There was no mistaking, the intent was deliberate. The ABA committee’s purpose – Lawyers should have “better” ethics – had gone off the rails after the sudden death of the committee chairman, Robert Kutak.

The only agreed-upon exception being an allowance for disclosure when their victim would be killed. A very sadistic concept where it prevented disclosure where the victim would continue to be further victimized.

When a simple question was posed to a lawyer, a partner in one of the firms called ‘foreclosure mills’, testifying under oath. It devolved into the longest most frustrating exchanges imaginable. The question… WHO IS THE CLIENT?

Evasive wouldn’t begin to describe the twists and turns of the non-response. It was very clear that this lawyer would not divulge the identity of the client he represented – asserting attorney-client privilege applied even to information which could be used to determine the identification of the client whose confidential information he was not permitted to disclose.

I remember thinking – “He knows the true reason Rule 1.6 exists in the first place.”
The innocent victim was in no way seeing this – victimized, prevented relief, denied explanations, lawlessness, distracted, surviving overwhelming litigation, the terror of their life was not some game.

The question was clear. The answer was not. VERY NOT. IMPOSSIBLY NOT.

The Attorney-Client privilege protects the attorney and the client. The non-disclosure mandate extends beyond the life of the attorney, beyond the grave unless otherwise indicted and allowed by the client.

The Rule 1.6 Confidentiality provides the lawyer-client relationship with those same protections when the client is imaginary.

Imaginary Clients. Non-disclosure protection – until you discover they do not exist.

Freeing the lawyer from the burden of confidentiality and permitting disclosure and no longer requiring participation in actions in the furtherance of fraud of his client…
… at which point, overwhelmed with relief, the lawyer continues that while he would prefer to answer with full candor and honesty, quoting from the Constitution of the United States of America the Supreme Law of the Land within which one finds the Bill of Rights, where the Fifth Amendment precludes him from providing any further testimony.

Always confirm the identity and the relationship of the Attorney and Client. Where there is any hesitations or failure to respond, there is likely deception. Where they never appear in person, fail to sign paperwork, subcontract lawyers for appearances in court, or insist on accomplishing everything by telephone and mail, do not trust the technology.

Always ask the WHO IS THE CLIENT question.
Request the Court provide the elements necessary for jurisdiction. The requirements for jurisdiction are not discretionary. The question of jurisdiction must be addressed. The elements and evidence of jurisdiction is the responsibility of the Plaintiff. Where the judge proceeds, and the Plaintiff fails to demonstrate the necessary elements, … there is corruption and injustice.

An essential element of the Courts authority to decide any matter include a real party with an interest.
Without a party, there is no standing… no jurisdiction or authority for the courts to make the decision.

The judge will protect the attorney client privilege… conceal injustices, and sacrifice his integrity and the integrity of the judiciary in accordance with Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information and the tradition of attorney-client privilege. The lack of any haste for introspection within the legal profession permits systemic lapses of integrity and morality.

Where the client is determined to be the attorney’s imaginary friend, lacking jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the matter… or forward it to the proper imaginary tribunal. Geesh!

Which is more embarrassing? asking the silly question? or losing your home to his imaginary friend?
Keep in mind, that fraud could cause you to lose your constitutional rights and all protections under the law… with no recourse. FOREVER. BE CERTAIN. Your life does depends on it.

Any law which denies a person of the rights and privileges which are secured and protected by the US Constitution are unconstitutional, a nullity, and were never a law.
AGREED. Whether on the face of the ‘law’ or by a collateral effect, Unconstitutional.

Are there exceptions to this constitutional protection?
NOPE. They would be unconstitutional, too.

---

A simple example.

You have been the victim of a fraud.

It is not moral or ethical to require another person to participate in fraud.
It is not moral or ethical to deny a victim of the truth.
It is not moral or ethical to conceal a truth from the victim or the court.
It is not moral or ethical to participate in the furtherance of a crime.
It is not moral or ethical to deny a victim equal protection of the law.
It is not moral or ethical to deny a victim of constitutionally protected rights.

To REQUIRE a person to participate in fraud, concealing fraud or to act in the furtherance of fraud.
That is unethical.
That is immoral.
That is illegal.
That is wrong.

SO…. enter a courtroom (civil, not criminal court)….

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality requires a lawyer to participate in a fraud committed by their client by not disclosing the truth to the court, or the victim. Additionally, the lawyer may not disclose information to prevent the furtherance of a crime.
[Attorney-Client Privilege is an oft-misused pseudonym for Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.]

HOLD THAT THOUGHT… Did you just consider that it might be ‘OK’?

The lawyer – an officer of the court – is following the ethics rules.
(Ethics indicates a choice.)
The lawyer – an officer of the court – is following the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(Can illegal and wrong be ‘professional’?)

The victim has been frauded.
The victim is denied equal protection of the law and constitutional protections.
The victim is exposed for actions in furtherance of the fraud.
and
In a hearing, the judge REQUIRES the lawyer to conceal the truth.
The lawyer wanted to reveal the truth – the moral, ethical and right thing to do.
A law indicates the lawyer must be silent.
The furtherance of the fraud has occurred… in the courtroom.
The judge is participating in the furtherance of the fraud pursuant to law.
The victim is damaged while the truth is concealed.
The judge rules AGAINST the victim rewarding the criminal/lawyer and ordering a payment to the client.

IS IT STILL OK?
The Lawyer wanted to reveal the truth. The Law made that illegal.
The lawyer’s discretion was not allowed.

[When enacted into LAW, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality was no longer discretionary. It was mandated.]

The fraud continues/extends.

The crime is reported to the District Attorney.
The District Attorney does nothing to investigate, prosecute, or prevent the crime from continuing.
Exposure would embarrass the judge. Crime Report is ignored.

The fraud continues/extends.

Still OK?

The victim obtains the information, everyone goes back to court.
The judge recuses.
The new judge ignores the truth and rules against the victim. The judges does not want to embarrass the court.

STILL OK?

The crime with the evidence is reported to the District Attorney.
The crime report is ignored.

The fraud continues/extends.
The injustice is leveraged in the court causing further damage to the victim.

A NEW PARTY files in court referring to the fraud.
The injustice is leveraged in the court causing further injustice to the victim.

The victim has no opportunity to escape, or for resolution, or for redress.
The victim is being denied any protection under the law.
The victim is being denied their constitutional rights.

The lawyer can do nothing to end the crimes against the victim.
The courts will do nothing to end the crimes against the victim.
Law Enforcement will to nothing to end the crimes against the victim.

The Law requires a lawyer to conceal information of a client fraud, or in the furtherance of a fraud.
That Law is denying the victim of their constitutional rights and protection of the law.

Any law which denies a person of the rights and privileges which are secured and protected by the US Constitution is unconstitutional, a nullity, and was never a law.

The law is unconstitutional.
The judge denied, obstructed and prevented the victim’s constitutional rights based on an unconstitutional law.
The judge knew that constitutional rights were being denied, prevented and ignored.
Law Enforcement is following the same law at state and federal levels.

Government Officials ignore the victim.

The Legislature ignores the victim.
The Governor ignores the victim.
The State Supreme Court ignores the victim.
… they swore to preserve, protect, defend, support, enforce, etc … the US Constitution.

IT’S IMPORTANT. WHY WOULD THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT BE IGNORING THE VICTIM?
The Unconstitutional law was enacted in 1987, effective in 1988.
Enacted by the Supreme Court, under their authority, except the court lacks authority where a law affects a litigant’s rights. The law is improperly enacted.
The Governor sent you a letter – but it was wrong, partial phrases, and disinformation.
The Legislature – after meetings with Representatives and Senators – no replies.

CONSIDER THAT INITIAL FRAUD IN THE EXAMPLE….
1) The fraud was a fake/forged deed used to foreclose on the victim.
2) The judge threw a child in jail. The judge was paid to do it.
3) The lawyer committed the fraud and blamed it on the client.

WHO IS THE CLIENT? People may be surprised to learn that the opposing attorney is not who you may think. The perception is logical, the reality may be different. Their client is not there. Only an attorney appears – never indicating who’s interests he is responsible for. The people, the bank, the title company, or a contract lawyer who specializes – appearing in court on single issues? The subject matter expert – able to throw all available rhetoric to misdirect no regard for fact, or truths, or reality. Lawyers are excused to mislead by attorney-client privilege, BUT that’s only for their client. Lawyers may become undone when asked WHO they represent, who is paying them to appear in court, and in who’s interest are they employed? THE HESITATION, RESISTANCE OR INABILITY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION will demonstrate deception.

It happens often… Watergate attorneys didn’t know if the represented Richard Nixon, or the Office of the President of the United States. They went to jail because they got it wrong.

Sometimes clients think government attorneys are representing them, and NOT the government/public interests. Proximity is not privilege. The lawyer sitting next to you may not be YOUR lawyer protecting YOUR interests. Same goes for the opposing lawyer. ASK THE WHO IS YOUR CLIENT? QUESTION. It won’t seem so stupid, when they evade the response.

Foreclosures have occurred. Only a lawyer appeared against the homeowner. Paperwork was forged, robo-signed, fake and fraudulent. People lost their homes. People only thinking the bank committed the fraud. But, NO ONE WENT TO JAIL. Was it Attorney Client privilege protecting the bank? or Attorney Client PRETEND – permitting a lawyer to commit a crime while pretending to have a client? A serious concern quickly exposed…

FOLLOW THE MONEY – the one getting paid or profiting from the experience. Who DOES that lawyer work for anyway? Ask, and the response or evasion, might surprise you.

Rule 1.6 provides an opportunity for a lawyer to conceal a fraud for their client, and to act further to conceal the fraud for their client. When pretending they have a client, lawyers get those same protections. (The lawyers know that already, did you?)

An Unconstitutional law which requires unethical, immoral and illegal conduct and prevents a person from discretion between right and wrong which has resulted in victims being victimized denied their constitutional rights and prevented protection under the law without opportunity for escape.
… has been on the books affecting lives in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania since 1988.

The Governor, Legislature and the Courts should be ashamed of their inaction. They were informed over a year ago and have done nothing to address the unconstitutional ‘law’.

The American Bar Association who knew that their ‘minimum ethical standard’ which lacked ethics and was titled the Model Rules of Professional Conduct were unconstitutional. Yet, they provided the Model Rules to be enacted into LAW by the state Supreme Court.

The American Bar Association rolled out their Model Rules to every state from 1984 (New Jersey) to 2009 (Maine). When addressing the unconstitutionality of the confidentiality section, they REMOVED provisions which would have allowed disclosure to address a fraud, AND disclosure to stop the continuance of fraud.

The Governor, at least half of the Legislature, and the Court are lawyers. Members. SNAP!

The National Foreclosure crisis frequently featured a forged, fraudulent and/or robo-signed deed submitted to the courts. The courts allowed the false documents and proceeded with foreclosures against victims whose rights were ignored. The law was ignored to allow the foreclosures to proceed.

Law Enforcement informed of the fraud has prosecuted no one for the crime. Rule 1.6 explains that.

I get knocked down, but I get up again. You’re never gonna keep me down.

The American victim of injustice loses their constitutional rights. Where the integrity of the judiciary is concerned, the effort to prevent exposure of the judicial corruption involved extends beyond realistic reasoning or reasonable comprehension. There is no help. No escape. No recovery.

The innocent victim will be attacked until they are 1) Homeless/Destitute, 2) Incarcerated or 3) a Suicide.

Anyone can be the innocent victim of injustice in America. All it takes is a simple injustice by a judge, incidental or deliberate. There is no escape.

In America, the judiciary has been undermined by the American Bar Association in acts of sedition which extend back to 1984 in New Jersey where the unconstitutional Rules of Professional Conduct were first improperly enacted into unconstitutional law. The judicial branch was compromised.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality was LAW – an aggressively enforced mandate of Confidentiality which concealed a collateral denial of constitutionally protected rights. Lawyers and judges are prevented from revealing this because it would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary and the reputation of lawyers.

Even though they know the unconstitutional law is a nullity, the lawyers abide by it. The lawyers conceal it.

The ABA sedition continued to every state. The judiciary has become undone.

Americans can see this, but they just don’t realize the full effect or accept it. Yet.

These truths, as they say, are self evident.

Persevere, JUSTICE is coming.

I get knocked down, but I get up again. You’re never gonna keep me down.
I get knocked down, but I get up again. You’re never gonna keep me down.
I get knocked down, but I get up again. You’re never gonna keep me down.
I get knocked down, but I get up again. You’re never gonna keep me down.
I get knocked down, but I get up again. You’re never gonna keep me down.
I get knocked down, but I get up again. You’re never gonna keep me down.

Rule 1.6 Injustice by Confidentiality – Case Analysis
– observations and tactics to expect when cases are affected by Rule 1.6 Injustice and Confidentiality
– where the following sentence applies, you are experiencing Rule 1.6 Injustice and the denial of every normal expectation of constitutional rights, protection of the law, freedom, life, liberty and ability for happiness.

“I am a sane man dealing with an absolutely insane situation. Every person in a position to help has acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter… they each make the situation worse… NO ONE HELPS.”
– expected outcome 1) Homeless/Destitute, 2) Incarcerated, 3) Suicide
– there is currently no way out.
– Persevere. Justice is coming.

It is essential to remember – THE LOGIC IS TWISTED.

ACTIONS ARE BEING COMMITTED AGAINST THE VICTIM
TO MAINTAIN A GENERAL ILLUSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
WHILE THE RIGHTS OF THE VICTIM ARE FURTHER IGNORED.

Everyone believes that they have constitutional rights up until the moment when they don’t. At that point, there is nothing anyone can or will do to address the loss of constitutionally protected rights. Protecting the illusion takes precedence over protecting your rights.

WHY? It would be simpler to protect your rights. That that would expose a corrupt judge and Rule 1.6 Confidentiality silences anything which would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary and the reputation of lawyers.

Rule 1.6 Injustice is triggered when a fraud occurs and the crime is endorsed by a judge. You will likely not be aware or informed of the event. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality will apply and it will begin to interfere immediately.

1.) Determining when your case has been affected is best identified by your experience.
– Intuition will suggest that something has gone wrong.
– The law will be ignored.
– Your rights will be ignored.
– Communication will become guarded.
– Questions will be ignored.
– People will act as if it is their first day on the job.
– Information will be unavailable.
– You will be called “crazy”.

2.) Determining the event which has occurred to cause the injustice is difficult. Everything associated with the event will be concealed by Confidentiality by everyone.
– You are seeking something which is being hidden from you.
– You may talk about it. “They” can not and will avoid the discussion.
– People will lie to your face.
– People are not comfortable telling lies.
– Seek information respectfully.
– These people are forced to lie to you.
– IT IS NOT PERSONAL.
– The feeling that people are talking about you or plotting is not imagined.
– You will be called “paranoid”.

3.) When you ask about something and are called “crazy” and “paranoid” at the same time, you are closing in on the trigger event. You may even have asked a direct question where a direct answer would expose the trigger event. The namecalling is a stall used when people feel cornered. An unjustified out of the blue insult.

– People will become nervous, very nervous, and fearful of repercussions for revealing the confidential information. Their fear is real. Nothing can be gained from applying pressure.
– IT IS NOT PERSONAL.
– They likely fear for their job if they blow it.
– This can be indicated by anger, unreasonableness, and a rude exit.

The County Ethics Policy also lack ethics. Mandating that county employees conceal information or face dismissal. The lack of any basis in ethics is consistent withe the lawyers minimal ethical standard which requires a lack of ethics, morality and integrity.

When the trigger event is inquired about, or raised in the court, it will be as if it was never said.

4.) Where the judge ignores a relevant event, breaches court procedure, denies reasonable discovery, neglects to consider an event or issue which has not been refuted – Remember the opposing lawyer is not permitted to discuss it. You have identified the event trigger. The judge is also participating in the Confidentiality.

5.) Where the judge begins a conference or proceeding by raising a topic for the first time, or sarcastically chastising you for asserting your rights, you can be assured that the judge has become directly involved in preventing the fraud from being exposed or addressed by others in law enforcement.

The judge IS protecting the perpetrator, concealing the fraud, and is directly and actively involved in the prevention and denial of your rights and any protection under the law.

The multiplicity of additional frauds should be expected. The earliest event is the true trigger.

6.) Where the lawyer wishes to involve the judge further in the scheme, the lawyer will fail to follow procedures, the law, court orders, etc. The judge will dismiss the neglect without sanction, and often just ignore the neglect.

Where these actions affect the jurisdiction of the court, the judge will ignore the lapse. A lawyer who fails to recognize that only one trigger is required, may manipulate the judge by further failures.

Errors in procedure which affect the jurisdiction of the court are ignored. Appeals are prevented. You have no rights. Confidentiality will prevent any subsequent judge from addressing the failure.

7.) When the lawyer has failed and the judge has excused without consequence, there is a fraud. The failure is being excuse because it points directly to a fraud event.

8.) A Challenge in court which exposes a CONFIDENTIALITY of Fraud will usually result in a spontaneous recusal of the judge.

9.) “That’s just crazy.” and “They can’t do that.” Every time you communicate with anyone (except a dumbass) and they say either phrase. Your experience is confirmed. Your rights and the law are being denied. Your response should be “BUT, THEY DID.”

REMEMBER: Identifying/Exposing the fraud event DOES NOT not change your situation.
Once the trigger event has occurred, there is no recovery, no relief, and no escape.
The resources available to undermine your life extend beyond any realistic comprehension.

10.) You are at risk. You can be terrorized and denied your rights and the protection of the law by anyone. By incorporating the ‘fraud’ of your case into a subsequent case, anyone is protected and permitted to commit frauds while reaping the benefits of Confidentiality.

11.) Identifying “They”. Once triggered, Confidentiality is system-wide – incorporating ALL lawyers, ALL judges, and ALL law enforcement. [ The “THEY” to whom the victims of injustice often refer. ]

“They” can include the direct employees of the lawyers, the judges and law enforcement.

The District Attorney, and the DA’s office, county detectives and the local police.

The District Attorney will not prosecute a crime against you where it could expose the Confidentiality effort.

Local Police will not take a report against a judge, reports of crimes committed against you will go no further than the District Attorney.

County Detectives will be instructed by the District Attorney to take no action on your behalf.

Every resource and service within the county can, and likely will, be used against you.

False reports to mental health departments may have people arrive at your door without any explanation of why they are there or who told them to ‘check on you’. Where they cannot provide any answer because of confidentiality, they will accuse you of paranoia. They only want to help. (Yet, they have no idea who you are or why they are at your door.) [Try to laugh. They are being used.]

Any Medical or Assistance Benefits you seek from the county or the state will be denied with directions that the denial may be appealed to the court.

False Reports to Police will be a regular occurrence. You will not be informed. The reports will indicate that “You are not to be informed because it would make you angry.” The reports will remain unsubstantiated and uninvestigated. Their primary function is for character assassination.

A long list of reports… you are not aware of them… the perception is that you are lying. The police do not care or want any explanation. The initial impression can not be adjusted. When you try to report a crime, the disrespect will begin as soon as that list is displayed.

Police will ignore any complaints indicating it is a civil matter and you must take it to the courts.
The inverse is NOT true though, the police will participate fully when called against you.

Communications between the judiciary and the police will be kept confidential where police may be instructed by the judge that crimes against you are endorsed, excused and ignored.

Private Investigators may be utilized to harass, antagonize or implicate you in criminal activity.

Reports of intrusive activities by private investigators using technology will not be investigated by any level of law enforcement.

The availability of intrusive technology to private investigators, local police, county detectives, and federal authorities permits the misuse of the technology at any time. A violation of your privacy and personal space which can be manipulated against you.

[ THE TECHNOLOGY INTRUSION – EDWARD SNOWDEN WAS NOT PERMITTED TO REVEAL. ]

Federal law enforcement authorities will not get involved unless the complaint/report is provided by an attorney.

Federal law enforcement authorities will not get involved where CONFIDENTIALITY efforts will be revealed by their actions.

The County District Attorney controls and coordinates all law enforcement activities within the county.

The news media who will not present any aspect of your experience, but will distribute suggestions, falsehoods, misinformation, disinformation, and unsubstantiated allegations against you when provided by the District Attorneys Office.

Your reputation can be attacked and discredited at any time without consequence.

---

YOU HAVE BEEN THE VICTIM OF A FRAUD. A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF RESOURCES ARE ENGAGED TO CONCEAL THAT FRAUD.

THE EFFORT TO PREVENT AND DENY JUSTICE IS REAL, BUT, IT IS NOT PERSONAL.
THE RESOURCES HAVE NOT BEEN DISPATCHED WITH THE INTENTION/PURPOSE OF DESTROYING YOUR LIFE.

THEIR PURPOSE IS TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TO CONCEAL THAT YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED AND VIOLATED.

THEY WILL ACCOMPLISH THIS BY FURTHER IGNORING, DENYING, VIOLATING, PREVENTING AND INTERFERING WITH YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

---

This concept was confirmed by Representative Todd Stephens, formerly of the Montgomery County District Attorneys Office, member of the Judiciary Committee, when he indicated that a person does not have constitutional rights unless a judge decides that they have constitutional rights.

He’s WRONG. Every American has rights which are protected and secured by the US Constitution.

But, in practice, Todd Stephens has succinctly indicated exactly what has occurred.

A judge has concealed a fraud in a matter before the court. CONFIDENTIALITY was triggered.

A judge has made a decision which has denied a litigant of their rights. The litigant has no rights, or protections… and no one can or will address the situation within state or federal government.

A judge has the unconstitutional ability to effectively deny a citizen of their rights, their life and their freedom… and their hope. There is no allowance or opportunity for redress or rebuttal.

An absolutely inconceivable notion. AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT – which utilizes an unconstitutional law to mandate efforts AGAINST the victim … AGAINST THE VICTIM. THE VICTIM GETS DESTROYED. While ‘THEY’ hide behind a terroristic unconstitutional aggressively enforced confidentiality.

---

In August 2007, Judge Rhonda Lee Daniele issued a secret court order – I’ve never met, seen or stood before her bench. Yet, that event caused the denial of every constitutional right and prevented protection of the law, harassing and terrorizing every moment of my life since, and preventing any possible future.

It took three years, August 2010, everyone involved lied, until one day the divorce clerk handed me a folder that contained a one page court order as had been described by police used to effect the robbery of my home in violation of multiple court orders by 20 people with 12 trucks and vehicles. Never prosecuted by the DA. Where the judge had called police to tell them to ignore it. Where the judge had refused to permit me to read the document shown to him in a proceeding, where everyone lied about the document’s existence, where it had NOT been docketed in the case; where it had not been distributed in the case; an order which slandered me as a monster AND prevented any contact with my children; while there had been no hearing or opportunity to defend; where the divorce clerk was IMMEDIATELY not at work for the next few weeks and was paralyzed with fear upon seeing me; where every member of the courthouse was aware of what ‘they’ had done to him; where I documented the discovery in filings and judicial complaints which included a concern that the clerk had been fired for his inadvertent action; where his first words to me after were “I need my job”; where the conduct board IGNORED the complaints; where the case had already had more than 10 judges involved; where the judge again immediately recused without explanation; where all petitions filed by me were completely IGNORED until the most vile and corrupt Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio also serving as President of the Montgomery County Bar Association who’s illegal and unlawful documented actions against the VICTIM were unconscionable and destructive.

For my daring to survive, Carluccio went FULL FORCE FOR THE SUICIDE – making me homeless, illegally selling my home (involving an innocent family – that case affected by the fraud involved in the sale); denying any financial compensation; throwing out EVERY personal belonging from my lifetime; corruptly ordering the court staff to NOT PROCESS and prevent any proceedings or appeals where her defective and void orders had violated established Pennsylvania Law.

(Appeals to Superior Court would cleanly expose the federal unconstitutional aspects within the court record. When this occurred 3 judges later, in July 2013, it was the efforts which prevented the appeal that exposed that Rule 1.6 Confidentiality – the needle in the haystack of injustice.)

AND, it still continues presently.

Judge Rhonda Lee Daniele: To conceal a crime committed by my wife’s lawyer, her former clerk… I should lose my life, be terrorized and denied any opportunity for a future,

The victim who dared to survive – and document the experience – who discovered the systemic problem in American Justice and Law Enforcement that targets and destroys innocent people. Where an the act of fraud at the whim of a judge unleashes the full resources of government TO KEEP CONFIDENTIAL THE JUDGE’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL DENIAL OF RIGHTS at any and every cost… and to threaten any politician who dares to become involved.

What has become of America? A victim is terrorized. A machine built to destroy lives. Lawyer manipulated Confidentiality out of control.

Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL… RULE 1.6 IS EVIL.. JUSTICE IS COMING.

“The Model Rules serve to advance the duty of preserving a client’s confidences at the expense of those injured by a fraud by the client.” – American Bar Association

Without regard for the victim, Confidentiality is applicable to lawyer-client fraud.
Confidentiality is system-wide – incorporating ALL lawyers, ALL judges, and ALL law enforcement.
[ The “THEY” to whom the victims of injustice often refer. ]

This Confidentiality has no support in ethics, morality or law. A repugnant failure in logic, morality and ethics, this practice could never become a proper law under the US Constitution… unless lawyers, judges and law enforcement ignored the lawlessness and their professional oaths. This is exactly what they did.

In 1983, the American Bar Association knew that their Model Rules were unconstitutional. Yet, the ABA proceeded to every state supreme court misrepresenting the Model Rules as a code of ethical conduct to be enacted into law.

The Rules of Professional Conduct recognize that a lawyer/client may commit a fraud and take advantage of the lawyers services in the commission of the crime.

CONFIDENTIALITY EXTRAPOLATED: A client could manipulate their lawyer to participate in a fraud, and A lawyer could manipulate their client to participate in a fraud. and A lawyer could manipulate the judge to participate in a fraud. Confidentiality prevents disclosure to the victim. Confidentiality requires obstruction by ALL lawyers, ALL judges and ALL law enforcement. – Unified AGAINST the victim of a fraud. Confidentiality extends to and encourages further frauds against the victim. This ‘Confidentiality’ has no support in Ethics, Morality or Law. Permission to undermine integrity and obstruct justice remains WRONG, even when concealed in a professional code, an ethics policy or a law.

The scenario is presented sincerely and without unnecessary suggestions or broad aspersions to the integrity of the judiciary.

The problem is a systemic mandate for participation AGAINST the victim.
All available personnel and resources can be utilized towards the efforts to maintain Confidentiality.
The victim is denied and prevented information preventing redress or resolution of the fraud.
The victim is further exposed for future acts of fraud equally protected under confidentiality.
The victim is prevented from any justice.
The victim is prevented from life, liberty and happiness.
The victim is prevented from any escape.

Where the judiciary has been manipulated, the judge is mandated to sacrifice their integrity to conceal their own involvement, or to conceal the involvement of prior judges.

Where a judge may take action to address the lawyer’s manipulation, Confidentiality prevents the lawyer’s client from being adversely affected, while permitting the victim to be further victimized.

Where the judge may report the lawyer for disciplinary action, Confidentiality creates a void around the situation which prevents the victim from presenting that evidence for appropriate consideration by the court, further denying justice, relief or protection of the law.

Where the disciplinary board may briefly suspend the lawyer, confidentiality prevents the victim from the information or any explanation while the courts neglect to schedule proceedings during the suspension.

Daily penalties, directly related to the litigation before the court, potentially accrue while the court fails to schedule the hearing until the suspension is served. Confidentiality of the complaint, any proceeding, and the decision is maintained while the victim is prevented from proceedings; denied explanation for the delay; and faces the daily multiplier applied to any penalty.

Confidentiality prevents the judge from any explanation for adjusting the accounting. The fraud is rewarded at the expense of the victim.

In Disciplinary Proceedings, where the lawyer admits guilt, the entire process and outcome is kept confidential. Rule 1.6 provides an incentive to commit fraud which will trigger Confidentiality and undermine the opponent.

The Confidentiality extends to every aspect of the case, the victim is further victimized in every instance.

Efforts to conceal ‘Confidential’ information from the victim expands to involve the court and courthouse staff in the deception and conspiracy in furtherance of the fraud.

The victim presents evidence and testimony. The lawyer neglects to address or counter the testimony where ‘confidentiality’ applies. In orders and opinions, the judge neglects to address ‘confidential information’ in Findings Of Fact or Considerations. Confidentiality leverages evidence and testimony to be ignored and not considered even when discovered and presented.

When the failure to address the testimony, evidence and rule of law is raised, the judge recuses without explanation. The judges integrity is sacrificed to participate in a fraud while the victim is denied redress, resolution or justice.

Under the Model Rules, the victim is denied the protection of the law, the state constitution and the US Constitution with no opportunity for resolution or escape from further incidents. The victim is prevented from justice by a system-wide conspiracy of Confidentiality initiated by a fraud. The fraud being unintentional, or deliberate, is inconsequential to the systemic affect on the victim.

In civil, criminal and family courts, a single act of fraud is all that is necessary to trigger a complete loss of rights, due process and protection of the law pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality from which there can be no escape.

The Model Rules collaterally deny, obstruct and prevent the constitutional rights of a litigant.

Not Constitutional, so it cannot be law.
Not Ethical, so it cannot be an ethics policy.
Not Moral, so it cannot be a moral principle.

Rule 1.6 Mandates Confidentiality where an unintentional, or deliberate, act of fraud committed by a lawyer or their client is ignored, excused and concealed while affecting the proceedings and undermining the authority and integrity of the judiciary which denies prevents and obstructs any just resolution and leaves a litigant exposed to future injustice by simple reference. Rule 1.6 is unethical, immoral, unconstitutional, repugnant, unlawful, dishonest, and contradicts the very nature and purpose of a judicial system.

As a Professional Code, the Confidentiality decision was at the discretion of the lawyer. Where that discretion may violate law, ethics, and morality, the discretion for the decision rested with the lawyer along with any liability and responsibility.

WHEN ENACTED INTO LAW, the Confidentiality became a MANDATE with the collateral effect including the loss of constitutional protections which denied redress or resolution within the courts; prevented prosecution of the fraud; and endorsed abuses of power under color of law by every level of state and federal law enforcement. No accountability. No liability. No responsibility. Leaving a litigant without basic human rights, civil rights, constitutional rights or hope.

Clearly affecting the substantive rights of a litigant, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania lacked the authority under PA Const Article V Section 10(c) to enact Rule 1.6 to law.

This unconstitutional law which has been improperly enacted must be addressed by the Pennsylvania Legislature which has the exclusive authority under PA Const Article I Section 12 to suspend the improperly enacted unconstitutional law.

The Model Rules have no basis in truth, morality, or ethics.
The Model Rules contradict the American values defined in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.

For all those years as a Code of Conduct, the Model Rules had included the fraud provisions which permitted disclosure.

In 1983, Removing the fraud provisions caused the Model Rules to become unethical, immoral, unlawful, inappropriate, unconstitutional and repugnant.

Rebranding unconstitutional Model Rules as an Ethics Standard to promote them to be improperly enacted into law, the American Bar Association exposes a sociopathic disrespect and contempt for the judiciary and abject malfeasance towards a nation who will be terrorized by their systemic perversion of justice.

Specifically, the needle in the ABA haystack of injustice, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is a deliberate deception. On its face, Rule 1.6 indicates ALL MISCONDUCT MUST BE REPORTED to the proper authority. Upon application of cross references throughout the Model Rules, the requirement to report misconduct is entirely undone. Rule 1.6 was not titled “REPORT ALL MISCONDUCT”.

Lawyers are often accused of twisting words.
Unethical Ethics Standard???
Unconstitutional Law???
Professional Conduct???

There is no denying or excusing the result of the ABA’s efforts, their knowledge of the unconstitutional effect, the deliberate misrepresentations to the Judiciary, the sedition of their actions upon the state and federal governments, and the limits which they would exceed to conceal their crime against an entire nation.

At no time was the ABA protecting the integrity of the judiciary and the reputation of lawyers as much as protecting the organization’s interests which usurped judicial authority through manipulative actions which perverted justice. The ABA shamed and corrupted state and federal judiciary and robbed it’s membership, and the legal profession, of integrity and honor.

Pretending that corruption was legal.

What the hell were they thinking?

Everyone participating in silence?

Persevere. Justice is Coming.

Every. Person. Matters.

Those lawyers who parrot that America has the ‘greatest judicial system in the world’ may only believe that because they were successful in stealing 40 million homes through foreclosure fraud while avoided any prosecution because of Confidentiality.

Vice President Biden is absolutely CORRECT!!!

The meme/picture gets alot of play on the web with people indicating that the Vice President is wrong, uninformed, and a variety of other aspersions.

Americans have been trained to ignore the TRUTH. In spite of facts and experience, the TRUTH and the messenger are attacked for challenging a belief and trust. The American Government would never let that happen.

BUT, it did.

---

When you consider that the American Bar Association began implementing their effort in 1984 in New Jersey. Sold as Ethics Policy for Lawyers, every state supreme court enacted the ABA Model Rules between 1984 and 2009. The Model Rules have no basis in ethics or morality.

The ABA knew that their Confidentiality clause would require an attorney to NOT expose a fraud committed by their client EVEN where the attorney was manipulated into being a part of the crime.

Attorney-Client privilege. BULLSHIT! It is a mandate to participate in fraud and further frauds against a victim who is being denied their constitutional protections.

Those who swear to preserve, protect, defend, enforce, support, … the US Constitution were also mandated to conceal the fraud. It affects every level of state and federal court, every lawyer and federal attorney.

AND THEY DID.

Over 40 million homes foreclosed through fraud.

Over 4000 children and families affect in Cash for Kids.

Uncounted suicides by those victimized by the injustice and prevented any resolution or escape.

Simple execution. Get each court to enact their Professional Code into LAW under their authority to enact law for the business of the courts. Conceal that the Rules cause an unconstitutional denial of protected rights. The choice regarding confidentiality which had been discretionary as LAW is MANDATED.

In 1983, the ABA had removed two provisions from Rule 1.6 Confidentiality which permitted a lawyer to speak where silence would conceal or permit “substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another”;
and
where the lawyer was seeking “to rectify the consequences of a client’s criminal or fraudulent act in the furtherance of which the lawyer’s services have been used.”

Yep, the American Bar Association planned ahead for foreclosure fraud and more… no one went to jail.

BUT, the unconstitutional impact of the law prevents the state supreme court from proper authority to enact the law. BUT, THEY DID ENACT THE LAW IN EVERY STATE.

The CONFIDENTIALITY of Rule 1.6 prevents any lawyers from exposing the situation, and prevents the courts from correcting or resolving the situation. BUT, IT’S NOT A LAW SO THEY DON’T HAVE TO FOLLOW IT.

The level of intimidation and threat which prevents this issue from being addressed must be big. Very big. So much so that no one has fixed it while it has destroyed millions of lives. MILLIONS.

In Pennsylvania, the ability to suspend law is available only to the Legislature. The entire Legislature has been notified. NOTHING. Meetings held with state Senator Chuck McIlhinney. NOTHING. Meetings with State Representative Marguerite Quinn and Kathy Watson.

The level or fear, terror and peril in Kathy Watson’s voicemail message when she cancelled subsequent meetings was palpable. She had gone to police. I went to police also. I assured police that I had not made any threat against Rep Watson. Knowing that she was preparing to formally present the matter before the Legislature, it is entirely conceivable that she had been threatened.

This is big. The American Bar Association planned and executed the sedition of the judicial branch, in every state and federally. The ABA had undermined the Rule of Law, the US Constitution, the state constitution.

With the courts authority usurped, the courts were subjected to leverage and manipulation. Courts lost their judicial independence which is a necessity for jurisdiction. That independence is so essential that the judiciary is granted immunity from prosecution for anything as a safeguard of their independence. The courts continued to function without lawful authority.

The affect on the integrity of the courts was visible. The public trust had been violated. YET, STILL NO ONE EXPLAINED, OR CORRECTED, or preserved, protected, defended, supported, or enforced the US Constitution.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality prevents lawyers and the judiciary from action.

Though an unconstitutional law is a nullity, exposing sedition and treason by the American Bar Association with it’s over 400,000 members might be somewhat intimidating.

The lawyers are silent. The politicians are silent. The courts are silent.

Because their unconstitutional law, which denies constitutional rights, has undermined the government and been used to terrorize the American People.

And Americans watched as the rights of their neighbors were denied. They did nothing.
It affected millions. They did nothing.
The fraud upon the court was exposed and publicized. They did nothing.
When Americans need their rights, they are NOT available.

Americans do not care about their Constitutional Rights. Joe Biden is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, BUT that is about as much as counselor Biden is permitted to reveal without violating Rule 1.6 Confidentiality.

Notice the politicians ignoring the US Constitution. They want Americans to notice. BUT, perhaps they are trying to demonstrate that it is time for American to care.

Remove Unconstitutional Rule 1.6 and the US Constitution is reBooted.

Let’s clarify the Veeps message:

No ordinary American cares about their Constitutional Rights, … I wish they did.

In 1987, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court enacted the Rules of Professional Conduct into law describing the rules as “a minimal ethical standard” for the practice of law.

Ethics seeks to resolve questions dealing with human morality – concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime.

Ethics involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct, and methods to address disputes.

Ethical Standards are principles which when followed, promote values such as trust, good behavior, fairness, and/or kindness.

There are four general factors which are involved in ethics.
1) Law, 2) Policies, 3) Individual Application. 4) Consequences

1) Law – A society is bound by laws. These laws define the difference between right and wrong, and what is considered acceptable behavior. People must abide by the laws.

2) Policies – Within society, or within smaller groups, a set of clearly stated, highly ethical policies takes the guesswork out of decisions made which represent the group. When properly trained, members actions and reactions become second nature. Ensuring those policies are ethically sound removes the possibility for improper actions or decisions.

3) Individual Ethics – Individuals determine their personal integrity and moral values based on heritage and upbringing, education, and positive reinforcement of ethical actions.

4) Consequences – The consequences for ignoring or breaking an ethical standard exist within each factor. Violate the law and you will be prosecuted. Violating a policy and the infraction affects the group – the action affects the respect accorded the group and can negatively impact the morale of other members. Noncompliance with ethical standards at the individual level damages integrity and reputation.

An Ethics Policy MUST provide a process to resolve conflicts which permits those experiences to benefit the individual through information, the group through policy adjustment and training, and society which can enact laws to prevent future conflict.

Where ethical conflict resolution does not develop and promote ethical behavior, the individual, the group and the society are prevented from the experience, knowledge and reinforcement of an ethical standard.

Ethics develop personal integrity and moral values. Groups benefit from the personal ethics of members which further promotes the reputation and integrity of the group. Society systematizes, promotes and defends the laws developed from the moral and ethical standards of the people.

A societies concept of good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime is derived from the values of it’s people.

Ethical behavior is good, right, virtuous and just. Unethical behavior is evil, wrong, a vice and a crime.

A society uses laws to promote, protect and encourage the ethical behaviors and beliefs within the society while discouraging, prosecuting and correcting the unethical ones.

FOUNDED ON PRINCIPLES

The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights and The Constitution of the United States include the basic concepts upon which the United States was established. The documents include the general principles and ethics for our society which have been and are used to understand, interpret and develop the laws.

The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land – the moral and ethical standard under which our society agrees to exist.

Federal Law cannot exist where it violates the US Constitution.

State Constitutions exist within the framework established in the US Constitution.

State Law cannot exist where it violates the State Constitution or the US Constitution.

If any law is unconstitutional, it is not a law. EXCEPT… that only works in principle. Until a law is not a law, it is still pretty much a law. Lawmakers review proposed laws during their construction for constitutionality, and sometimes a situation is not realized. The Not-A-Law gets enacted, signed by the Executive, and that Not-A-Law then begins to affect the society.

The unconstitutional Not-A-Law is not consistent with the moral and ethical standards of society and can cause ‘damage’ to individuals or groups until the issue is addressed.

On Petition, the courts review the issue of constitutionality and decide if
a) The law is the law.
b) The Not-A-Law is a nullity.

** The Courts have dismissed the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6. The basis for dismissal is unsubstantiated. The doctrine for dismissal does not apply to pre-emptive constitutional challenges. Facts are ignored. Everything dismissed on paper without any hearings.

PRESENTMENT OF UNETHICAL RULES BY THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ENACTED BY STATE SUPREME COURTS INTO UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW

The American Bar Association developed the Rules of Professional Conduct and presented them as an ethical standard for lawyers. “The Rules” are actually not based or supported by ethical or moral principles. “The Rules” are based on continuing in the way things have always been done – using the same flawed logic for supporting statements. One pervasive concept throughout the ABA ethics program is the constant cross reference to Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY of INFORMATION.

Rule 1.6 is a deception. At face value, Rule 1.6 requires the lawyer take responsibility and accountability by reporting all acts of misconduct to disciplinary authorities. That moral high ground erodes quickly upon application of the cross references which mandate silence. Excusing silence where the information would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary… or affect the reputation of the legal profession… or affect their law offices… or affect their client. The resultant Rule 1.6 is empty and left completely ineffective to address reporting the misconduct which on its face could suggest esteem-worthy. In the void left behind, Rule 1.6 is an aggressively enforced mandate of confidentiality which conceals corruption and injustice within the judiciary and the legal profession. [Shaking Head] Well, Rule 1.6 is not titled REPORTING MISCONDUCT – because it’s not about that. Rule 1.6 is titled CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION – and it is all about silence, and maintaining confidentiality without the interference of ethics, morals or conscience.

A Group has presented their group policy to the state to elevate into law.

WHY? [No Answer]

As a group policy, constitutionality is not generally problematic. Group Policies must still follow the LAW. Group policies typically refine or specify “a higher ethical standard” which benefits the group through higher esteem, reputation and integrity.

The ABA knows that the “Model Rules” violate the US Constitution. In February 1983, the ABA House of Delegates had met, debated and decided to further remove provisions in the Confidentiality clause. Already constitutionally questionable, the removal further affected the rights of the victims of fraud.

The ABA removed two provisions from Rule 1.6 Confidentiality which permitted a lawyer to speak where silence would conceal or permit “substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another”;
and
where the lawyer was seeking “to rectify the consequences of a client’s criminal or fraudulent act in the furtherance of which the lawyer’s services have been used.”

The decision by the ABA is clearly on the wrong side of the law, AND contrary to the moral and ethical standards of society.

WHY DID THE ABA PRESENT THEIR RULES TO THE STATE SUPREME COURTS TO ELEVATE INTO LAW KNOWING THAT THEIR CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Participating in a crime, voluntarily or not, lawyers are mandated to conceal information which denies, prevents and obstructs justice. The revised Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information affect the victim’s rights which are believed o be secured by the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Further, the mandated silence causes the lawyer to directly participate in the commission and furtherance of a crime, and to conceal that personal participation and involvement from all law enforcement authorities.

Seriously, the “minimum ethical standard’ joke should have been the punchline. The ABA Model Rules is a code of unethical conduct, enacted into unconstitutional law, MANDATING a lawyer sacrifice personal reputation, ethics, integrity and morality.

The ‘minimal ethical standard’ descriptor seems greatly over-exaggerated where the rules require unethical, immoral, and illegal behaviors.

A Group policy which violates ethics, morality, justice and the Law destroys the ethical integrity of the group.

THE CONTRADICTION IS OBVIOUS. ABA ETHICS ARE JUXTAPOSED

The ABA mandated unethical and immoral participation in criminal actions by attorneys which permit the commission and furtherance of a fraud and the conspiracy to conceal the crime from law enforcement and prosecution. The ABA’s Rules of Professional Conduct is void of ethical considerations.

And…
But…
The American Bar Association has actually done it. The ABA has made unethical behavior a requirement within their Rules of Professional Conduct – their ‘minimum ethical standard”.

The unconstitutional law has been enacted by every state supreme court. It would take 25 years to find the constitutional problem. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality effectively concealed judicial corruption, injustice. The courts ignored the Rule of Law and the US Constitution without being held accountable.

The nation would quickly begin to notice that something is wrong with the US Constitution.

A President would snap that “The Constitution is just a god-damned piece of paper.”

The stage was set. The fraud of the National Foreclosure Crisis began in states where the commission of fraud by lawyers within the court was kept CONFIDENTIAL. No one has been prosecuted.

NATIONAL FORECLOSURE CRISIS – FORECLOSURE BY FRAUD The ABA lack of ethics was exploited to foreclose upon the homes of MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of Americans while constitutional rights and the Rule of Law was ignored by the court. Every level of law enforcement was prevented from action … by a confidentiality clause. … by an unconstitutional confidentiality clause.

KIDS FOR CASH – Luzerne County Pennsylvania Two judges exploit the mandate of confidentiality while receiving kickbacks for placing over 4000 children in prisons. Lawyers and judges remained silent. Complaints to the PA Supreme court were unheeded. Human Trafficking of Children in Pennsylvania. AMERICAN CHILDREN were unprotected by the US Constitution, the PA Constitution and the Rule of Law. The lawyers and EVERY level of law enforcement was prevented from action … by a confidentiality clause. … by an unconstitutional confidentiality clause. Until a judge contacted federal authorities violating Rule 1.6 Confidentiality. Judge Ann Lokuta was promptly removed from the bench for adversely affecting the integrity of the judiciary. Ciavarella and Coonahan had been permitted to affect the integrity of the court under an unconstitutional veil of confidentiality.

Civil, Criminal and Family Courts – ALL AFFECTED An act of fraud, judicial misconduct or injustice is all that is required to cause the complete loss of constitutionally protected rights for litigants in the American courts. There is no one to enforce the US Constitution where every state and federal judiciary has lost judicial independence, jurisdiction and immunity all caused by a mandate of confidentiality. Americans are unprotected by the US Constitution, the PA Constitution and the Rule of Law when every lawyer and EVERY level of law enforcement is prevented from action … by a confidentiality clause. … by an unconstitutional confidentiality clause.

TREASON – A deliberate act of sedition by the American Bar Association which undermined the judiciary at state and federal levels and prevented the government from it’s proper function…. executed in every state from 1984 to 2009.

DID NOT ONE OF THE 50 STATE SUPREME COURTS REVIEW THE RULES BEFORE THEY ENACTED LAW?

[COUNTERPOINT]
BUT, when a lawyer knows something is unconstitutional, they will fight for their client. They will report and expose the corruption within the judiciary.

That is a beautiful and respectable ideal which completely ignores reality.

Before the issue of corruption is heard in any court, the constitutional advocate/civil rights lawyer will be suspended from the practice of law, or disbarred, for adversely affecting the integrity of the judiciary and the reputation of lawyers.

The lawyer’s personal reputation will be attacked. The lawyer’s careers will be maligned. They will become disenfranchised from the community of lawyers. Those actions against the lawyer, though criminal, are considered acceptable and appropriate when exposing the truth would violate Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information – any publicity would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary and the reputation of lawyers.

Additional events extend the same state Rule 1.6 Confidentiality Rule to include all state and federal courts… and every level of state and federal law enforcement. There seems to have been great effort has gone into assuring that an KNOWN TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL state law which inexplicably trumps the Rule of Law, the state Constitution and the US Constitution affects every court jurisdiction and all state and federal law enforcement.

Where the state Supreme Courts may have recognized their error, The Rule 1.6 Confidentiality clause prevents even the supreme court from addressing their own misdeed.

At every level of the courts, and law enforcement, there exists an ABA affiliated bar association and the opportunity to undermine and interfere with the course of justice. Efforts which prevent access to the courts, including forgery and issuing unsigned per curiam orders, are unexplained, omit facts, create fictions and fail to cite the applicable law. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality extends to conceal any effort action which prevent the judiciary from being adversely affected.

The Judiciary in whom the people placed their trust has become undone by the American Bar Association. The ABA has undermined the authority of the judiciary by affecting judicial independence which is an essential element for jurisdiction. The authority of the courts has been leveraged throughout the government undermining the Constitution, affecting and ignoring the overreach of the Executive, while observing the failure of the Legislative branch which is determined to accomplish nothing.

The United States Constitution needs to be rebooted.

Removing Unconstitutional Rule 1.6 is the first step it the recovery from the corruption and injustice of the last 25 years.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is unconstitutional, immoral, unethical, improper, prevents, defies, conceals, undermines, usurps, destroys, overwhelms. Rule 1.6 KILLS.

Justice is coming.

Every. Person. Matters.

Ethical considerations can be addressed at individual and at societal levels. The way that individuals are affected by the conduct of others merits ethical consideration.

While the term ‘ethics’ is used in a wide variety of senses, its meaning consistently relates to an ‘ethos’ or ‘way of life.

Compliance means following rules because you have to; ethics is doing the right thing because you want to, or realize that it is in the best interest of others and society. An individual only interested in compliance will look for loop-holes in law, rules and regulations. If such an individual can accomplish his goals and stay technically compliant, he will do so even if his conduct causes harm.

An ethical individual, in contrast, is concerned about meeting the spirit of rules and laws, and mere compliance will not be sufficient if the conduct isn’t also good and right.

The Model Rules are described as a minimal ethics standard for the profession of law.

In 1983, the ABA affirmed its position that the attorney-client privilege should greatly restrict an attorney’s ability to disclose client misconduct.

In February 1983, the ABA House of Delegates met to discuss the then-proposed Model Rules of Professional Conduct(Model Rules). Proposed Model Rule 1.6 contained two provisions that many cast as a radical assault on the traditional scope of the attorney-client privilege.

The first provision would have allowed an attorney to reveal client confidences in order to prevent “substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another.”

The second provision sanctioned disclosure “to rectify the consequences of a client’s criminal or fraudulent act in the furtherance of which the lawyer’s services have been used.”

The House of Delegates rejected both proposals after a heated debate. The rejects provisions were not without a basis in ethical consideration. Those two ‘ethics’ provisions, which considered the impact on other people, would have prevented the confidentiality clause from undermining the constitutional rights of litigants. The removal created an ethical standard which completely ignored the existence of an opposing litigant.

The Model Rules serve to advance the duty of preserving a client’s confidences at the expense of those injured by a fraud – by the client or the lawyer.

Nevertheless, further debate on these provisions is not reported while states decided whether to adopt the Model Rules. The failure to fully consider the ethics or constitutionality issue within the states is unexplained.

The ABA’s failure to consider the impact of confidentiality on the opposition in a civil matter is a failure of any true ethical consideration. This is exacerbated as the ABA further neglected to consider the impact on the constitutional rights of either litigant. Where the confidentiality mandate can be further manipulated and leveraged to conceal the fraud by the judiciary, it undermines the integrity of the judiciary which is sacrificed to conceal the fraud upon the court. This leaves Rule 1.6 without any basis in ethics as it fails to consider the way others are affected.

The Rules of Professional Conduct are promoted as a ‘minimal ethical standard’ for lawyers by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In the case of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality, which is cross referenced within most of the other rules, minimal ethics is no ethics.

In 1991, the ABA again rejected the rectification provision.

There is no indication that the ABA ever considered the CONSTITUTIONALITY of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

There is no indication that any state considered the lack of ETHICS or the CONSTITUTIONALITY of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

The misguided excuses for attorney client privilege are left unsupported by reality. Every case is not a criminal case. Where attorney-client confidentiality obstructs truth and denies justice, the integrity of the courts and the entire judicial system is greatly diminished.

The most serious substantive problem in the Model Rules relates to lawyer-client confidences. Other serious substantive deficiencies relate to trial publicity, solicitation, prosecutors’ ethics, competence, client autonomy, the revolving door problem, and various other aspects of the lawyer-client relationship. Other substantial policy and constitutional concerns underlie confidentiality.

The Kutak Commission’s proposals regarding confidentiality are fundamentally inconsistent with the constitutional components of the adversary system, and with the values and policies to which they give meaning.

The ABA’s insistence on placing the duty of loyalty to the client before the duty of fairness to others has prevented the ethical codes from providing an effective solution to the dilemma.

Since 1983, the ABA has failed to present any effective solution to the dilemma
WHILE…
… the Model Rules have been promoted and enacted by every state. (1984 New Jersey to 2009 Maine)
… the enacted state “Rules of Professional Conduct” are incorporated into the federal circuit and district courts by LOCAL RULES
… the McDade-Murtha Amendment incorporates the state ‘Rules of Professional Conduct’ into practice for each government attorney.

The Model Rules have deliberately failed to recognize the effect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality upon the opposition in civil litigation. Further, where an attorney manipulates confidentiality mandates to undermine the court’s jurisdiction and the Rule of Law, the integrity of the court becomes entangled in constitutional violations which cannot be addressed or resolved without violating confidentiality. The Rule of Law and Constitutional violations are ignored and neglected by the Department of Justice and the federal courts who must follow the state’s confidentiality law.

One Rule – stripped of ethics – enacted without any constitutional considerations – undermines the authority and integrity of the state and federal judiciary while preventing enforcement of constitutionally protected rights by the government – UNCONSTITUTIONAL – Improperly enacted – Repugnant – A NULLITY.

Dean Redlich of the New York University Law School assessed the ABA’s vote on the Model Rules by stating: ‘The practice of law, if done by sensitive people, creates financial risks and moral dilemmas…. These votes reflect a strong desire to eliminate those moral dilemmas by self-imposed rules that narrow or eliminate the choices a lawyer has.’

Client and Attorney misconduct poses an ethical dilemma which the legal profession has failed to resolve, and failed to consider while enjoying an autonomy from regulations and ethical rules. The ABA’s ethical and constitutional failure, demonstrated by the rejected provisions, were intentional and deliberate where they failed to address the matter for over 25 years. The unconstitutional result denying Americans of their constitutional rights and the protection of the law – Foreclosing on millions nationwide – Concealing human trafficking of thousands of children by judges in Luzerne County – Enabling destruction within the Family Courts.

The ABA knew of the unconstitutional effect of the Model Rules and Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information. The ABA still presented the Model Rules to the state Supreme courts to enact into law.

[ WE STILL DO NOT HAVE ANY EXPLANATION AT WHY IT WAS NECESSARY TO ENACT THE RULES INTO LAW. It turned the discretion of the lawyer to make an ethical decision into an aggressively enforced mandate of confidentiality. ]

The state Supreme Court does not have the authority to enact a law which affects the substantive rights of litigants which are protected by the state Constitution and the US Constitution.

Unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information was never properly enacted into law in any and every state.

Rule 1.6 is a NULLITY. Restore my constitutional rights and provide me with the equal protection of the law and prepare to address the actions of 20 judges of the Montgomery County Pennsylvania judiciary who have abused their power under color of law with their judicial independence undermined and lacking jurisdiction while denying my constitutional rights and ignoring the Rule of Law.

---

REFERENCE SOURCES: F. Krach, The Client-Fraud Dilemma: a Need for Consensus, 46 Md. L. Rev. 436 (1987)
Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol46/iss2/9

On Ethics and Expediency – The ABA’s Dubious Vote on Disclosure of Client Fraud

The Lawyers Allegiance- Priorities Regarding Confidentiality

Rectification of Client Fraud

BrooklynLaw-Dangerous-Liasons-Gauthier

The Kutak Model Rules v. the American Lawyers Code of Conduct January 1, 1981. In this document Monroe Freedman points to the ethical and constitutional problems caused by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of the Model Rules. Failing to find a resolution in the end, the ABA ignored that there is any problem and provided the states with an unconstitutional law which violated substantive rights of litigants. The state supreme courts lacked the authority to enact the Model Rules as Rule 1.6 is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and a nullity.

In effect, the Model Rules place the lawyer in the position of having to violate the client’s constitutional rights to effective counsel in order to conform to a “model” rule of conduct. This is both unnecessary and unjustifiable. Confidentiality is basic to effective lawyering. Thus, by undermining the confidentiality between the lawyer and the client, the Model Rules would destroy the most fundamental of constitutional rights.<./td>