2014
10.21

Part of the Bibliography in the next filing – this about 50% of the documents studied for the information presented on this site.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following journal articles, documents and collateral information are presented as reference resources which have contributed to the review, study and presentation within this document.

The documents include demonstrations of the intentional carelessness and deception, and also the tactics of disinformation which conceal their actions from within and without.

( FYI, this is the difference between following the scripts into corruption… and understanding the law… and recognizing the perversion which undermined the judiciary. )

JUSTICE IS COMING.

If you want to do something evil, do it inside something boring… INDEED.

PROFESSIONAL SECRECY AND ITS EXCEPTIONS: Spaulding V. Zimmerman Revisited
Roger C. Cramton and Lori P. Knowles, 83 Minn. L. Rev. 63 (1998)
Download

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER: The Three Hardest Questions
Monroe H. Freedman, 64 Mich. L. Rev. 1469 (1966)
Download

WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT ETHICS: A Critical View of the Model Rules
Stephen Gillers, , 46 Ohio St. L.J. 243 (1985)
Download

RECTIFICATION OF CLIENT FRAUD: Death and Revival of a Professional Norm
Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., 33 Emory L.J. 271 (1984)
Download

ON LEARNING OF A CORPORATE CLIENT’S CRIME OR FRAUD
Junious Hoffman, 3 Bus. Law. 1389 (1978)
Download

THE LAW BETWEEN THE BAR AND THE STATE
Susan P. Koniak, 70 N.C.L. Rev. 1389 (1992)
Download

THE CENTRAL MORAL TRADITION OF LAWYERING
Robert P. Lawry, 19 Hofstra L. Rev. 311 (1990)
Download

CONFIDENTIALITY AND THE DANGEROUS PATIENT: Implications of Tarasoff for Psychiatrists and Lawyers
Vanessa Merton, 31 Emory L. Rev. 263 (1982)
Download

THE LAWYER’S ALLEGIANCE: Priorities Regarding Confidentiality
R.W. Nahstoll, 41 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 421 (1984)
Download

THE FUTURE CRIME OR TORT EXCEPTION TO COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGES
Harvard Note, 77 Harv. L. Rev. 730 (1964)
Download

THE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND THE NEW MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Blowing the Whistle and Waving the Red Flag
Ronald R. Rotunda, 63 Ore. L. Rev. 455 (1984)
Download

PROFESSIONALISM AS BAR POLITICS: The Making of the Rules of Professional Conduct
Ted Schneyer, 14 Law & Social Inquiry 677 (1989)
Download

THE LAWYER AS SUPEREGO: Disclosure of Client Confidences to Prevent Harm
Harry I. Subin, 70 Iowa L. Rev. 1091 (1985)
Download

CLIENT CONFIDENCE AND THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY: Too Little Consensus and Too Much Confusion
Harris Weinstein, 35 S. Texas L .Rev. 727 (1994)
Download

REVISING THE ETHICAL RULES OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY: Towards a New Discretionary Rule
Limor Zer-Gutman, 45 Loyola L. Rev. 669, 681 (1999)
Download

SCHAFER’S DILEMMA: Client Confidentiality vs. Judicial Integrity — A Very Different Proposal for the Revision of Model Rule 1.6
LaRue T. Hosmer and Daniel C. Powell, 49 Loyola L. Rev. 405-469 (2003)
Download

THE GEORGETOWN PROPOSALS
Harvey J. Pitt, 36 Bus. Law. 1831 (1981).
Download

THE KAYE SCHOLER AFFAIR: The Lawyer’s Duty of Candor and the Bar’s Temptations of Evasion and Apology
William L. Simon, 23 Law & Soc. Inquiry 243 (Spring, 1998)
Download

RETHINKING CONFIDENTIALITY II: Is Confidentiality Constitutional?
Fred C. Zacharias, 75 Iowa L. Rev 601 (March. 1990)
Download

RETHINKING CONFIDENTIALITY
Fred C. Zacharias, 74 Iowa L. Rev. 351 (January 1989)
Download

WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION: INTERIM FORMAL ETHICS OPINION Re: The Effect of the SEC’s Sarbanes-Oxley Regulations on Washington Attorneys’ Obligations Under the RPCs
Approved by Board of Governors July 26, 2003
Download

THE CONCEPT OF A RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS
Charles W. Wolfram, 1 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 199 1987-1`988
Download

PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATOR’S MUNICIPAL DESKBOOK, Third Edition (2006)
Download

WORLD JUSTICE PROJECT INDEX REPORT 2012
Download

U.S. 7TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS
IN RE A WITNESS, 288 F. 3d 289 (7th Cir. 2002)
Decided April 23, 2002
Download

WISCONSIN RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR ATTORNEYS
November 14, 2001
Download

WHOSE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT SHOULD GOVERN LAWYERS IN FEDERAL COURT AND HOW SHOULD THE RULES BE CREATED
Bruce A. Green, 64 Geo. Wash L. Rev. 460 (1995-1996)
Download

WHO ARE CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF – On the Effective Use Of Resources in Pennsylvania
Stephen J. McEwen, Jr – Court Review 1998
Download

WHEN CANARIES WON;T SING: The Failure of the Attorney Self-Reporting System in the “Cash For Kids” Scheme
Sarah L. Primrose, 36 J. Legal Prof. 139 (2011)
Download

WATCHING THE HENHOUSE: Judicial Rulemaking and Judicial Review
Carrie Leonetti, 91 Neb. L. Rev (2013)
Download

WASHINGTON STATE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Adopted July 10, 2006 – Effective September 1, 2006
Download

WANT TO TAKE MY HOME? A Tale of David, the Homeowner, versus Goliath, the Bank
Eastburn & Gray, P.C. (2012)
Download

MAKING LAWYERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TRUTH: The Influence of Marvin Frankel’s Proposal for Reforming the Adversary System
Daniel Walfish, J.D. 2004 Yale Law School
Download

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, United States of America v. John Doe PRECEDENTIAL, October 25, 2005
Download

TWENTY­FIVE WAYS TO SUPPRESS TRUTH: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)
H. Michael Sweeney (2000) www.proparanoid.com
Download

Truth in Lawyering Act (“TILA”) – (Washington State) December 18, 2001
Download

THE VARYING PARAMETERS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW
John F. Decker, 65 La. L. Rev. (2004)
Download

THE SEPARATE BUT UNEQUAL CONSTITUTION
Adam Lamparello and Charles MacLean, January 2014
Download

THE NEXT STEP IN LEGAL ETHICS: Some Observations About the Proposed Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Robert J. Kutak, 30 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1 (1981)
Download

THE KUTAK MODEL RULES V. THE AMERICAN LAWYER’S CODE OF CONDUCT
Monroe H. Freedman, 26 Vill. L. Rev. 1165 (1981)
Download

THE CLIENT-FRAUD DILEMMA: A NEED FOR CONSENSUS
Kenneth F. Krach, 46 Md. L. Rev. 436 (1987)
Download

COMPARATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF LEGAL STAFF IN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTS
Council of Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeal, (April 2011)
Download

THE LEGALITY OF STATE PROTECTIONIST LAWS AGAINST LEGAL PROCESS OUTSOURCING
Anne J. Lee, J. ON TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH. L Vol. 11 (2013)
Download

“…. IN THE SPIRIT OF PUBLIC SERVICE:” A Blueprint for the Rekindling of Lawyer Professionalism
American Bar Association , Commission on Professionalism, 1986
Download

OVERSTEPPING ETHICAL BOUNDARIES? LIMITATIONS ON STATE EFFORTS TO PROVIDE
ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN FAMILY COURTS
Jessica Dixon Weaver, 82 F ORDHAM L. R EV . 2563 (2014).
Download

VALID RULE DUE PROCESS CHALLENGES: BOND v.
UNITED STATES AND ERIE’S CONSTITUTIONAL SOURCE
Kermit Roosevelt, III,, WILLIAM & MARY LAW REVIEW Vol. 54:987
Download

DISQUALIFYING JUDGES WHEN THEIR IMPARTIALITY MIGHT REASONABLY BE
QUESTIONED : MOVING BEYOND A FAILED STANDARD
Raymond J. McKoski, ARIZONA LAW REVIEW VOL. 56:411 (2014)
Download

IS CONFIDENTIALITY REALLY FOREVER—EVEN IF THE CLIENT DIES OR CEASES TO EXIST?
By Anne Klinefelter and Marc C. Laredo, Volume 40, No. 3 Litigation 47-51 (Spring, 2014)
Download

AGAINST CONFIDENTIALITY
Dru Stevenson ? 2014
Download

THINNING OUT STRUCTURAL THEORY
Garrick B. Pursley, (2014)
Download

THE PARADOX OF ADMINISTRATIVE PREEMPTION
David S. Rubenstein, (2014)
Download

DETERMINING THE PREEMPTIVE EFFECT OF FEDERAL LAW ON STATE STATUTES OF REPOSE
Adam Bain, University of Baltimore Law Review Vol. 43
Download

THE SUPREME COURT ’ S JURISDICTIONAL INFIDELITY
John David Ohlendorf , July 11, 2013
Download

HIDING BEHIND THE CLOAK OF INVISIBILITY : THE SUPREME COURT AND PER CURIAM OPINIONS
Ira P. Robbins, TULANE LAW REVIEW Vol. 86:1197 (2012)
Download

THE RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS AND THE COURTS
1997 Symposium, The Professional Lawyer
Susan Martyn, (1997)
Download

HOW MUCH JUSTICE CAN WE AFFORD?: DEFINING THE COURTS’ ROLES AND DECIDING THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF TRIALS, SETTLEMENT SIGNALS, AND OTHER ELEMENTS NEEDED TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE
John Lande, JOURNAL OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION Vol. 2006
Download

SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY, THE SMITH ACT, AND PROSECUTION FOR RELIGIOUS SPEECH ADVOCATING THE VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT
John Alan Cohan, Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development: Vol. 17: Iss. 2, Article 2. (2003)
Download

SPECULUM JURIS VOLUME 25 PART 2 2011
Nelson Mandela School of Law, Faculty of Law Rhodes University (2011)
Download

VITAE REPUBLICAE – THE LIFE OF THE REPUBLIC – SHERIFF’S
Carson J. Tucker
Download

REVIVING A TRADITION OF SERVICE:
REDEFINING LAWYER PROFESSIONALISM IN THE 21 ST CENTURY
Ronald C. Minkoff, ABA Standing Committee on Professionalism. (2010)
Download

RESTORING CONSTITUTIONAL EQUILIBRIUM
Adam Lamparello, October 2014
Download

RECTIFICATION OF CLIENT FRAUD
Marcia A. Johnson, Director – Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility
Bench & Bar of Minnesota (April 1993)
Download

SECTION 1983 LITIGATION
Martin A. Schwartz and Kathryn R. Urbonya, Federal Judicial Center 2008
RULES VERSUS STANDARDS: An Economic Analysis
Louis Kaplow, DUKE LAW JOURNAL Vol. 42:557
Download

KUTAK COMMISSION
Robert Kutak, 1977 – 1983
Download

“LAWYER AS PUBLIC CITIZEN” – A Futile Attempt to Close Pandora’s Box
Matthew E. Meany, 35 Campbell L. Rev. 119 (2012)
Download

STANDING OF INTERVENOR – Defendants in Public Law Litigation
Matthew I. Hall, 80 Fordham L. Rev. 1539 (2012).
Download

THE RULE OF LAW AS A LAW OF STANDARDS
JAMAL GREENE, 56 U. C HI . L. R EV . 1175, 1175 (1989)
Download

HOW LAWYERS ACT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE
Monroe H. Freedman, 70 Fordham L. Rev. 1717 (2002)
Download

THE FINE PRINT, VOL. 1, NO. 3
Download

Students of the University of Georgia School of Law, Other Law School Publications. Paper 304 (1982)
Download

ATTORNEY PAPERS, HISTORY AND CONFIDENTIALITY: A Proposed Amendment to Model Rule 1.6
Patrick Shilling, 69 Fordham L. Rev. 2741 (2001)
Download

RULES AGAINST RULIFICATION
Michael Coenen, (2013)
Download

CONFLICT AND TRUST BETWEEN ATTORNEY AND CLIENT
Robert A. Burt, Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 796. (1981)
Download

LEGAL ETHICS: Discretion and Utility in Model Rule 1.6
Charles A. Kelbley, Fordham Urban Law Review Vol XIII (1984)
Download

CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION UNDER SECTION 1983 AND THE BIVENS DOCTRINE IN THE OCTOBER 2008 TERM
Martin A. Schwartz, Touro Law Review: Vol. 26: No. 2, Article 9 (2012)
Download

RULE 201. JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS.
PA Code Article II Rule 201
Download

THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
112th Congress, (2013)
Download

FEDERAL USURPATION
FRANKLIN PIERCE , Family Guardian Fellowship (1908)
Download

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE: An Overview of Some of the Federal Statutes That Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities
Charles Doyle, Congressional Research Service 7-5700 (2014)
Download

JUDICIAL SUPREMACY AND NONJUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
Scott E. Gant, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly Vol.24:359 (1997)
Download

HIDING BEHIND THE CLOAK OF INVISIBILITY : The Supreme Court And Per Curiam Opinions
Ira P. Robbins (2012)
Download

TOWARD A HISTORY OF THE LEGALIZATION OF AMERICAN LEGAL ETHICS – II The Modern Era
Charles W. Wolfram, 8 U. Chi. L. Sch. Roundtable 469 (2001)
Download

WHY KENTUCKY SHOULD ADOPT THE ABA’S MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Eugene R. Gaetke, 74 Ky. L.J. 581 (1986)
Download

QUALIFICATIONS OF MONROE H. FREEDMAN AS AN EXPERT WITNESS ON LAWYERS ’ AND JUDGES ’ ETHICS
Monroe H. Freedman, Qualifications 2014
Download

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Intersection And Integration
Martha F. Davis, School of Law Faculty Publications. Paper 162. (2010)
Download

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Intersection And Integration
Martha F. Davis, COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW 42:157 (2011)
Download

GIVING NEW MEANING TO “JUSTICE FOR ALL”: CRAFTING AN EXCEPTION TO ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
Brittney Kern , 2014 M ICH . S T . L. R EV . 149
Download

LAWYER-CLIENT CONFIDENCES: The Model Rules’ Radical Assault on Tradition
Monroe H. Freedman, 68 American Bar Association Journal 428
Download

A CASE FOR INCREASED DISCLOSURE
Deborah Abramovsky, Fordham Urban Law Review Vol XIII (1984)
Download

AGAINST CONFIDENTIALITY
Dru Stevenson , Abstract (2014)
Download

THE SUPREME COURT AS A LEGISLATURE
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr, Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2407
Download

HOW FAR MAY A LAWYER GO IN ASSISTING A CLIENT IN LEGALLY WRONGFUL CONDUCT?
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2402. (1981)
Download

REVISITING THE SECOND RESTATEMENT OF JUDGMENTS: Issue Preclusion and Related Problems
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2404.
Download

RECTIFICATION OF CLIENT FRAUD: Death and Revival of a Professional Norm
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2396. (1984)
Download

PRECLUSION AS TO ISSUES OF LAW: The Legal System’s Interest
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2397. (1984)
Download

RISING ABOVE PRINCIPLE
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2393. (1986)
Download

A LAWYER’S PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2392. (1987)
Download

PROFESSIONALISM: The Deep Theory
Daniel R. Coquillette, North Carolina Law Review 72, (1994): 1271-1278. (1994)
Download

IN PRAISE OF OVERZEALOUS REPRESENTATION- Lying to Judges, Deceiving Third Parties, and Other Ethical Conduct
Monroe H. Freedman, (3 rd ed., 2004) (with Abbe Smith)
Download

FOUR PORTRAITS OF LAW PRACTICE
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2386.
Download

THE FUTURE OF LEGAL ETHICS
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2380.
Download

THE CLIENT FRAUD PROBLEM: A Justinian Quartet
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2370.
Download

STATE SUPREME COURT REGULATION OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2365.
Download

IT’S NOT OVER: Empowering the Different Voice in Legal Academia
Elvia R. Arriola, 29 Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. (2014).
Download

image_pdfimage_print
2014
10.17

An attorney may not disclose information which would harm a client… and offend the sacrosanct attorney-client privilege which continues into the beyond after the death of the attorney… WHY IS IT THAT FOR 30 YEARS THE WORLD HAS NEGLECTED TO CALL THE ABA ON THEIR BULLSHIT (quietly made law in every state since 1984.)

I assure you that ‘ACP’ has affected WAY MORE cases in civil and family court, than the criminal cases which the ABA loudly presumes to necessitate the privilege. Where the horseshit ascends to take on constitutional propriety, you just know they are making this stuff up. It is FLAWED to think that the attorney-client privilege is more important than EVERYONE ELSE’s constitutional rights.

Eric Holder is the retiring US Attorney General. Prosecutor, judge, high-powered lawyer representing the President, the NFL, Merck (Pharmaceuticals), Halliburton and big banks…

When Holder was presented for the position of US Attorney General… “Colleagues and admirers see his impressive range of work as a sign of a lawyer who has seen the law from all sides.” TRANSLATION: His former clients just renewed their license to commit fraud without fear of prosecution at state and federal levels.

20111005_FastFuriousTell me again why they fail to acknowledge that ERIC HOLDER can be prevented from prosecuting any of his former clients? … and those who report to him are similarly trapped. As the top lawyer in the DOJ, he cannot reveal any wrongdoing by his department (his client). So the Rule 1.6 ‘law’ made him silent on Fast & Furious. They have big shoulders to take the personal aspersions, while laughing at Americans who don’t see what is right in front of them. They have made it illegal to expose corruption.

That stupid headline allegation was such clear disinformation.
“NOT ONE BANK WAS PROSECUTED DURING THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS” – If you think it was personal, you have little faith in the morality and ethics of humans. It was NOT the lawyer, but ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE which protected the banks.

Once they made Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY into “LAW”. Rule 1.6 prevented any prosecution for the fraud by District Attorneys, Attorneys General and US Attorneys, the entire US DOJ and every government lawyer must follow the very same Rule 1.6 – See McDade-Murtha Amendment.

(Why is everything surrounding Rule 1.6 CORRUPTION BY CONFIDENTIALITY coming out of Pennsylvania – with emphasis on Scranton-Wilkes Barre? I really do not know that answer. I was one breath away from that question almost being answered yesterday. The call disconnected. Not able to reconnect.)

Where lawyers advanced fraudulent and robosigned paperwork, and successfully foreclosed on people – some homeowners did not even have mortgages on the property. Get this, that same attorney-client privilege may have also concealed that ‘there was NO BANK INVOLVED’, just a lawyer who knew his actions would be protected by Rule 1.6 Attorney-Client Privilege. BUT, Rule 1.6 is not called that.

Rule 1.6 is called CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION – it is a very broad application of confidentiality which conceals and protects, the courts, the judges, the lawyers, and possibly their clients too. lipstick-on-a-pig BUT, if you do any reading on the topic, the protection for their clients is moreso the pretty dress on a pig named “INJUSTICE”.

Rule 1.6 is SO CLEARLY STOOPID, that it prevents prosecution where the lawyer (aka prosecutor, DA, Attorney General, US Attorney) has ever represented the ‘accused’. THEY MADE IT A LAW… and the courts enforce it aggressively. They must conceal that the courts were undermined. To protect their judicial integrity… that ship has sailed… and has also been prevented from docking ever again (even when under the name of Reform.)

Ethics Reforms by the American Bar Association… ROFLMAO. The ABA made ethics illegal.

The ABA deliberately removed two fraud provisions from their Rule of Professional Conduct in 1983. The provisions had prevented a fraud from continuing, or ever being rectified… THE LAWYERS REMOVED THE LAW FROM THEIR ‘PROFESSIONAL ETHICS” DELIBERATELY. ON PURPOSE. BY VOTE (est 200-100). IN SPITEFUL DEFIANCE OF THE KUTAK COMMISSION’s documents.

AND NOT ONE LAWYER HAS EVER QUESTIONED THE AFFECT ON THE VICTIM’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Rule 1.6 is responsible for shredding the US Constitution. Well-written and Noted Horse’s ass Monroe Freedman, (Author of In Praise of Overzealous Representation – Lying to Judges, Deceiving Third Parties, and Other Ethical Conduct) always has a lie ready in defiance of ethics, indicated that

“We live in a Surveillance State in a Surveillance World. It is ever-expanding and omnipresent. It can never be removed or restricted, and our Constitution, with its Bill of Rights and separation of powers, has been lost forever.”

EXCUSE ME… Mr. Asshole… You have written about ethics ad vomitum. Are you claiming a victory in that sentence? Or are you a some special kind of new stupid?

CONSIDER the American Bar Association neglected to consider the rights of the innocent victim of their fraud (or their client’s fraud). When their ‘mythical duty’ of attorney-client secrecy stepped all over the rights and liberties secured and protected by the US Constitution… and wasn’t just a trade standard anymore because THEY MADE IT LAW.

Well, their ‘mythical duty’ is repugnant. Not a law. A nullity. Unconstitutional.

While they may have made it ‘legal’ for every lawyer, every judge and every level of law enforcement to conceal their crime, and obstruct justice, and deny constitutional rights.

Abuse of power under color of law – seems that you are not allowed to pretend it is ok to deny a person of their constitutional rights. When you oathed ‘preserve, protect, defend, support, enforce…’ you failed when you IGNORED… the Constituition of the United States.

AND along comes Krautheim and Healy, swinging the US Constitution, where the systemic infiltration of RULE 1.6, has been demonstrated by further acts of obstruction, denial and abuse EVEN IN THEIR ACTUAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE litigation. They demonstrated the loss of the very constitutional rights we filed to address. We didn’t need more evidence… or further failures of ethics and integrity.

Now when you have to turn to those who have committed a federal crime to fix the situation… where do you begin?

1) Expose the Problem and have everyone FIX IT.
2) Prosecute the crime against those same folks – who neglected to fix it when asked previously. NEGLECTED ALOT.
3) File for Civil Damages against the same folks. This must wait until it is fixed. Because SERIOUSLY… you proved it… you have no constitutional rights, no protection of the law, and “Constitution, with its Bill of Rights and separation of powers, has been lost forever.”… courtesy of the American Bar Association.

The Constitution is not LOST. Scan for problems. Fix/Purge. REBOOT!

AMERICA REBOOTED.

References:
OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS CAN NEVER BE RECOVEREDD by Monroe Freedman

In Praise of Overzealous Representation – Lying to Judges, Deceiving Third Parties, and Other Ethical Conduct by Monroe Freedman

image_pdfimage_print
2014
10.17

Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace;
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is discord, harmony;
Where there is error, truth;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
And where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, Grant that I may not so much seek
To be consoled as to console;
To be understood as to understand;
To be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive;
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

Kind of an empowering message that has been the basis of my life and my morality… since the days when I started singing in church. Powerful stuff.



What kind of world is this that we are living in where are our loved or hated for the color of our skin?
What kind of emptiness would make you so unkind?
what vein and heartless arrows have poisoned your minds?
What kind of place is this where we have all arrived?
Tell them they’re forgiven. But, tell them that they lie.

What kind of world is this when we dare to place upon the backs of our sisters so we can carry on?
What kind of heart pretends what it feels is true?
I know a love much stronger than the ghosts that follow you.
What kind of fool would judge me by the color of my eyes?
Tell them they’re forgiven. But, tell them that they lie.

Five hundred years of days and sorrows
– maybe selfish love is just too strong –
life only lasts for a moment we’ll turn around one day and be gone
So I cry… tell them they lie
Yea I cry… tell them they lie
Tell them they lie.
Tell them they lie.

do nv dah go hv i

America’s history Revisited: Tell Them They Lie


image3Sadly, in the assembly of this post, I learned of the passing of Priscilla Coolidge. Within the short span of one article, there was tremendous hope from a ‘song’ which had to be one of the earliest I ever learned… to the message that this is nothing new. It is not the first time any government has lied to it’s people. To the sadness of the loss of a ‘Gypsy Queen’ who influenced my life…. for that, I thank you.

image_pdfimage_print
2014
10.10

Breakdown of Rule 1.6 Issues – Volume List

- Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct Volume 1
- Improperly Enacted by the state supreme court(s) Volume 2
- Presented by the American Bar Association Volume 3
- Model Rules of Professional Conduct Volume 4
- The Collateral, Indirect and Absolute Denial of Rights Volume 5
- Rights Secured and Protected by the Constitution of the United States Volume 6
- Denying and Preventing Any Protection of the Law Volume 7
- A Litigant who has been the Victim of Fraud Volume 8
- Concealed from Disclosure Volume 9
- All Persons Directly Mandated to Follow the Rules of Professional Conduct Volume 10
- All lawyers, All judges, and All Law Enforcement Volume 11
- Within Each State Volume 13
- Within Each State Government Volume 14
- Within the Federal Government Volume 15
image_pdfimage_print
2014
10.10

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.”



nm0106-3-I1

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
godisjust

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.

image_pdfimage_print
2014
10.09

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.
godisjust


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.

a-woman-illuminates-darkness-using-a-match-to-light-a-candleBy 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.

image_pdfimage_print
2014
10.08

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.

shadow_friends_07The 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.

image_pdfimage_print
2014
10.06

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.

image_pdfimage_print
2014
10.05

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.

image_pdfimage_print
2014
10.04

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.

image_pdfimage_print