2013
09.15

The Rule 1.6 debate waves the trust of attorney-client relationships as a badge of honor for the profession. It then authorizes and mandates a denial of justice to anyone who is affected by their inability to tell the truth.

Get this. It is unconstitutional, SO the lawyers must tell the truth to the court. The client must tell the truth to the court. So, if they are afraid of the truth being stated in court, they will lie and be exposed for their fraud.

Rule 1.6 is a ridiculous notion of integrity, ethics and morality which suggests that a LAW which requires an attorney to present untrue information to the court to obstruct the court from learning the truth, while compromising justice, integrity and personal reputation is designed to make a client trust his attorney.

The Client just watched the attorney lie to the Court. To think that builds trust is flawed logic.

We are really supposed to believe that a client will trust someone more because that person will lie for them AT ALL COSTS WITHOUT REGARD FOR ANYTHING OR ANYONE ELSE EVEN AT THE COST OF THEIR OWN INTEGRITY. THAT’S JUST STUPID. Shared lies do not build trust. The relationship is called a conspiracy and it is co-dependant at best. All the honor, truth and integrity synonyms in the world when presented to conceal a MANDATE TO MISLEAD will not result in TRUST.

The pig is still a pig.

Rule 1.6 prevents truth and encourages making every effort to mislead the court to further conceal a falsehood.

There is nothing admirable about telling a lie in a proceeding designed to determine the truth.

The other thing that just doesn’t seem to make ANY appearance in any of the voluminous rhetoric surrounding The Rules of Professional Conduct.

(I have learned that what is not addressed or presented is often the baseline to consider.)

What about when the attorney is the one who initiates the untruth? When the attorney instructs the client to commit a crime? Their client can’t risk exposing that to the court. The client needs the lawyer, AND THE CLIENT KNOWS THAT THE ATTORNEY WILL LIE TO THE COURT. If the lawyer will lie to the court, what kind of lies might he tell the court to retaliate against a client that exposes the lawyers fraud upon the court

The explanation for what necessitates the Confidentiality is a lie. And yes, it seems lawyers MUST do that.

They are telling you they are required to lie and will do so, what makes anyone believe that they are telling the truth?

2013
09.15

I have heard an unconfirmed report that Gabrielle Drexler, who had been coerced into a guilty plea to avoid jail time for a perjury charge, has been incarcerated.

Her case indicates the misuse of the technology available to law enforcement to interfere and intercept people’s lives via phones and computers. They got her to plead guilty by aggressively threatening her with jail time. So to avoid jail, she plead guilty. I hear they have put her in jail this week anyway.

In this post-Snowden world, a trial would have been too damaging for the County and very difficult to conceal. So, the County renegs on their coerced deal with a girl represented by a County provided attorney. Ethics is not Montco’s strong suit. One might think that they apparently forgot about the pending case filed by Gabrielle in the US District Court which will expose their actions.

A trial would have revealed the county’s surveillance capabilities. I don’t imagine that DA Ferman informed the Grand Jury of those capabilities when seeking to prosecute the girl for perjury. Rule 1.6 excuses those opopsies. After the Merion School District SPYCAM mess, Montco didn’t want further scrutiny of their misconducts.

Usually, Risa Ferman uses the perjury scenario against the county officials who challenge her. She would need a 24 hour perjury court to handle all the perjury in Montco if she really cared about truth. That Public Corruption Task Force she created when she was elected hasn’t prosecuted anyone.

(You don’t suppose they misunderstood their job, and ARE CAUSING CORRUPTION? Hmmm. No worries Rule 1.6 will cover it up… until JUSTICE RETURNS.)

This last week, Montgomery County has been in the news for the ethics violations of Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio. Judge Carluccio knew she was violating ethics policies when it happened. She announced her violation to all of the parties involved in her unethical buying and selling of the county office space.

Judge Carluccio seems to be under the remarkable belief that if you boast about your lack of ethics you are not violating ethics rules. The PhillyNews editorial was also surprised at the inaccuracy of Judge Carluccio’s personal brand of ethics.

Review the malicious injustice that she has ordered upon litigants in her court and you will learn that her knowledge of the law and procedure is also her own personal brand.

Review the movie ART OF THE STEAL and you can actually see what Judge Carluccio looks like when she concocts her imaginary stories. She does not think well on her feet. Her delusions would be on the transcripts to my case BUT they are not being provided for my Appeal in Superior Court. (And Rule 1.6 is allowing the lower court to obstruct justice while the superior court wrestles with the pointlessness of them issuing an order which wouldn’t be followed citing Rule 1.6 – OR – citing Rule 1.6 themselves to avoid taking any action. A Rule that covers every conspiracy and crime.

I feel bad for Gabrielle. The necessity for the District Attorney to attack a young girl in order to conceal the county’s illegal use of surveillance technology to create and damage evidence was the priority.

The District Attorney is way too busy concealing the crimes of the county judiciary and her various task forces.

The County’s new rule provides methods for hacking into EVERY litigant in the county who files electronically. This will help with cclearing the court calendar…. litigants won’t get their email notices and won’t show up for court. They lose by default, and the county blames the victim indicating they sent an email. SOMEHOW THIS HAS BEEN MADE THE OFFICIAL MONTGOMERY COUNTY PROCESS EVEN WHEN THE FLAWS IN THEIR SYSTEM ARE OBVIOUS, as it their intent to deny access to the courts. I suppose it will reduce the volume and varieties of judicial misconduct.

The Prothonotary has ignored my reports to them of the outdated and invalid certificate on their servers for years which creates an opportunity for computers to be illegally accessed. Is the County behind it? or their Private Investigators? or the opposing counsel? or anyone who goes up on the county web site and sees that “E” and knows your computers are exposed.

Peopple have been wondering why lawyers have begun running for the job of Prothonotary, and other Row Officers. The answer is simple. Rule 1.6. Once they have the Prothonotary as a lawyer mandated to conceal their misconduct and crimes, they don’t have to worry about a rogue individual not cooperating in their injustice. Though Mark Levy has cooperated and not done his job in my case. It is too risky for him to not be under Rule 1.6. Yes, Rule 1.6 makes continued injustice mandatory.

Anyone who breaks Rule 1.6 does not get back into their Bar Organization. That’s what happened to Judge Ann Lokuta when she reported on the misconduct of Judge Ciavarella in the Kids for Cash scandal. She violated Rule 1.6. Even after Ciavarella was convicted by the Federal Govt of incarcerating 5000 kids, Judge Lokuta could not get her job back. Rule 1.6 makes doing the right thing IMPOSSIBLE.

So it seems folks spend way too many TAX DOLLARS on their twisted avoidance of the laws and ethics which they ignore anyway.

At what point did the Montgomery County realize that they were above the law AND free to deny constitutionally protected civil rights of the people. Rule 1.6 has been in effect in Pennsylvania since the 80’s.. and they terrorized me for 8 years by ignoring my rights. That could all be hidden until my case escaped to Superior Court – an action which Judge Page was not able to undo – no action too unlawful, too corrupt. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 will demonstrate the unconstitutional aspect of THEIR failure to enforce (or follow) the law…

Attorney General Kathleen Kane has denied responsibility for enacting or enforcing Rule 1.6. We have asked who has that responsibility. And when she responds with regard to the unconstitutional delegations of authority, the judiciary may regain its integrity, lawyers can regain their self respect, and the legislature can do their job.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

Persevere. When is the media going to notice the effort to resurrect justice? Afterwards, there will still be news to report. There will simply be less injustice.

%d bloggers like this: