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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: