2014
06.24

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane neglected to include the following disclaimer in the Sandusky Report. This DISCLAIMER would have eliminated the questions raised by the report.

D I S C L A I M E R
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, the Attorney General’s office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers.

The Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandate confidentiality of client information where the information
– would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
– would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office,
– would expose individual liability,
– would adversely affect their client.

AS SUCH…

The Report to the Attorney General in the Investigation of Gerald Sandusky may not legally present
– anything which exposes a negative impact of the judiciary
– anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Tom Corbett
– anything which exposes misconduct of Governor Tom Corbett
– anything which exposes misconduct of Acting Attorney General William H. Ryan, Jr
– anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Linda Kelly
– anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Kathleen Kane
– anything which exposes misconduct of the Attorney General’s office
– anything which exposes misconduct of Frank Fina
– anything which exposes misconduct the Commonwealth
– anything which exposes misconduct of any state agency
– anything which exposes misconduct, participation or acts of obstruction by any of the above in their individual capacity, or as a conspiracy
– anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 3, 2009
– anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on May 2, 2009
– anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 9, 2012
– anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 18, 2012
– anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on June 16, 2012
– anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on July 4, 2012
– anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on November 21, 2013
– anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to create, modify or fine tune any “LAW” regarding the Confidentiality of Email concealed within the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Further, acting as Attorney General, I have contracted the creation of the report to Widener University law professor and former federal prosecutor H. Geoffrey Moulton.

( You might say “I am his client.” and that the Rules of Professional Conduct mandate his confidentiality for my protection. )

Because, I AM. and IT DOES.

The Report additionally will not contain any information regarding the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION which was filed in federal court on August 8, 2013 (by two men who do not have to maintain confidentiality so we do it for them) seeking to restore the constitutional rights of litigants while restoring the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession and to deliver to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.

The Challenge now approaches the United States Supreme Court and the United States Congress where every level of the state and federal judiciary has ignored the clear evidence of the Courts’ denial of constitutional rights and demonstrated their own actions to prevent resolution of the matter which was served to fifty-six states attorneys general – all of whom defaulted on the matter… YET, THE COURT IGNORED THEIR DELIBERATE DEFAULT.

P.S.

Yes, I shot my mouth off during my campaign for Attorney General of Pennsylvania,
AND
I promised to investigate Attorney General Tom Corbett’s mishandling of the Sandusky case,
AND
I believed Corbett to be stalling the case so it would not impact his run for Governor,
AND
I was elected to the position of Attorney General,
AND
I have an obligation to the People of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

BUT, as Attorney General, these corrupt and incompetent horses asses are NOW my clients, my boss, and my staff… The RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT mandate confidentiality.

With regard to the non-participation of the Pennsylvania State Police in the preparation and assembly of this report…. Did someone tell the PSP that we wouldn’t publish anything they might have to say because of our confidentiality mandate? Their participation would have potentially require a great deal of redaction and editing.

The Pennsylvania State Police do NOT have a Confidentiality Mandate. If they were to issue a report, I imagine it would be different.

1.6 Confidentiality of Information – While the Model Rule 1.6(a) duty of confidentiality is closely related to the attorney-client privilege, it is broader in scope than the attorney-client privilege, “which is a rule of evidence,” or “the work product immunity which is a rule of procedure.”

Rule 1.6 causes a mandated confidentiality of information regarding injustice and judicial corruption.

This was demonstrated in Luzerne County where Kids For Cash was IGNORED by every judge, district attorney, prosecutor and lawyer… until Judge Ann Lokuta violated the law and called the FBI to report Ciavarella et al. Ann Lokuta was disciplined and removed from the bench for her violations of Rule 1.6.

The Foreclosure Crisis nationwide was caused similarly by an ACT OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT resulting in the loss of constitutional rights and the loss of homes to fraudulent actions filed by lawyers (and judges) MANDATED to maintain confidentiality.

THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS LET THIS HAPPEN TO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.
THEY. LET. IT. HAPPEN.

Rule 1.6 mandates that an Attorney General ignore judicial corruption and injustice
– without regard for the number of children improperly incarcerated by a judge,
– without regard for the number of homes foreclosed upon using fraudulent documents,
– without regard for basic constitutional, civil and human rights,
– without regard for the denial of equal protection of the law,
– without regard for the law,
– without regard for an oath of office,
– without regard for ethics or morality, and
– without mercy for the victims overwhelmed, destitute and pushed to their limits who commit suicide.

Rule 1.6 DELIBERATELY PREVENTS LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL…

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: