“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.

A client could manipulate their lawyer to participate in a fraud,
A lawyer could manipulate their client to participate in a fraud.
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.

stick-me-with-a-fork-im-done-tracy-glantzAt 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.

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: