Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information has a broad affect on victims of an injustice. The affect will deny, prevent and obstruct justice FOREVER. There is no escaping it. There is no method by which you can succeed. NONE. EVER.

A person can lose all protection of the law and all constitutional rights because of a simple injustice, even when that injustice is being concealed. The efforts to conceal that injustice can, and likely will, become far worse than the initial injustice. With no protection of the law and no constitutional rights, the person can only be described as ‘victim’.

The initial injustice in my case, which was documented in 2010, had occurred in August 2007. It was concealed for three years while affecting and undermining every proceeding.

Every document which I filed with the courts was in good faith and not designed to build a massive volume of evidence. I wanted to see my children. I wanted court orders to be enforced. The volume of evidence created by my efforts to survive the concealed injustice is massive.

The case has been before 20 judges of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, yet has NEVER been before the judge responsible for the initial injustice. Judge Rhonde Lee Daniele, head of the Family Court Division.

Clearly, I believed in justice. I was not aware that the judiciary had been undermined and usurped. It took seven years of constant litigation and lawlessness until it was impossible to deny the single point of failure. The only person in the courtroom who believed in justice was ME. Their victim who could never succeed who repeatedly pointed out the fraud and lawlessness and was IGNORED.

Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information is referred to by lawyers as Attorney Client privilege, but the affect of Rule 1.6 is far broader than a lawyer keeping a secret for his client. Rule 1.6 affects every legal professional, lawyer and law enforcement, and MANDATES their silence, non-exposure, participation in every effort which prevents disclosure or exposure.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality involves four distinct aspects…
1. Confidentiality
2. Non-Disclosure
3. Fraud, and continued fraud to conceal fraud
4. No action which rectifies the fraud is allowed.

Where fraud is undeniably a crime, the American Bar Association have made fraud not only legal, but mandatory for all lawyers.

Where continued fraud and prevention of any resolution is wrong and unethical, the American Bar Association has mandated unethical activities for all lawyers within their “Ethics Rules”.

Where the American Bar Association has presented their Model Rules of Professional Conduct to the state supreme courts to enact into law, their mandates to commit crime and unethical activity have caused systemic problems which undermine the judicial branch.


In order to assure the independence of the judiciary to make decisions, judges are granted immunity from prosecution for judicial errors no matter how malicious or grievous their actions.

HOWEVER, Rule 1.6 requires that the “initial injustice’ not be addressed at anytime. Ever.

Rule 1.6 allows any and every action which prevents exposure. This is most often accomplished by the judge IGNORING the issue, even when it is the only issue which the judge is considering.

Where Rule 1.6 MANDATES continued injustice to the victim who cannot succeed where the injustice may be revealed, the judge is not permitted to render an independent decision based on the facts. The lack of an ability to render an independent decision affects the immunity accorded to the judge.

Where the continued injustice defies explanation…
Where errors can not be excused…
Where single issues are ignored within decisions…
Where law is not applied…
Where appearances in court are prevented…
Where facts ON THE RECORD are ignored…
Where there is an overall disregard for the facts…
NON-DISCLOSURE is evident.
FRAUD is evident.
Any action to RECTIFY FRAUD is evident.
Rule 1.6 is evident.

While an evident and proven lack of judicial independence causes the loss of judicial immunity, the judge could be subjected to criminal and civil lawsuits, or disciplinary actions.

NO, you CANNOT win. Rule 1.6 prevents justice FOREVER.

Criminal prosecution does not occur because the District Attorney/state Attorney General are mandated by Rule 1.6. The crime will be ignored.

Federal criminal prosecution does not occur because the Department of Justice/US Attorneys and all government lawyers are mandated by Rule 1.6 under the McDade-Murtha Amendment – the local version of Rule 1.6 applies to them. The violation of constitutional rights will be ignored.

Civil lawsuit within Pennsylvania cannot be successful as the Court is mandated by Rule 1.6. The lawsuit will be avoided by the courts based on disinformation.

Federal lawsuit brought in Federal district court will not be successful as the District Court has indicated within their ‘LOCAL RULES’ that the local Rules of Professional Conduct apply. The lawsuit will be avoided by the courts based on disinformation.

I persist only for the purpose of removing this corrupt and unconstitutional law with the knowledge that every lawyer and court in the United States is prevented from permitting any exposure, resolution or fix to the Rule 1.6 corruption.

I persist with the knowledge that every action with the court will be obstructed, prevented or ignored.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had enacted the Rule into Law. Rule 1.6 prevents the Supreme Court from removing their own law as it would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. A self-defense mechanism within Rule 1.6.

The Pennsylvania Constitution does not permit the Supreme Court to enact a law which affects a persons substantive rights. Rule 1.6 prevents the court from addressing that it lacked the authority to enact Rule 1.6.

No lawyer may take any action to remove the law, pursuant to Rule 1.6.

No judge may take any action to remove the law, pursuant to Rule 1.6.

No Government Attorney may take any action to remove the law, pursuant to Rule 1.6 AND the McDade-Murtha Amendment which requires federal lawyers to follow the rules within the state they are investigating or working.

In accordance with the Pennsylvania Constitution, ONLY THE PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE can set aside a law.
After ten months of attempts to get a meeting with State Representative Kathy Watson, we met.

As a non-lawyer in the Pennsylvania Legislature, Rep. Watson is not obligated under Rule 1.6. Rep. Watson’s recognition and willingness to address this issue within the Pennsylvania Legislature put her in harms way. There is no doubt that the threat she received was real. A local state senator, a lawyer, had relayed the information about a supposed threat to her. I had made no threat. Why would I threaten the ONLY person who could fix the issue?

I persist with the fear and peril heard in the voicemail from State Representative Kathy Watson demonstrating genuine panic and jeopardy from a threat against her.

Where Representative Kathy Watson was preparing to inform the Pennsylvania Legislature of the corruption and systemic problems caused by Rule 1.6, because of a reported unsubstantiated threat, she indicated that she would take no action, no meeting, no discussion of the matter any further. EVER.

I went to the police to explain the reality of the threat which she had received. The police were already certain that I had made no threat. I would not be investigated, prosecuted, etc. The police at the same time would take no action to address the Rule 1.6 problem even where a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature had been threatened.

The systemic problem caused by the American Bar Association whose membership is permitted to do ANYTHING to continue the fraud or to conceal the fraud. The ABA with local, state and affiliated organizations existing at every level of the judiciary are permitted to obstruct, deny and prevent justice in violation of every law, every procedure and every constitutional right pursuant to Rule 1.6.

Rule 1.6, an unconstitutional law, improperly enacted without authority, has trumped the Constitution of the United States.

The American Bar Association did it. Deliberately. Had it not been deliberate and intentional, every opportunity for resolution would not be prevented.

The ABA will do everything without regard for any law to conceal how they have usurped the authority of the judiciary and undermined the judicial branch of the American Government.

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: