Ferguson - Another Rule 1.6 Injustice defying resolution

FERGUSON - Another Rule 1.6 injustice which cannot be resolved or addressed?

Missouri's version of Rule 1.6 DOES NOT CONTAIN THE FRAUD PROVISIONS.

What that means is that legal professionals/lawyers MUST commit fraud to conceal prior fraud, and that FRAUD MUST CONTINUE where there is no lawful method permitted to rectify the fraud.

It sounds crazy, BUT the American Bar Association made FRAUD 'LEGAL' in their Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

When each state supreme court enacted the Model Rules into LAW, the FRAUD BECAME MANDATORY with all legal professionals required to maintain confidentiality even if it causes the fraud to continue or worsen, EVEN WHILE PREVENTING ANY ACTION TO RECTIFY THE FRAUD.

The lawyers called the Model Rules their 'ethical standard' BUT fraud is a crime.

Fraud is illegal. Fraud is immoral. FRAUD IS UNETHICAL TOO.

So how did this happen? Why has it not been corrected? The same LAW prevents any legal professional from exposing the corruption and the unconstitutionality of Rule 1.6.

One person is to blame for the continuing injustice in the US.

Randall Henzes, a lawyer employed by the Office of the Pennsylvania Attorney General.

After EVERY state attorney general had defaulted on the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6, Henzes filed a late Document on behalf of the PA Attorney General. His actions have prevented the entire United States from justice.

There could have been justice in Ferguson. Randall Henzes prevented it. Rule 1.6 is so POWERFUL that Attorney General Kathleen Kane has been silenced - permitting injustice to continue.

"I knew that I was walking into public corruption. Which again is why I ran. But I will tell you this. Even I am shocked at the level of public corruption. I am shocked at how deep it goes. I am shocked at how powerful it is. I have never seen anything like this." - Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General

Rule 1.6 prevents any legal professionals and law enforcement from action to address Henzes sabotage of the federal case.

Yes... it is very unconstitutional. It prevents JUSTICE.

For an overview of the problem CLICK HERE.

#Ferguson #Rule1point6

http://work2bdone.com/live/2014/11/overview-of-the-challenge-to-rule-1-6/

Jokes Lawyers send Lawyers

Legal Professionals know their Model Rules of Professional Conduct lack ethics, morality, and mandate fraud.

It's not funny where the lack of ethics is real.

ex tenebris ad lucem 2

Breakdown of Rule 1.6 Issues - Volume List

- Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct	Volume 1
- Improperly Enacted by the state supreme court(s)	Volume 2
- Presented by the American Bar Association	Volume 3
- Model Rules of Professional Conduct	Volume 4
- The Collateral, Indirect and Absolute Denial of Rights	Volume 5
- Rights Secured and Protected by the Constitution of the United States	Volume 6
- Denying and Preventing Any Protection of the Law	Volume 7
- A Litigant who has been the Victim of Fraud	Volume 8
- Concealed from Disclosure	Volume 9
- All Persons Directly Mandated to Follow the Rules of Professional Conduct	Volume 10
- All lawyers, All judges, and All Law Enforcement	Volume 11
- Within Each State	Volume 13
- Within Each State Government	Volume 14
- Within the Federal Government	Volume 15

ex tenebris ad lucem

Where those who permit injustice while ignoring the rule of law and the principles contained in the Constitution are causing liberty to be in peril; holding justice hostage; undermining the essence of judicial independence; and usurping the authority of the judicial branch while concealing continued corruption by unethical, immoral and unscrupulous actions in the name of 'integrity',...

Every American has a responsibility to take action to preserve, protect, support and defend the integrity of the judiciary from any further jeopardy.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct was improperly enacted by the state Supreme Court(s) when presented by the American Bar Association within their Model Rules of Professional Conduct causing the collateral, indirect, and absolute denial of rights secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States while denying and preventing any protection of the law to a litigant who has been the victim of fraud concealed from disclosure by every person, and organization, directly mandated to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct – who include all lawyers, all judges, and all law enforcement within each state, within each state government, and within the federal government.

By freeing the courts from a crippling shameful burden and further self-sabotage, we restore the integrity of the judiciary, reestablish authority and jurisdiction, and return the government provided by the Constitution of the United States to purpose: to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

By our own necessity, and on behalf of the People of the United States of America,
We respectfully and sincerely petition for your immediate attention and action.

PERSEVERE. JUSTICE IS COMING.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality - Immoral? Unethical? Illegal? Wrong?

Any law which denies a person of the rights and privileges which are secured and protected by the US Constitution are unconstitutional, a nullity, and were never a law.
AGREED. Whether on the face of the 'law' or by a collateral effect, Unconstitutional.

Are there exceptions to this constitutional protection?
NOPE. They would be unconstitutional, too.

---

A simple example.

You have been the victim of a fraud.

It is not moral or ethical to require another person to participate in fraud.
It is not moral or ethical to deny a victim of the truth.
It is not moral or ethical to conceal a truth from the victim or the court.
It is not moral or ethical to participate in the furtherance of a crime.
It is not moral or ethical to deny a victim equal protection of the law.
It is not moral or ethical to deny a victim of constitutionally protected rights.

To REQUIRE a person to participate in fraud, concealing fraud or to act in the furtherance of fraud.
That is unethical.
That is immoral.
That is illegal.
That is wrong.

SO.... enter a courtroom (civil, not criminal court)....

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality requires a lawyer to participate in a fraud committed by their client by not disclosing the truth to the court, or the victim. Additionally, the lawyer may not disclose information to prevent the furtherance of a crime.
[Attorney-Client Privilege is an oft-misused pseudonym for Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.]

HOLD THAT THOUGHT... Did you just consider that it might be 'OK'?

The lawyer - an officer of the court - is following the ethics rules.
(Ethics indicates a choice.)
The lawyer - an officer of the court - is following the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(Can illegal and wrong be 'professional'?)

The victim has been frauded.
The victim is denied equal protection of the law and constitutional protections.
The victim is exposed for actions in furtherance of the fraud.
and
In a hearing, the judge REQUIRES the lawyer to conceal the truth.
The lawyer wanted to reveal the truth - the moral, ethical and right thing to do.
A law indicates the lawyer must be silent.
The furtherance of the fraud has occurred... in the courtroom.
The judge is participating in the furtherance of the fraud pursuant to law.
The victim is damaged while the truth is concealed.
The judge rules AGAINST the victim rewarding the criminal/lawyer and ordering a payment to the client.

IS IT STILL OK?
The Lawyer wanted to reveal the truth. The Law made that illegal.
The lawyer's discretion was not allowed.

[When enacted into LAW, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality was no longer discretionary. It was mandated.]

The fraud continues/extends.

The crime is reported to the District Attorney.
The District Attorney does nothing to investigate, prosecute, or prevent the crime from continuing.
Exposure would embarrass the judge. Crime Report is ignored.

The fraud continues/extends.

Still OK?

The victim obtains the information, everyone goes back to court.
The judge recuses.
The new judge ignores the truth and rules against the victim. The judges does not want to embarrass the court.

STILL OK?

The crime with the evidence is reported to the District Attorney.
The crime report is ignored.

The fraud continues/extends.
The injustice is leveraged in the court causing further damage to the victim.

A NEW PARTY files in court referring to the fraud.
The injustice is leveraged in the court causing further injustice to the victim.

The victim has no opportunity to escape, or for resolution, or for redress.
The victim is being denied any protection under the law.
The victim is being denied their constitutional rights.

The lawyer can do nothing to end the crimes against the victim.
The courts will do nothing to end the crimes against the victim.
Law Enforcement will to nothing to end the crimes against the victim.

The Law requires a lawyer to conceal information of a client fraud, or in the furtherance of a fraud.
That Law is denying the victim of their constitutional rights and protection of the law.

Any law which denies a person of the rights and privileges which are secured and protected by the US Constitution is unconstitutional, a nullity, and was never a law.

The law is unconstitutional.
The judge denied, obstructed and prevented the victim's constitutional rights based on an unconstitutional law.
The judge knew that constitutional rights were being denied, prevented and ignored.
Law Enforcement is following the same law at state and federal levels.

Government Officials ignore the victim.

The Legislature ignores the victim.
The Governor ignores the victim.
The State Supreme Court ignores the victim.
... they swore to preserve, protect, defend, support, enforce, etc ... the US Constitution.

IT'S IMPORTANT. WHY WOULD THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT BE IGNORING THE VICTIM?
The Unconstitutional law was enacted in 1987, effective in 1988.
Enacted by the Supreme Court, under their authority, except the court lacks authority where a law affects a litigant's rights. The law is improperly enacted.
The Governor sent you a letter - but it was wrong, partial phrases, and disinformation.
The Legislature - after meetings with Representatives and Senators - no replies.

CONSIDER THAT INITIAL FRAUD IN THE EXAMPLE....
1) The fraud was a fake/forged deed used to foreclose on the victim.
2) The judge threw a child in jail. The judge was paid to do it.
3) The lawyer committed the fraud and blamed it on the client.

WHO IS THE CLIENT? People may be surprised to learn that the opposing attorney is not who you may think. The perception is logical, the reality may be different. Their client is not there. Only an attorney appears - never indicating who's interests he is responsible for. The people, the bank, the title company, or a contract lawyer who specializes - appearing in court on single issues? The subject matter expert - able to throw all available rhetoric to misdirect no regard for fact, or truths, or reality. Lawyers are excused to mislead by attorney-client privilege, BUT that's only for their client. Lawyers may become undone when asked WHO they represent, who is paying them to appear in court, and in who's interest are they employed? THE HESITATION, RESISTANCE OR INABILITY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION will demonstrate deception.

It happens often... Watergate attorneys didn't know if the represented Richard Nixon, or the Office of the President of the United States. They went to jail because they got it wrong.

Sometimes clients think government attorneys are representing them, and NOT the government/public interests. Proximity is not privilege. The lawyer sitting next to you may not be YOUR lawyer protecting YOUR interests. Same goes for the opposing lawyer. ASK THE WHO IS YOUR CLIENT? QUESTION. It won't seem so stupid, when they evade the response.

Foreclosures have occurred. Only a lawyer appeared against the homeowner. Paperwork was forged, robo-signed, fake and fraudulent. People lost their homes. People only thinking the bank committed the fraud. But, NO ONE WENT TO JAIL. Was it Attorney Client privilege protecting the bank? or Attorney Client PRETEND - permitting a lawyer to commit a crime while pretending to have a client? A serious concern quickly exposed...

FOLLOW THE MONEY - the one getting paid or profiting from the experience. Who DOES that lawyer work for anyway? Ask, and the response or evasion, might surprise you.

Rule 1.6 provides an opportunity for a lawyer to conceal a fraud for their client, and to act further to conceal the fraud for their client. When pretending they have a client, lawyers get those same protections. (The lawyers know that already, did you?)

An Unconstitutional law which requires unethical, immoral and illegal conduct and prevents a person from discretion between right and wrong which has resulted in victims being victimized denied their constitutional rights and prevented protection under the law without opportunity for escape.
... has been on the books affecting lives in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania since 1988.

The Governor, Legislature and the Courts should be ashamed of their inaction. They were informed over a year ago and have done nothing to address the unconstitutional 'law'.

The American Bar Association who knew that their 'minimum ethical standard' which lacked ethics and was titled the Model Rules of Professional Conduct were unconstitutional. Yet, they provided the Model Rules to be enacted into LAW by the state Supreme Court.

The American Bar Association rolled out their Model Rules to every state from 1984 (New Jersey) to 2009 (Maine). When addressing the unconstitutionality of the confidentiality section, they REMOVED provisions which would have allowed disclosure to address a fraud, AND disclosure to stop the continuance of fraud.

The Governor, at least half of the Legislature, and the Court are lawyers. Members. SNAP!

The National Foreclosure crisis frequently featured a forged, fraudulent and/or robo-signed deed submitted to the courts. The courts allowed the false documents and proceeded with foreclosures against victims whose rights were ignored. The law was ignored to allow the foreclosures to proceed.

Law Enforcement informed of the fraud has prosecuted no one for the crime. Rule 1.6 explains that.

Confidentiality Manipulated to Destroy an Adversary

"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.

CONFIDENTIALITY EXTRAPOLATED: A client could manipulate their lawyer to participate in a fraud, and A lawyer could manipulate their client to participate in a fraud. and 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.

At 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 ordinary American cares about their constitutional rights. CORRECT!!!!

Vice President Biden is absolutely CORRECT!!!

The meme/picture gets alot of play on the web with people indicating that the Vice President is wrong, uninformed, and a variety of other aspersions.

Americans have been trained to ignore the TRUTH. In spite of facts and experience, the TRUTH and the messenger are attacked for challenging a belief and trust. The American Government would never let that happen.

BUT, it did.

---

When you consider that the American Bar Association began implementing their effort in 1984 in New Jersey. Sold as Ethics Policy for Lawyers, every state supreme court enacted the ABA Model Rules between 1984 and 2009. The Model Rules have no basis in ethics or morality.

The ABA knew that their Confidentiality clause would require an attorney to NOT expose a fraud committed by their client EVEN where the attorney was manipulated into being a part of the crime.

Attorney-Client privilege. BULLSHIT! It is a mandate to participate in fraud and further frauds against a victim who is being denied their constitutional protections.

Those who swear to preserve, protect, defend, enforce, support, ... the US Constitution were also mandated to conceal the fraud. It affects every level of state and federal court, every lawyer and federal attorney.

AND THEY DID.

Over 40 million homes foreclosed through fraud.

Over 4000 children and families affect in Cash for Kids.

Uncounted suicides by those victimized by the injustice and prevented any resolution or escape.

Simple execution. Get each court to enact their Professional Code into LAW under their authority to enact law for the business of the courts. Conceal that the Rules cause an unconstitutional denial of protected rights. The choice regarding confidentiality which had been discretionary as LAW is MANDATED.

In 1983, the ABA had removed two provisions from Rule 1.6 Confidentiality which permitted a lawyer to speak where silence would conceal or permit “substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another”;
and
where the lawyer was seeking “to rectify the consequences of a client’s criminal or fraudulent act in the furtherance of which the lawyer’s services have been used.”

Yep, the American Bar Association planned ahead for foreclosure fraud and more... no one went to jail.

BUT, the unconstitutional impact of the law prevents the state supreme court from proper authority to enact the law. BUT, THEY DID ENACT THE LAW IN EVERY STATE.

The CONFIDENTIALITY of Rule 1.6 prevents any lawyers from exposing the situation, and prevents the courts from correcting or resolving the situation. BUT, IT'S NOT A LAW SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW IT.

The level of intimidation and threat which prevents this issue from being addressed must be big. Very big. So much so that no one has fixed it while it has destroyed millions of lives. MILLIONS.

In Pennsylvania, the ability to suspend law is available only to the Legislature. The entire Legislature has been notified. NOTHING. Meetings held with state Senator Chuck McIlhinney. NOTHING. Meetings with State Representative Marguerite Quinn and Kathy Watson.

The level or fear, terror and peril in Kathy Watson's voicemail message when she cancelled subsequent meetings was palpable. She had gone to police. I went to police also. I assured police that I had not made any threat against Rep Watson. Knowing that she was preparing to formally present the matter before the Legislature, it is entirely conceivable that she had been threatened.

This is big. The American Bar Association planned and executed the sedition of the judicial branch, in every state and federally. The ABA had undermined the Rule of Law, the US Constitution, the state constitution.

With the courts authority usurped, the courts were subjected to leverage and manipulation. Courts lost their judicial independence which is a necessity for jurisdiction. That independence is so essential that the judiciary is granted immunity from prosecution for anything as a safeguard of their independence. The courts continued to function without lawful authority.

The affect on the integrity of the courts was visible. The public trust had been violated. YET, STILL NO ONE EXPLAINED, OR CORRECTED, or preserved, protected, defended, supported, or enforced the US Constitution.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality prevents lawyers and the judiciary from action.

Though an unconstitutional law is a nullity, exposing sedition and treason by the American Bar Association with it's over 400,000 members might be somewhat intimidating.

The lawyers are silent. The politicians are silent. The courts are silent.

Because their unconstitutional law, which denies constitutional rights, has undermined the government and been used to terrorize the American People.

And Americans watched as the rights of their neighbors were denied. They did nothing.
It affected millions. They did nothing.
The fraud upon the court was exposed and publicized. They did nothing.
When Americans need their rights, they are NOT available.

Americans do not care about their Constitutional Rights. Joe Biden is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, BUT that is about as much as counselor Biden is permitted to reveal without violating Rule 1.6 Confidentiality.

Notice the politicians ignoring the US Constitution. They want Americans to notice. BUT, perhaps they are trying to demonstrate that it is time for American to care.

Remove Unconstitutional Rule 1.6 and the US Constitution is reBooted.

Let's clarify the Veeps message:

No ordinary American cares about their Constitutional Rights, ... I wish they did.

McDade-Murtha: Prevents US Attorney from addressing UnConstitutionality

With 90% of the state supreme courts having inexplicably enacted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct into law, in 1998, using the distraction of 'No Contact' situations, McDade-Murtha appears to be a critical point in the effort to make certain that federal authorities could not prosecute / investigate / expose judicial crimes within any state.

The Model Rules - and specifically the much-referenced Rule 1.6 Confidentiality - were applicable to all lawyers within the state, and all federal lawyers working in the state. The conspiracy of silence was secured by an unconstitutional state law, a memo from US Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, and a federal law requiring the US Attorney to be complicit and silent. Clearly, a great deal of effort went into every action which would prevent recognition and revelation that the Judicial branch at the state AND federal levels had been compromised, judicial independence undermined, and lack of jurisdiction for the court to act was being ignored - by lawlessness which persisted through state law, federal law and the US Constitution.

After McDade-Murtha, there could be no federal intervention when a state judge violated your constitutional rights. The 1983 abuse of power claims already had their prepared scripts which enabled dismissal when filed against judges. There is no indication that the complete lack of any constitutional review of the law by the states before enacting the Model Rules was ever mentioned.

McDade-Murtha 'doubled-down' using a federal law which obligated federal authorities to follow a state law which had had no constitutional review, no proper construction by the legislature, no signature of a governor, and had collateral effect of denying, obstructing and preventing constitutional rights. The unavailability of constitutional protections overwhelms every aspect of the target's life.

Responding to the corruption which decimated Cook County Courthouse (Operation Greylord), judges had secured a lawful ability to commit judicial corruption, injustice, denial of constitutional rights, and ignore the law within their courtrooms without ANY accountability. Judicial immunity covered decisions and was necessitated by judicial independence. BUT, this absolute above-the-law and unaccountable to any law, conduct board or authority, demonstrated a loss of judicial independence which undermined jurisdiction and nullified judicial immunity.

The reasoning for judicial immunity, or absolute immunity, was no longer applicable when the court's actions to ignore the constitutional rights of litigants deliberately lacked lawful authority and violated the US Constitution - the supreme law of the land. As the state judiciary had undermined their own authority, immunity should NOT be applicable for their deliberate corrupt actions.

---

The Federal law was referred to as the CITIZENS PROTECTION ACT and HOFFA's REVENGE. Many scoffed at the contradiction of referring to the law as the Citizen's Protection Act - it was designed to hinder, prevent or undermine any federal prosecution effort. The Model Rules enacted into state law prevented prosecution of judges within the state by prohibiting attorneys, district attorneys and attorneys general from action which would adversely affect the integrity of the courts.

While protecting the integrity of the courts is essential, the convoluted and twisted logic of protecting integrity by sacrificing the integrity of the entire judiciary and the entire legal profession to conceal massive crimes of the corrupt is more than simply wrong. It is evil - a crime against humanity.

This has been demonstrated by Kids for Cash affecting thousands of children and families. This has been demonstrated by the MILLIONS of families affected by fraudulent foreclosures nationwide. This has been demonstrated by the destructive actions of 'family court' judges. The Kids for Cash judges went to jail for tax evasion, NOT their obvious offense. These three types of corruption CONTINUE to occur daily in the American courts. There is no law in America to stop or prevent judicial corruption and denial of basic constitutional and human rights. THIS IS EVIL, PROTECTED BY LAW.

McDade was successful in his efforts to ensure DOJ attorneys adhere to state bar ethics standards. The text of the statutory change he authored, commonly referred to as the "McDade Amendment," is as follows:

(a) An attorney for the Government shall be subject to State laws and rules, and local Federal court rules, governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages in that attorney’s duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.
(b) The Attorney General shall make and amend rules of the Department of Justice to assure compliance with this section.
(c) As used in this section, the term “attorney for the Government” includes any attorney described in section 77.2(a) of part 77 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations and also includes any independent counsel, or employee of such a counsel, appointed under chapter 40.

The McDade Amendment principally applies to DOJ lawyers but is also applicable to attorneys from other federal government departments and agencies working with the DOJ.

---

The McDade-Murtha Amendment, 28 U.S.C. 530B, requires federal prosecutors to follow state and federal rules of professional responsibility in effect in the states where they conduct their activities.

It also continues in place the sixty year old directive that federal prosecutors follow the ethics rules promulgated by the states in which they are licensed to practice.

Proponents claim the change will confirm that federal prosecutors must follow the same ethical rules as other lawyers and will enhance the prospect of some protection against wayward federal prosecutors.

Opponents charge that it will implicitly undermine the Attorney General's authority to preempt state laws that conflict with federal law enforcement interests
AND
that in doing so it will jeopardize the use of undercover techniques against terrorists, drug kingpins and child predators because of possible interpretations of the so-called no contact rule.


The Pennsylvania connection is evident in EVERY effort relating to undermining the state and federal judiciary AND the impossibility of the victim surviving the overwhelming effect.

Dick Thornburgh, Joseph McDade, and John Murtha were all from Pennsylvania.

I assure you, EVERY US Attorney was contacted.

Reference:
Jimmy Hoffas Revenge- White-Collar Rights Under the McDade Amendment

The Effect of State Ethics Rules on Federal Law Enforcement
The McDade Amendment principally applies to DOJ lawyers but is also applicable to attorneys from other federal government departments and agencies working with the DOJ. See Memorandum for Command Counsels, Office of Command Counsel Newsletter (U.S. Army Material Command, Office of the Command Counsel, Ft. Belvoir, Va.), Dec. 1999, at 52–53.

Cease & Desist - ABA undermines US Constitution

The Cease And Desist letter sent to the ABA is not a joke or prank or goof.

Once the Model Rules of Professional Conduct were enacted into law by a state supreme court, your constitutional rights were no longer available to you. You would not know this until you discovered they were unavailable... IGNORED... HUH? No lawyer or judge could help you. Friends would think you turned into a radical or went crazy. Unaffected people would not believe it could happen.

Everyone has Constitutional Rights up until they don't. And then, there's nothing you can do about it. No where to turn. No politicians to help. The lawyers are mandated to ignore you. The non-lawyers ask their lawyers what it's all about... and are misinformed into ignoring you.

Deliberately rolled out from 1984 through 2009. (ABA Site)

IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING EVIL... DO IT INSIDE SOMETHING BORING.
One Law - Rule 1.6 referred to by cross reference in comments throughout the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Laws which applied only to lawyers but could leave a litigant without their constitutional rights. The mandate for Confidentiality of Information IS the needle in a haystack of injustice and corruption nationwide.

The question remains... What motivated each state supreme court to do this?
Why make a change where the only actual effect is
- to prevent the ability to prosecute a judge for judicial corruption and injustice
AND
- to deny and prevent constitutional rights to litigants who were victims of judicial corruption and injustice in the court.

No Legislature. No Governor.
No Reason to make the change from code to LAW. Except, the Silence of the lawyers was no longer discretionary. It was a lawful mandate. An aggressively enforced MANDATE of silence.

The lawful mandate was unconstitutional to the victim denied and prevented from any explanation for the injustice.

The victim is left without any recourse. The local state Rules are used in Federal District and Appeals courts.

The ABA has undermined the US Constitution.... and concealed it for years while their members were paid to perform a task which they were prevented by law from ever accomplishing.

The Judiciary in whom the public placed their trust and granted judicial immunity has allowed their independence to be undermined and their integrity to be sacrificed and their authority to be silenced.

State Adoption of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
(previously the Model Code of Professional Responsibility)
Dates of initial adoption

Jurisdiction	Date of Adoption
Alabama	5/2/90
Alaska	4/14/93
Arizona	9/7/84
Arkansas	12/16/85
Colorado	5/7/92
Connecticut	6/23/86
Delaware	9/12/85
District of Columbia	3/1/90
Florida	7/17/86
Georgia	6/12/00
Hawaii	12/6/93
Idaho	9/3/86
Illinois	2/8/90
Indiana	11/25/86
Iowa	4/20/05
Kansas	1/29/88
Kentucky	6/12/89
Louisiana	12/18/86
Maine	2/26/09
Maryland	4/15/86
Massachusetts	6/9/97
Michigan	3/11/88
Minnesota	6/13/85
Mississippi	2/18/87
Missouri	8/7/85
Montana	6/6/85
Nebraska	6/8/05
Nevada	1/26/86
New Hampshire	1/16/86
New Jersey	7/12/84
New Mexico	6/26/86
New York	12/16/08
North Carolina	10/7/85
North Dakota	5/6/87
Ohio	8/1/06
Oklahoma	3/10/88
Oregon	1/1/05
Pennsylvania	10/16/87
Rhode Island	11/1/88
South Carolina	1/9/90
South Dakota	12/15/87
Tennessee	8/27/02
Texas	6/20/89
Utah	3/20/87
Vermont	3/9/99
Virgin Islands	1/28/91
Virginia	1/25/99
Washington	7/25/85
West Virginia	6/30/88
Wisconsin	6/10/87
Wyoming	11/7/86

What is this all about anyway...

A law enacted by the state supreme court in every state without proper construction, without constitutional review, without involvement of any state legislature and without the signature of any governor designed to ignore judicial corruption and injustice which includes an aggressively enforced MANDATE of silence for all lawyers while ignoring, denying and preventing the constitutional rights of litigants.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6

Rule 1.6 affects civil, criminal, family, federal district and federal appeals courts making it impossible to address the loss of constitutional rights when committed by a judge.

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

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 and the public. Clients.

This is why Kids for Cash was ignored by the Attorney General, the Luzerne County District Attorney, and every lawyer in Luzerne county.

This is why the Sandusky Report released in 2014 failed to indicate any improper conduct. The Report also failed to include a disclaimer that Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandated the silence of the Attorney General regarding information about the Office of the Attorney General, the Governor, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, etc...

This is why millions of foreclosures were ignored by the Attorneys General nationwide with no prosecutions while millions of people lost their homes based on fraudulent and robo-signed deeds and other documents.

Rule 1.6 has undermined law enforcement and the judicial branch in the states and federally.

---

Rule 1.6 is a core part of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct. All rules point back to Rule 1.6 by cross reference.

The ABA presented the Rules to each state supreme court for promulgation into law. The American Bar Association took their trade laws which were discretionary and the supreme courts turned them into lawful mandates. Aggressively enforced mandates which denied people's constitutional rights. BUT, the silence prevented anyone in law from acting on behalf of the victim of the loss of their constitutional rights.

Rule 1.6 causes an inescapable loss of constitutional rights.

Letter to Gov Corbett, PA Senators and Representatives

August 2, 2014

After meetings with Senator Chuck McIlhinney, it is clearly necessary to raise this issue to your attention directly.

The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was made up of lawyers (9 of 12) who heard information from county judges, district attorneys, public defenders and the Judicial Conduct Board. Attributing the blame to “silence, inaction, inexperience, ignorance, fear of retaliation, greed, ambition, carelessness.”, the lawyers on the commission maintained ‘confidentiality of information’ as required by law – Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Their realization was correct – “What good would [reporting] it do?” HOWEVER, the Commission’s report neglected to indicate the reason for the silence (Rule 1.6) and it also neglected to expose the cause (the Rule 1.6 mandate) , and as such their recommended reforms do nothing to prevent a recurrence of the judicial corruption.

Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information where it adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary, the reputation of legal professionals, self-incriminates, or negatively affects their client. Protecting the integrity of a judiciary which lacks integrity is foolishness. Mandating it has unconstitutional effects.

The Commission Report and Reform Recommendations amount to fraud – a deliberate effort to conceal the root cause of the failure of the justice system to address judicial misconduct, corruption and injustice.

Far more frightening and perilous, is that the lawyers associated with the Commission have now been ‘educated and trained’ in how to execute and conceal crimes such as those committed by Ciavarella and Conahan – who only went to prison because they had failed at money laundering.

The Supreme Court’s authority to enact law is limited to situations where ‘such rules are consistent with this Constitution [Pennsylvania] and neither abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of any litigant.’

The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who must follow the US Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Rules of Professional Conduct which were enacted by the Supreme Court.

For the Attorney General, the Rule 1.6 mandate of ‘confidentiality of information’ with regard to client information undermines ‘everything’ where an attorney general’s clients include (1) the public, (2) the Pennsylvania government, (3) the Office of the Attorney General, (4) government agencies and departments statewide, (5) personnel within those agencies and departments, (6) and themselves.

The Rules of Professional Conduct enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have substantially affected the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Attorney General preventing and obstructing law enforcement responsibilities when it relates to judicial corruption and injustice within the courts.

The Supreme Court, by the same mandate, has caused a ‘lawful’ requirement within every court and by every lawyer in the commonwealth to ignore injustice and judicial corruption.

Previous Codes of Professional Responsibility (among other titles) have included similar guidelines, BUT once enacted into ‘law’ in 1987 ignoring injustice and judicial corruption ceased being discretionary and was MANDATED BY LAW.

The result, the Rules of Professional Conduct collaterally affect and negate ‘the substantive rights of the litigant’. Specifically, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality causes a mandatory conspiracy of silence within the courts which ignores the damage and harm caused to litigants and further hinders and prevents any resolution.

The substantive rights of the children and families of Luzerne County were clearly ignored.

The Supreme Court lacked authority to enact Rule 1.6 into law as the substantive rights of the People have been ‘abridged’, ‘modified’, denied and ignored.

Additionally, the role of the Sheriff as Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the county has been negated and minimized by judicial decisions. Constitutionally, the Sheriff has the lawful authority and resources to enforce the law within the county.

Failing to act because the judiciary has convinced them of a greatly diminished role, the non-lawyer Sheriffs (reluctantly) defer authority to the county District Attorney who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.6. A necessity to prevent prosecution. District Attorneys take no action to investigate and prosecute the injustice and judicial corruption. Related crimes against the victims of injustice are ignored leaving the litigant with no protection under the law.

The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct were rolled out to the states and enacted into law nationwide without the involvement of the state legislatures, the signature of the governors or any constitutional review.

“What is right is not always the same as what is legal.” was offered by Edward Snowden as an explanation for his actions revealing unconstitutional activity. This statement may also apply to the failure of attorneys general, judges, district attorneys and lawyers to address the unconstitutional actions made ‘legal’ which have undermined justice over the last 25 years.

It is the responsibility of the Governor to represent the People, to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution and the state Constitution, and to recognize that collaterally Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional to the People.

The act of sedition which enacted Rule 1.6 and mandated the silent participation of all legal professionals, perverted the judiciary, sacrificed the personal integrity of every judge, and undermined justice can no longer be ignored and excused because of the intimidation and threats of disciplinary action by the corrupt who have deliberately violated the public trust.

The Commission on Juvenile Justice have not done what was requested of them. They have participated in concealing the truth. They have endorsed and enabled continuing injustice.

You, the members of the Legislature and the Judiciary who assembled the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice must review their report findings and recommendations. The deliberate knowledgeable failure of those lawyers to indicate the root cause of the problem in Luzerne County, which also less publicly affects every court in the Commonwealth, was caused by Rule 1.6 - An unconstitutional and repugnant law which has been improperly enacted by the state Supreme Court without proper review of its affect on constitutional rights.

You attention to this matter of statewide importance is appreciated.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

The Day Justice Died

State adoption of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
(previously the Model Code of Professional Responsibility)

When the Code was enacted into 'law' they changed the name to "Rules".

There is no record of any review of the impact of these 'laws' on the constitutionally protected rights of the people of the United States.

The supposed intent was to make sure the judiciary was never humiliated like they were after the FBI's Operation Graylord. To protect the judiciary they sacrificed the integrity of EVERY JUDGE in the country. As a result, the corruption involved in my one divorce in Montgomery County already includes more judges and court personnel and county agencies and personnel than Operation Graylord.

Each time these 'laws' have been modified or amended in each state, it has occurred to close a loophole where corruption was able to be prosecuted. Each modification has left a trail of evidence demonstrating the clear intent to perpetuate injustice.

Jurisdiction	Initial Adoption
Alabama	5/2/90
Alaska	4/14/93
Arizona	9/7/84
Arkansas	12/16/85
Colorado	5/7/92
Connecticut	6/23/86
Delaware	9/12/85
District of Columbia	3/1/90
Florida	7/17/86
Georgia	6/12/00
Hawaii	12/6/93
Idaho	9/3/86
Illinois	2/8/90
Indiana	11/25/86
Iowa	4/20/05
Kansas	1/29/88
Kentucky	6/12/89
Louisiana	12/18/86
Maine	2/26/09
Maryland	4/15/86
Massachusetts	6/9/97
Michigan	3/11/88
Minnesota	6/13/85
Mississippi	2/18/87
Missouri	8/7/85
Montana	6/6/85
Nebraska	6/8/05
Nevada	1/26/86
New Hampshire	1/16/86
New Jersey	7/12/84
New Mexico	6/26/86
New York	12/16/08
North Carolina	10/7/85
North Dakota	5/6/87
Ohio	8/1/06
Oklahoma	3/10/88
Oregon	1/1/05
Pennsylvania	10/16/87
Rhode Island	11/1/88
South Carolina	1/9/90
South Dakota	12/15/87
Tennessee	8/27/02
Texas	6/20/89
Utah	3/20/87
Vermont	3/9/99
Virginia	1/25/99
Virgin Islands	1/28/91
Washington	7/25/85
West Virginia	6/30/88
Wisconsin	6/10/87
Wyoming	11/7/86

Source: The American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility
PDF version

WHO IS YOUR CLIENT? ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS

WHO IS YOUR CLIENT? ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS
Mark M. Neil, NAGTRI Program Counsel
NAGTRI Program Counsel

The ethical and legal obligations of a lawyer are many. Lawyers are required to provide competent representation to their client.[1] Attorneys may not reveal information relating to the representation of a client without informed consent.[2] They cannot represent a client if there exists a concurrent conflict of interest.[3] A lawyer must protect the rights of persons not represented by counsel.[4]

An attorney must also defend the attorney-client privilege by not revealing the confidential communications between the client and themselves.[5] Further, the discovery of a lawyer’s work product prepared in the course of legal representation, especially in preparation for litigation, is not normally permitted.[6]

All of these obligations presuppose one thing: the lawyer knowing the identity of their client. How else might they assure compliance with the ethical rules, evidentiary standards and discovery limitation? In short, the lawyer has an ethical duty to know a client’s identity.[7] Yet, despite its importance, this may be no easy task for those employed by the government.

Defining the Client

An attorney might first look for the definition in the terminology section of the applicable statute, regulation or rule. In the case of legal ethics, that would be Rule 1.0 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. However, the model rules contain no definition of “client.”[8]

Next, they might consult Black’s Law Dictionary, which defines client as “a person who employs or retains an attorney, or counselor, to appear for him in courts, advise, assist, and defend him in legal proceedings, and to act for him in any legal business.”[9] Elsewhere, the original proposed Federal Rules of Evidence included a definition of “client” in regard to attorney-client privilege as a “person, public officer, or corporation, association, or other entity, either public or private, who is rendered professional legal services by an attorney. . . .”[10]

How, then, is the government attorney to know the identity of their client? The difficulty in answering this question lies, in part, within a basic premise of the rules themselves. The model rules were written based on the attorney-client paradigm of One Lawyer: One Client. While this may work well in the representation of a criminal defendant or a litigant in a domestic issue, it does not apply well to representation by a government lawyer.[11]

So, How to Decide Who Is The Client?

The answer is not as simple as picking one from a list of the alternatives. A variety of courts and authors have considered the issue deciding who the client of the government attorney might be. The general consensus is that there are five possible answers to the question:
Public
Government as a whole
Branch of government in which employed
Particular agency or department
Responsible officers who make decisions with an agency or department

The rules regarding ethics and professional responsibility are not the end nor are they the sole source of the lawyer’s responsibilities.[12] Rule 1.13 of the Model Rules provides, for example, that the lawyer represents an organization through its duly authorized constituents.[13] This works fine for representation of a corporation or other legally-recognized organization as the lawyer has legal guidelines for identification of those “constituents.” It is of little help in aiding in the government attorney.[14]

The ethical and client identification issues for the government attorney are many. It may be that the lawyer must look elsewhere to determine the identity of his or her client. Determining the extent of a lawyers’ authority or whether a lawyer-client relationship exists may require an external inquiry depending on the circumstances and context of representation.[15] The government attorney may have authority regarding legal matters that do not exist in a private lawyer-client relationship, including the settlement of a matter or declining to appeal an adverse decision. Non-government lawyers are concerned with protecting the interests of their clients, even when those clients may be engaged in wrongdoing. Government attorneys, on the other hand, have a higher, competing duty to act in the public interest.[16]

There may be situations where lawyers find themselves representing clients against other government entities. The Model Rules allow representation of multiple government agencies involved in intragovernmental legal controversies in circumstances where a private lawyer would find themselves in an ethically impossible situation.[17] Where two state agencies are in opposition to each other, for example, the client is not the government as a whole or even the public, but the respective agency.[18]

In all situations, determination will depend on the context of the representation. The government lawyer can put the representation and client identification in context by examining the structure of authority within the government. The specifics of a state’s Constitution, particular statutory provisions of the attorney general’s powers and the statutory scheme relating to an individual agency or public officer must be considered. The lawyer may find themselves representing a department or bureau that is part of a branch of government, the branch of government itself, or the government as a whole. In most cases, the government lawyer will represent the governmental entity and the client may be the state agency or officer.[19] Each situation requires its own analysis.[20]

In short, the task for the government attorney in identifying their client is not an easy one. Regardless, the government attorney must assess the question of client identification on a recurring basis as the answer may change with each new situation or change of circumstance. Failing to do so could result in a breach of ethical duty.

[1] Rule 1.1, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Throughout this article, reference will be made to the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct rather than any specific state rule.
[2] Rule 1.6, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
[3] Rule 1.7, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
[4] Rule 4.3, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
[5] See Rule 502, Federal Rules of Evidence.
[6] Rule 26(b)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
[7] Margaret Colgate Love, Government Lawyers Must Distinguish Their Duties from the Obligations of Clients, www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/who_is_the_client.
[8] Rule 1.0, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
[9] Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition.
[10] Proposed Rule 503, Federal Rules of Evidence proposed by the United States Supreme Court, 1972. While many state versions of this rule of evidence include the definition in their Rule 502 or similar provision, this definition was excluded for the Federal Rules of Evidence when enacted by Congress in 1975. Public Law 93-595, 88 Stat. 1926.
[11] L. Ray Patterson, Legal Ethics: The Law of Professional Responsibility, Pt. III-3 (1982).
[12] Many of a lawyer's professional responsibilities are prescribed in the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as substantive and procedural law. ²7 Preamble to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
[13] Rule 1.13(a), ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
[14] “Defining precisely the identity of the client and prescribing the resulting obligations of such lawyers may be more difficult in the government context and is a matter beyond the scope of these Rules. Comment [9] to Rule 1.13, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
[15] ² 17 Scope of ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
[16] In re: A Witness Before the Special Grand Jury 200-2288 F. 3d 289 (7th Cir. 2002).
[17] ² [18] Scope of ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
[18] Clark, supra.
[19] Kathleen Clark, Government Lawyers and Confidentiality Norms, 85 Wash. Univ. L. Rev. 1033, 1985.
[20] See Comment [9], Rule 1.13, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

When the Supreme Court of each state enacted the Rules of Professional Conduct into law... there was no consideration of the direct or collateral impact on the rights and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Look at all those footnotes pointing to the Rules of Professional Conduct... All points leading back to Rule 1.6.