Protecting the Public? That's great... um... but from WHAT are they protecting the public? What does this mean? I was clearly NOT protected. And there are many others who feel like me.
The Disciplinary Board consists of 13 members, of whom 11 are attorneys.
LAWYERS ARE PROFESSIONALLY FORBIDDEN TO TAKE ANY ACTION WHICH WOULD EXPOSE CORRUPTION OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY AND REPUTATION OF THE JUDICIARY, AND OF OTHER LAWYERS.
When you file any professional complaint against a lawyer or judge, your complaint is reviewed by lawyers. Lawyers who are professionally FORBIDDEN to take action which would expose corruption or adversely affect the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and of other lawyers.
YES, FORBIDDEN TO TAKE ANY ACTION. If they do, they are subjected to disciplinary action. (I am not certain if it is possible to request a non-lawyer investigator.)
The self-policed judicial branch of Pennsylvania government is prevented from taking any action to police itself. The Disciplinary Board and the Judicial Conduct Board are staffed with lawyers who must follow their twisted codebook. While failing to responsibly police itself, the Judicial Branch of Pennsylvania Government has become a delusional self-serving organization arrogantly determined to conceal, conspire and corrupt.
So we have the answer to that question... The Public needs protection from their aggressive maintenance and clandestine safeguarding of lawyers and judges. Their Rules of Professional Conduct which subvert and undermine any sense of justice; deny victims any explanation; retaliate with malice with the only possible escape being to return and be further victimized.
| An Overview of THE PROBLEM |
| Lawyers and judges MUST report violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, EXCEPT WHERE the revelation of the corruption and crimes would negatively affect the reputation and integrity of lawyers and judges; or possibly cause their clients to lose; or expose their clients committing perjury or other crimes. |
The high moral ground of the first phrase is rendered empty and meaningless after applying the three reasonable exceptions.
1) Protect the system.
2) Protect the client.
3) Do not self-incriminate.
So what has caused THE PROBLEM. Where do the three reasonable exceptions break to the point of undermining everything?
I went to Harrisburg. I knocked on doors. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Judicial Conduct Board. I wanted to speak to someone about what had happened to me. Something happened which can only be described as SERENDIPITY. The people I wanted to meet were unavailable. I wanted to speak to the people at the top of the organizations that ignored me, or their second, or third, or fourth. I wanted someone to see the face of their victim. They were unavailable also.
The people I met with did not turn their backs, hang up a phone, dismiss a complaint, ignore a request for help or parrot the NO JURISDICTION script.
My encounter with these people began AFTER the Attorney General'a office sent a man to meet me on a bench in a mall at the busy entrance to their office building. I squatted on the floor, while he wasted the predetermined amount of time, not listening, refusing to look at anything, and snarking remarks from the same script. Either I was being disrespected or I am expected to believe that Attorney General Kathleen Kane is taking complaints regarding corruption of the entire Montgomery County Judiciary and Courthouse in the middle of Strawberry Square.
This has been going on since 2007. Disrespect. Humiliation. Mockery. I have been forced to persevere while having to seek justice from the same judiciary responsible for injustice. As each judge sacrificed their integrity for the prior judges, they retaliated against their the victim for surviving. Showing respect to those who disrespect me does not diminish my dignity.
SERENDIPITY.
The Justice Center in Harrisburg seemed to provide the perfect environment. There were no false reports to security stations. There was no escort.
The people opened doors. They did not shout through glass.
They walked around glass walls, opened the door.
Greetings and introductions were exchanged in the same room.
Those contacted from hallway phones, did not dismiss the person seeking information.
They asked a man in the corner office to speak to the person in the hall.
He walked to the door and welcomed me in to his office to speak.
The entire emphasis was not focused on how to end the conversation.
I requested to meet with those at the top of the organizations. I wanted to explain how their system victimized me to the point of destruction. I wanted to assure them that IT DID HAPPEN. I wanted them to meet the victim. I wanted to present how, why, when where, who and what happened. I wanted to recommend a change so it would not happen again to another person.
Not one person was available. YET, the result of the day was the most successful day in years.
Genuine, honest and sincere conversations with interested, knowledgeable and responsible people. They had no idea of who I was. There was no liability to protect. They had nothing to cover-up. There was no secrecy, no whispers, no hiding. They listened to my story. They heard my story. When I presented the problem, they appreciated that I pointed to the cause and asked their advice to work on the resolution.
The header of this web site has said the same line since I started typing. "Every person in a position to help has acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter… they each make the situation worse… NO ONE HELPS." On August 1, 2013, I had finally escaped and spoken to people who had not been manipulated into a liability. During the last meeting of the day, the realization that I had broken free from the manipulation hit me. It was emotional.
THE PROBLEM
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information applies across the full scope of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rule 1.6 on the surface seems reasonable. It maintains the integrity. It safeguards reputation. BUT, IT DIDN'T PROTECT THE PUBLIC because it didn't protect me. It prevents the me from information. It excludes me from the discussion. It undermined justice. It prevented justice. It clearly denied the Court of any appearance of impartiality. It created Ex Parte situations between the judiciary and the lawyers to the exclusion of a Pro Se litigant.
There is only one possible solution to the problem AND IT MUST be considered for immediate implementation into the Rules of Professional Conduct as this problem affects all Pro Se litigants.
1. Where one party in an action files an appearance to proceed Pro Se, RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION must be suspended for the duration of the matter. There can be no waiver of this suspension which is applicable to all persons who are subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. The 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION is unconstitutional as it effectively denies a Pro Se litigant of State and Federally protected Constitutional rights.
3. The 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION creates an administrative and professional burden upon the parties, agents, investigators, advisors and investigators involved in actions filed by Pro Se litigants.
4. In a nutshell, once you file to proceed Pro Se, you are excluded from any communication of lawyers errors or judicial when you go Pro Se, they can no longer speak with you about their 'errors'. If they have no errors, you survive unscathed.
If they have no 'secrets' before you go Pro Se, you need to be aware that should lawyer violate a procedure. When the lawyer violates that procedure, the judge is not permitted to discuss it with you. You ask about it. You are ignored. The judge is required by 1.6 to maintain confidentiality.
Then, the real nightmare begins. If you report it to the Disciplinary Board. They will not communicate with you about it. The lawyer at the Disciplinary Board is required by 1.6 to maintain confidentiality.
Every petition and complaint causes more confidentiality. The courtroom, the Disciplinary Board, the Judicial Conduct Board. Lawyers who must follow the code. You will not be able to hire a lawyer. They will repeatedly tell you to hire a lawyer as if it would change anything.
1.6 denies you every civil and constitutional right. Apparently, the lawyers confidentiality rule is more powerful than your Constitutional Rights, State Ruights, Human Rights and evbery procedure and law in the land.
Rule 1.6 is Unconstitutional to Pro Se Litigants. It must be addressed. Every Pro Se victim that watched their life fall apart... does the above make sense to you. The worse it got, the more you tried, the harder it got, and the more ignored your situiation. The problem is now solved.
I've got 8 years of litigation where this explains everything. Apply it to your situation and respond to this post. hit me on Facebook. And let's get to Washington... and get our families back.
There remains one question/issue/hurdle. I hope to have it addressed by Monday.
Tom Ball... Sorry, I didn't find it in time.
| We are long past the time where someone should make the call, accept the liability, stop the attacks, and address the situation. It is not going away until it is addressed. Someon has top take responsibility. To have integrity. I have arrived. Give me your best offer and we can end the nightmare dfor people all over the USA. |
Complaints are not reviewed. Not investigated. This is not a cynical concept. It is the reality documented in the Rules of Professional Conduct. Everyone dismisses people who complain about the system. No one wants to believe the courts are that screwed up that. Their victim is the only one who must believe in the justice system. The victim returns time and time again to only find that once victimized further injustice is inescapable.
Somehow the victim has hope. Those without hope do not survive. Those with hope get destroyed.
Investigators have falsely stated they have reviewed my complaint. Do they mean reviewed as in cut and pasted a few sentences from the document into their dismissal letter? They summarily dismiss the complaint without addressing any of the reported issues. There is no reason provided for the dismissal. They send a 3 page letter full of absolute disconnected nonsense which indicates they dismissed it because they did. THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO MAKE THEM REVIEW THE COMPLAINT - OR DO IT RESPONSIBLY.
You cannot appeal their dismissal. DUH! This information is useful. It will prevent you from wasting time. There is no way you could appeal a decision when you have absolutely no information of what actions they took. They are NOT going to tell you they took no action. Ignoring the complaint is NOT an action. If an appeal process would be permitted, every appeal would be a resubmission of the entire complaint. There is no explanation. NONE. This prevents further questions.
Investigator Alan J. Davis had used "quotes" around the word "unethical" in his dismissal letter.
It is very clear why disciplinary counsel Alan J. Davis used "quotes" around the word "unethical". The Rules of Professional Conduct require a special kind of "ethics" which clearly requires quotes to differentiate from real ethics.
In my opinion, Alan J Davis is an "idiot". BUT, a special kind of "idiot". See that. I learn quickly. I did it too!
His dismissal letter arrived within days of the complaint, and two days after I delivered the initial supporting documentation for each transgression. (Outlined Here) Alan misrepresents that "we have reviewed your complaint and extensive documentation in detail". Their investigative process requires another person do the same. Kudos for that incredible efficiency - two reviews of extensive documentation in detail in under 2 days.
Does this arrogant "idiot" have any credibility? Alan refused to meet with me for a few minutes to review the complaint. I was in the lobby of his office. He was there. He was not in any meetings. He refused to permit me to simply hand him the "extensive documentation". He "investigated" and dismissed the complaint in it's entirety without addressing any specific content of the complaint. He used a form letter which he previously used in May 2011, but for some reason he left out the warnings about publicly revealing the complaint.
Alan, a more honest response could have gone like this...
Dear Mr Healy, I am a "lawyer" and as such cannot investigate the crimes you have reported against lawyers and judges. If I did, the rules would require ME to be disciplined for doing so. This is my important "job" to protect the reputation and integrity of judges and lawyers especially those who have NONE! I did not wish to meet you personally, or speak with you because doing so would make me sad about my important job. It is easier for me to believe the victims of my dismissed complaints do not have faces, or families. Therefore, I ignore and dismiss, while endorsing and encouraging the continued retaliation against victims like yourself terrorized by inescapable injustice to eventual suicide. Very truly yours, Alan J. Davis Disciplinary Counsel |
The following are some lines from the PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT I had to check and confirm to make sure this document was real. It is the most twisted set of self-erasing rules I have ever encountered. At ninety pages long, it is a remarkable distortion and perversion of professional responsibilities which promote, endorse, guide and conceal activities by an attorney which any reasonable person might consider unprofessional, inappropriate, or "unethical".
Integrity requires responsibility. Reputation is earned. Integrity based on sacrificing the integrity of others causes an inescapable injustice for the victim.
When a lawyer presents fraudulent information to the court, but does so at the request of the client. The lawyer is coerced into committing Fraud Upon The Court.
BUT, that's OK!
| The disclosure of a client’s false testimony can result in grave consequences to the client, including not only a sense of betrayal but also loss of the case and perhaps a prosecution for perjury. But the alternative is that the lawyer cooperate in deceiving the court, thereby subverting the truth-finding process which the adversary system is designed to implement. See Rule 1.2(d). Furthermore, unless it is clearly understood that the lawyer will act upon the duty to disclose the existence of false evidence, the client can simply reject the lawyer's advice to reveal the false evidence and insist that the lawyer keep silent. Thus the client could in effect coerce the lawyer into being a party to fraud on the court. |
Lawyers cannot do ANYTHING to expose corruption, crime or fraudulent conduct if it undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
CORRUPT JUDGES MAY NOT BE EXPOSED AS THEIR ACTIONS EMBARRASS THE OTHER CORRUPT JUDGES.
| Preserving Integrity of Adjudicative Process Lawyers have a special obligation to protect a tribunal against criminal or fraudulent conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process, such as bribing, intimidating or otherwise unlawfully communicating with a witness, juror, court official or other participant in the proceeding, unlawfully destroying or concealing documents or other evidence or failing to disclose information to the tribunal when required by law to do so. Thus, paragraph (b) requires a lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure if necessary, whenever the lawyer knows that a person, including the lawyer’s client, intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding. |
Lawyers may not influence or secretly manipulate the judiciary's impartiality, UNLESS THEY DO IT IN A WAY THAT COMPLETELY SUBVERTS THE LAW AND CAUSES THE JUDGES ACTIONS TO BE HUMILIATING WHEN EXPOSED, EMBARASSING TO ANYONE WITH A SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG, AND NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF ALL JUDGES.
Then, IT'S OK.
| Rule 3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal A lawyer shall not: (a) seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law; (b) communicate ex parte with such a person during the proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or court order; |
The lawyer cannot be a witness to contested facts.
- When evidence was building which indicated to the Court that NO HEARING had taken place on the issue. Judge Page noticed that the testimony was indicative that a hearing had not taken place. When he asked Valerie Angst, AS A SWORN OFFICER OF THE COURT, she lied to the court with embellished coaching by Judge Page which assured that there was no evidence or record which could support her fraud.
Lawyer's lies protect them from disciplinary action from the judges they protect and corrupt.
| Rule 3.7 Lawyer as Witness (a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless: (1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue; (2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or (3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client. |
| [1] Combining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the tribunal and the opposing party and can also involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client. |
Lawyers may lie to ANYONE, at ANYTIME. It's REQUIRED where telling the truth will violate a secret.
HONESTLY, Can you believe this is a code of conduct for the LEGAL Profession??
| Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid aiding and abetting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. |
Lawyers MUST report the professional misconduct of lawyers, AND judges, UNLESS the misconduct results from manipulative actions by the lawyers planned in confidential conversations with their client. The reputation of lawyers, the integrity of judges, and the "confidentiality of their misconduct" MUST BE PROTECTED.
LAWYERS CRIMES MUST BE IGNORED TO PROTECT THE 'ETHICS" OF THE PROFESSION.
| Rule 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct (a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority. (b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority. (c) This Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6 or information gained by a lawyer or judge while participating in an approved lawyers assistance program. |
| Rule 1.6 Confidentiality |
| "approved lawyers assistance program" = IS THIS DRUG REHAB? |
BREAK THE RULES AND SEE DISCIPLINARY ACTION. HA HA. NOT REALLY.
The history indicates that they only address the ridiculous complaints, usually from within their professional legal community, often for forgetting to take a class, or pay their professional registration fees.
| Rule 8.4 Misconduct It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or (f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law. |
My absolute favorite twisted rule has got to be the most clearly designed to cover up any real disciplinary activity... and deliberately deny the information from the public. It won't even show up on the Courts web site which falsely suggests you can search attorneys who are admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, and obtain information such as an attorney's status or whether an attorney has been subjected to public discipline.
If a lawyer IS ACTUALLY disciplined by the Board
AND the lawyer admits and accepts the Disciplinary Penalty - suspension, sanction, etc
The Disciplinary Board will conceal ANY RECORD OF THE INFRACTION AND IT WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT INCLUDED IN THAT COOL SEARCH ENGINE THE COURTS MAKE AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE TO CHECK OUT THEIR LAWYERS.
| You may have been wondering about those who do get disciplined. Read the Opinions. Suspended for missing a class or forgetting to update their registration. NOTHING REAL THERE. ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS. |
If Valerie Angst got spanked for her deliberate actions which attempted to manipulate Judge Haaz into issuing an order without jurisdiction or authority, if she admitted it, IT WOULD BE KEPT SECRET. It would also delay the hearing until she wasn't suspended any longer.
Perhaps for 6 months, during which time the court fails to schedule the hearing; the court fails to respond to letters regarding the delay; and accrues potential DAILY penalties against the Defendant. AS LONG AS SHE ADMITTED HER MANIPULATIVE MISDEEDS IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES, The Disciplinary Board would NEVER publicly announce the matter.
Now you might say, BUT the RULES say she must tell opposing counsel involved in pending litigation of the suspension.
Valerie Angst couldn't get disciplined where it would reveal the complicity of the judiciary in failing to inform the Defendant.
So they hide it, she lies, the judge is forced to covers for her. But the issue is exposed in court, on the record.
The Judge prevents Defendant from asking any question which would explain the delay and potentially expose the suspension.
The Judge absurdly orders a homeless Defendant, unemployed since 2007, to pay over $300,000 in penalties for non-compliance with a Court Order.
The Judge ignored that the Defendant had complied with THAT order, and all prior orders.
The Judge ignored the evidence that the order he was enforcing was Void Ab Initio. Admitting this would expose the malice of Judge Carluccio.
The Judge ignored that the Plaintiff had committed perjury during the hearing.
The Judge ignored that the Plaintiff had never complied with ANY Court Order.
The Judge ignored that since commencement of the matter each attempt to enforce Plaintiff's compliance with court orders was denied, ignored, dismissed or NEVER scheduled for a hearing.
Judge Page wanted to BURY the Defendant so deep in debt that he would never recover, lose hope and commit suicide.
Judge Page provided an opportunity for an Appeal to Superior Court because of his absurd order.
The new Appeal revealed the obstruction of justice and abuse of power under color of law by Judge Carolyn Carluccio who blocked the prior Appeal.
Then, Judge Page went ALL OUT - Abuse of Power under color of law, acting without jurisdiction, obstruction of justice, manipulation of court reporters, concealing exhibits presented during the hearings from the Superior Court.
The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's documented and advertised goals are to protect the public, maintain the integrity of the legal profession and to safeguard the reputation of the courts. They unashamedly fail to protect the public. They focus on maintaining integrity of the legal professionals who lack integrity. They safeguard the reputation of judges whose injustice and corruption shame the Court. They conceal endorse and contribute to a ever growing injustice which attacks the public one person, one family at a time.
The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct lacks ethics, legality or any sense of honor. It delivers an ever expanding injustice while ignoring its victims. It tolerates, creates and protects corruption. It guides a self-policing branch of Government to ignore law, denies rights, and abuses it's power without taking responsibility for it's complete failure to deliver justice while projecting an delusion of integrity upon itself to hide it's shame.
The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct - YOU CANNOT POLISH A TURD.
No comments:
Post a Comment