Clues to Motive and Deliberate Intent

Rule 1.6 started to be made into LAW after the FBI's Operation Graylord corruption prosecution which exposed extreme corruption in the Cook County Courts of Chicago. A total of 92 people were indicted, including 17 judges, 48 lawyers, ten deputy sheriffs, eight policemen, eight court officials, and a state legislator.

The corruption had initially been reported to the FBI by a Cook County prosecutor.

Prior to this time there had been "codes" for legal professionals which they were professionally encouraged to follow. Turning a blind eye on judicial corruption would have been viewed as simply covering for each other. The ethical or moral decision was with the individual. The report to federal authorities was proper, lawful, appropriate and brave.

To make certain something like Operation Graylord never happened again, the Code of Professional Conduct was made LAW.

Rule 1.6 became LAW. Rule 1.6 was implemented gradually across the US executed by a subtle change most people wouldn't notice. This was done through a lawful process of the Supreme Court. However, the LAW would result in the denial of constitutionally protected rights in violation of the US Constitution, it was not constitutional BUT ONLY WHEN VIEWED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE VICTIM OF INJUSTICE. A Pro Se litigant, underestimated and ignored, and served repeated injustice with no recourse, no releif, no possibility for escape.

When both parties are represented, the lawyers can negotiate away the indiscretion which ignored the litigants rights. Both must follow Rule 1.6 - CONFIDENTIALITY. But, there was no way for lawyers to negotiate around the rights of a pro se litigant without exposing their position or leverage. Pro se litigants just lost everything and were ignored and offered platitudes of you should have had a lawyer type remarks. Having a lawyer could never restore their rights, because their lawyer would not be permitted to discuss what happened with them.

NOW, Rule 1.6 MANDATED CONFIDENTIALITY regarding the actions of corrupt judges and lawyers. Rule 1.6 MANDATED that no action be taken outside any confidential disciplinary proceeding. Penalties for violating Rule 1.6 were quick, disbarment, discredited, prevention from practicing law. [Rule 1.6 is called Confidentiality of Information, that is no subtle mistake.]

PROBLEM: In the 'correction', THEY MADE IT ILLEGAL TO REPORT / PROSECUTE CORRUPTION BY THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO COULD DO SO. In the corrective actions, the crimes committed by the judiciary and court staff was not addressed. The crimes were more than covered up. Those who would dare to accuse a judge would be dealt extreme discipline. It became IMPOSSIBLE to prosecute a judge for deliberate crimes and injustices committed in the court. It was illegal for a District Attorney or an Attorney General to prosecute judicial crimes and corruption.

The Intent demonstrates a twisted and perverted lack of ethics and morality, undeniably corrupt. The American Bar Association was concerned they would lose their 'right of self governance'. RIGHT? [breath] THEIR RIGHT. Their RIGHT of self governance. The integrity of the judiciary was of little consequence. Denial of people's Constitutional Rights of absolutely no concern. Selfishly motivated to protect their concept of self governance. The ABA has an imaginary government. Their own little play government and congress and hierarchy which manages the ABA sedition in each state governments.

One person remained who could lawfully act to expose judicial crimes. One person could lawfully expose the sedition. There is little information to indicate where 'sheriffs' lost their power. As Chief Law Enforcement Officers in the County, the Sheriff could lawfully prosecute and expose judicial corruption. The Sheriffs began to be convinced that they were NOT the Chief Law Enforcement Officer. It was the judges, lawyers and District Attorney who convinced, manipulated, litigated and diminished the power of the Sheriff. Judges wrote decisions which indicated the sheriff never had any constitutional power. The Sheriffs accepted their diminished responsibilities, without valid explanation, or necessary constitutional action, as the District Attorneys and the judges usurped the power of the Sheriff. There was no entity in law enforcement who could prosecute the sedition.

LOGIC SO FLAWED AS TO EXPOSE ITS MOTIVE INTENT AND NATURE.

After Rule 1.6 was enacted... An Operation like 'Graylord' would have only prosecuted ONLY one person. The man who reported the corruption to the FBI.

UNDER Rule 1.6, the prosecutor who reported the corruption would face charges of treason, fraud, and prosecution to the fullest extent of the LAW. It was against the law for the District Attorney or Attorney General to prosecute corruption in their county or state.

"But, judges DO get caught in corruption and prosecuted."

Yes, there have been some cases where judicial corruption has been prosecuted. When that has happened it has been at a Federal level, outside of the state jurisdiction.

Additionally, Federal authorities will NOT normally enter a state jurisdiction unless invited by the Attorney General or District Attorney to investigate. (BUT, the law made illegal for the DA or the AG to contact federal authorities.)

On those very rare occasions where a member of the judiciary is prosecuted for crime or corruption another activity occurs which clearly demonstrates the true motive and intent of the LAW. Rule 1.6 is modified.

A review of the dates that Rule 1.6 has been modified in each of the states shows a direct correlation between a judge being exposed and prosecuted and the subsequent modification to the Rules of Professional Conduct which prevents any judge from 'getting caught like that' again. The loopholes get closed. It becomes more and more difficult to address judicial corruption. It is logical that the 'license for corruption' would be edited ONLY when it failed. Other Pennsylvania edits point towards the Cash For Kids scandal. A judge was prosecuted, the loophole was addressed.

INTEGRITY. HONOR. JUSTICE.

The integrity of the judiciary is important and essential. TRUE.

EPIC FAILURE. The integrity of the judiciary is protected by making it illegal to prosecute the judges for crimes. It further prosecutes anyone who would make the attempt. MANDATING judicial corruption where it violates morality, ethics, law, and the CONSTITUTION. A victim is further victimized in each attempt at presenting the matter to any court in the state. The individual is further prevented from the assistance of federal authorities who will not enter a jurisdiction without the invitation of a District Attorney or Attorney General.

SO FLAWED A THOUGHT PROCESS, IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN. People would rise up in indignation if something like that ever happened in the USA. It would be reported by the media. 1) The Legislatures would never permit that to occur. 2) A Governor would never sign THAT law. 3) The state courts would overturn it.

BUT, 1) The legislature had no choice.
BUT, 2) The governor never signed anything.
AND 3) The state courts DID IT and cannot lawfully UNDO it.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania enacted the Law. They have the authority to do so. The Court may enact law to govern the judiciary and the practice of law within the state. RULE 1.6 is concealed in plain sight in the Rules of Professional Conduct. The State Constitution does give the Court the power to enact law... ONLY where the laws did not affect other state constitutional rights and liberties. Within the state, no greater weight is given to distinct sections of the state constitution over the other. The state court's constitutional empowerment is used to override any contradiction within the state.

The general perception would be The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is certainly going to favor their own law even when it fails the litigant. The court can back it up constitutionally. CITE THE STATE CONSTITUTION. The court can cite their LAW. CITE THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. They had little choice in their own decision, RULE 1.6 MANDATES a decision which conceals judicial misconduct regardless of the merits of the case they are considering. Regardless of the morality of the injustice they are delivering. They are acting lawfully. They must act lawfully. The merits of the matter are meaningless Rule 1.6 is law.

Within the state, it is unlawful to correct Rule 1.6.

Should the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recognize and face the problem created with Rule 1.6, they do not have the power to act. As correction could expose members of the judiciary to prosecution and would not be lawful under Rule 1.6. A correction could expose the deliberate intent, malfeasance and misdirection of purpose of the law, the Supreme Court is legally prevented from correcting their own act of misconduct. Judges and lawyers are precluded from taking any lawful action.

The state made it illegal to correct themselves.

While the impact of Rule 1.6 has undermined the courts at every level within the state; and prevents state government and law enforcement authorities from acting OR involving the Federal Government; the Federal Courts have jurisdiction to act when a state infringes on the rights protected by the US Constitution.

Rule 1.6 makes it illegal for lawyers to file the federal action because they must follow Rule 1.6. The only party who COULD act to address this issue is a pro se litigant who is not obligated to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. One who survived with experience and evidence and standing and perseverance above all other things.

Once the Federal Court recognizes this case as a reality and a necessity, they will stop following the scripts provided by the ABA. It would seem that the judges and the lawyers have been crippled by the scripts to the point where they fail to consider the law. The ABA tools can cite cases (and mis-cite cases) faster than I ever could. Their resources are vast. The ABA has the resources and the technology to filter my information and hinder my communication. I have the law, and a constantly hacked and filtered computer which I cannot totally trust or rely on. I must reconfirm ALL information at an outside source. I have to know the law because I have no other fallback. So I learn more and more.

I imagine the ABA never thought they could be caught. The whole country noticed the undertones of the failures of the Constitution. Everyone could see the unconstitutional actions but an explanation was never available. The world watches as the US Government implodes on the people's ennui while American ego is massaged to distortion and denial.

When it all comes down, JUSTICE IS COMING.

The non-sequitur. It was intentional. It didn't fit the flow of this post. A REAL ISSUE AND CONCERN. It warrants a re-statement.

It would be reported by the media.

It defies logic that EVERY available media outlet and resource has ignored this national constitutional issue. I have been in contact with hundred of television, radio, internet, and print media people. Nothing. The news reports on the injustices which occur. The news reports on constitutional discrepancies and failures. Those items appearing in the news offer no resolution or remedy for the situations. I believe this tends to cause a mindset where expectations for justice are lowered for everyone. Where injustice is ignored and accepted and anyone who discusses the topic is branded a 'radical' or 'theorist'. have encountered the Facebook teams which promote this despair and hopelessness. Their rhetoric is very obvious. Their tactics apparent when you see the holes in their approach. There is no law which mandates that the media ignore the story. So why has the media ignored the story? without explanation? So who does control the media? When did the press lose it's freedom?