Each entry in the Rules of Professional Conduct has a contrary nullifying entry. Rule 1.6, 3.3, 3.8, 4.2 are frequently cross-referenced and manipulated to propose a decision in any direction.
They are impediments, both in law or practice, that jeopardise the administration of justice and the rape every rule of law and human rights standard.
CONSIDERING MODEL RULES 3.3, 3.8 AND 4.2 IS A MOCKERY OF ANY LEGITIMATE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
The rules discussed above are contrary to existing federal law, the principal concern is not with whether the rules would be sensible in a legal system. It is necessary to question whether they are appropriate as ethical standards. You may remember that the Rules of Professional Conduct are a minimum ethical standard. The most Minimum ethics would be none. They hit their mark. They were going for none.
[Could this be why the legal profession is so caught up with conferring honorable titles upon each other.]
The three rules represent a new, troubling and ultimately illegitimate use of the process of professional self-regulation for lawyers. These rules are an abuse of the ethics regulation process, even if viewed only from within the confines of the bar.
An even more profound difficulty with these rules flows from the fact that their enforcement would markedly change the parameters of basic constitutional rights, principally the right to counsel, and would alter the character of a fundamental institution of the criminal justice system, the grand jury.
When combined with Rule 1.6 the confidentiality results in the complete denial of rights AND a litigant is left with no possible way to address it.
By design and intent the Rules of Professional Conduct - the LAW enacted by the Judiciary - has clear designs to ignore constitutionally protected rights and leave you without any recourse.
The denial of your constitutionally protected rights has been legalized.
While remaining unconstitutional, you are abandoned unrepresented to be further victimized by injustice with no possible escape because IT IS THE LAW.
IT IS ONLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO YOU. AND YOU MUST BE THE ONE TO DISCOVER AND PRESENT THAT TO THE FEDERAL COURT.
Todd Krautheim and Terance Healy found it... in civil, criminal and family courts... in every state... undermining the judiciary... and mandating injustice... filed the CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE of RULE 1.6 on August 8, 2013 in the US Federal District Court in Philadelphia.
Every lawyer, every prosecutor, every District Attorney, every Attorney General, every Judge knew of the ethical and moral black hole in the judicial system. BUT, when implemented the same combination of LAWS made it illegal and unlawful to do anything to correct the sin of the judicial branch of government.
Todd & Terance are not lawyers. They found it. LAWFULLY. They lawfully petitioned the federal courts to declare the the deliberately unethical and immoral Rules of Professional Conduct UNCONSTITUTIONAL. LAWFULLY.
At that point, the Constitution will be resurrected. Justice will be restored. And the injustice caused by the unconstitutional law can be addressed with those responsible.
The EVIL realization is that you can search on any internet search engine for Rule 1.6 in combination with any word describing ethics and morale and propriety... and you will find published law review documents and student writings and professional documentation which proves the entire legal profession was aware. Very aware. THEY FUCKING KNEW. THEY ALL FUCKING KNEW.
The judicial branch of the government let their system terrorize people to poverty, homelessness and suicide.
The entire judicial branch made themselves unconstitutional. A nullity. Which does not exist; that which is not properly in the nature of things. In a figurative sense, and in law, having no more effect than if it did not exist, and also the defect which prevents it from having such effect. That which is absolutely void. By design, and in accordance with the US Constitution they are void.
The judicial branch and everyone working within had no professional or personal sense of self-respect or morality or humanity to resolve the systemic crisis. For that violation of the public trust, the punishment should most definitely fit the crime.
The judicial branch can no longer be self-r trusted to be self regulating. They blew it.
No comments:
Post a Comment