The Attorney / Client Rhetoric

The Attorney / Client Rhetoric

First, Rule 1.6 is called CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. It is NOT called Attorney-Client privilege.

The thing is that Lawyers, such as the state Attorneys General, are often not even certain of their client.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is demonstrating the attorneys general dancing around the responsibilities of their office.

From the National Association of Attorneys General we can learn about their dance moves.

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

NOW, as AG you have to maintain confidentiality of information for all of the above 'clients'.

AND

You must follow Rule 1.6... and maintain confidentiality where the information
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
- would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office, or
- would expose individual liability.

Do you now see why lawyers are not legally allowed to even approach the unconstitutional aspects of Rule 1.6?

But two pro se litigants with over 8 years of experience with the terror of injusrtice are lawfully allowed to do what the lawyers made illegal for each other to do.

Healy & Krautheim can address the unconstitutionality... They file... SILENCE.

Take a look at recent events... Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane has ended a multi-year investigation of corruption where confidential informant(s) were deliberately targeting and setting up a handful of black politicians in Philadelphia. Never so succesfully to result in any prosecution. And this had been going on for years (AG Tom Corbett) and years (AG William Ryan) and years (AG Linda Kelly). The investigation was halted upon the election of AG Kane. So who is the Attorney General's client? Herself? Her predecessors? The Commonwealth? The AG's Office? The Investigators? The Public? Along comes Frank Fina beating his chest like TARZAN and making all kinds of ridiculous accusations about what the Attorney General is keeping secret about HIS investigation gone horribly off track. Fina is a lawyer. He's making broad remarks... wide allegations... talking about the information he knows can't be presented... If any of them ever get specific about the information... They will violate Rule 1.6 Confidentiality and be disciplined/prosecuted. Rule 1.6 is how corruption goes unprosecuted and unpunished. Rule 1.6 is being used as a political game to mislead the public. They all know what they cannot say. They know what each other cannot say. Whenever you are viewing the actions of lawyers who must follow the mandate for corruption and injustice defined by Rule 1.6... The story is more about what they are not saying... and what they are accusing each other of not saying... because they feel safe, hidden and protected. Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Imagine. The things we will learn about corruption and injustice when their safe, protected hiding place is no longer available. Those with honor and integrity will be clearly revealed once they are not required to conceal the criminal malice, corruption and injustice of those who undermine our society. Hey Frank Fina... Sit down with us and we will explain it to you. Shouting loud at Attorney General Kathleen Kane who cannot lawfully respond is a cowardly move. Bring the media... It's time the people learned what has happened to their Constitution.

JUSTICE IS COMING.