Rule 1.6 MANDATES that a lawyer must conceal fraud by their client, without concern for the innocent victim, or the truth, or the misrepresentation to the court. The lawyers tradition and sacrosanct belief is that their clients constitutional rights REQUIRE AND COMPEL the attorney-client privilege - included as part of the broader Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of information.
There was much debate about this when developing their Rules of Professional Conduct. There is little evidence of much concern for the constitutional rights of anyone else - like an innocent victim. There was no mistaking, the intent was deliberate. The ABA committee's purpose - Lawyers should have "better" ethics - had gone off the rails after the sudden death of the committee chairman, Robert Kutak.
The only agreed-upon exception being an allowance for disclosure when their victim would be killed. A very sadistic concept where it prevented disclosure where the victim would continue to be further victimized.
When a simple question was posed to a lawyer, a partner in one of the firms called 'foreclosure mills', testifying under oath. It devolved into the longest most frustrating exchanges imaginable. The question... WHO IS THE CLIENT?
Evasive wouldn't begin to describe the twists and turns of the non-response. It was very clear that this lawyer would not divulge the identity of the client he represented - asserting attorney-client privilege applied even to information which could be used to determine the identification of the client whose confidential information he was not permitted to disclose.
I remember thinking - "He knows the true reason Rule 1.6 exists in the first place."
The innocent victim was in no way seeing this - victimized, prevented relief, denied explanations, lawlessness, distracted, surviving overwhelming litigation, the terror of their life was not some game.
The question was clear. The answer was not. VERY NOT. IMPOSSIBLY NOT.
The Attorney-Client privilege protects the attorney and the client. The non-disclosure mandate extends beyond the life of the attorney, beyond the grave unless otherwise indicted and allowed by the client.
The Rule 1.6 Confidentiality provides the lawyer-client relationship with those same protections when the client is imaginary. Imaginary Clients. Non-disclosure protection - until you discover they do not exist.
Freeing the lawyer from the burden of confidentiality and permitting disclosure and no longer requiring participation in actions in the furtherance of fraud of his client...
... at which point, overwhelmed with relief, the lawyer continues that while he would prefer to answer with full candor and honesty, quoting from the Constitution of the United States of America the Supreme Law of the Land within which one finds the Bill of Rights, where the Fifth Amendment precludes him from providing any further testimony.
Always confirm the identity and the relationship of the Attorney and Client. Where there is any hesitations or failure to respond, there is likely deception. Where they never appear in person, fail to sign paperwork, subcontract lawyers for appearances in court, or insist on accomplishing everything by telephone and mail, do not trust the technology.
Always ask the WHO IS THE CLIENT question.
Request the Court provide the elements necessary for jurisdiction. The requirements for jurisdiction are not discretionary. The question of jurisdiction must be addressed. The elements and evidence of jurisdiction is the responsibility of the Plaintiff. Where the judge proceeds, and the Plaintiff fails to demonstrate the necessary elements, ... there is corruption and injustice.
An essential element of the Courts authority to decide any matter include a real party with an interest.
Without a party, there is no standing... no jurisdiction or authority for the courts to make the decision.
The judge will protect the attorney client privilege... conceal injustices, and sacrifice his integrity and the integrity of the judiciary in accordance with Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information and the tradition of attorney-client privilege. The lack of any haste for introspection within the legal profession permits systemic lapses of integrity and morality.
Where the client is determined to be the attorney's imaginary friend, lacking jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the matter... or forward it to the proper imaginary tribunal. Geesh!
Which is more embarrassing? asking the silly question? or losing your home to his imaginary friend?
Keep in mind, that fraud could cause you to lose your constitutional rights and all protections under the law... with no recourse. FOREVER. BE CERTAIN. Your life does depends on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment