AGREED. Whether on the face of the 'law' or by a collateral effect, Unconstitutional.
Are there exceptions to this constitutional protection?
NOPE. They would be unconstitutional, too.
A simple example.
You have been the victim of a fraud.
It is not moral or ethical to require another person to participate in fraud.
It is not moral or ethical to deny a victim of the truth.
It is not moral or ethical to conceal a truth from the victim or the court.
It is not moral or ethical to participate in the furtherance of a crime.
It is not moral or ethical to deny a victim equal protection of the law.
It is not moral or ethical to deny a victim of constitutionally protected rights.
To REQUIRE a person to participate in fraud, concealing fraud or to act in the furtherance of fraud.
That is unethical.
That is immoral.
That is illegal.
That is wrong.
SO.... enter a courtroom (civil, not criminal court)....
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality requires a lawyer to participate in a fraud committed by their client by not disclosing the truth to the court, or the victim. Additionally, the lawyer may not disclose information to prevent the furtherance of a crime.
[Attorney-Client Privilege is an oft-misused pseudonym for Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.]
HOLD THAT THOUGHT... Did you just consider that it might be 'OK'?
The lawyer - an officer of the court - is following the ethics rules.
(Ethics indicates a choice.)
The lawyer - an officer of the court - is following the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(Can illegal and wrong be 'professional'?)
The victim has been frauded.
The victim is denied equal protection of the law and constitutional protections.
The victim is exposed for actions in furtherance of the fraud.
and
In a hearing, the judge REQUIRES the lawyer to conceal the truth.
The lawyer wanted to reveal the truth - the moral, ethical and right thing to do.
A law indicates the lawyer must be silent.
The furtherance of the fraud has occurred... in the courtroom.
The judge is participating in the furtherance of the fraud pursuant to law.
The victim is damaged while the truth is concealed.
The judge rules AGAINST the victim rewarding the criminal/lawyer and ordering a payment to the client.
IS IT STILL OK?
The Lawyer wanted to reveal the truth. The Law made that illegal.
The lawyer's discretion was not allowed.
[When enacted into LAW, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality was no longer discretionary. It was mandated.]
The fraud continues/extends.
The crime is reported to the District Attorney.
The District Attorney does nothing to investigate, prosecute, or prevent the crime from continuing.
Exposure would embarrass the judge. Crime Report is ignored.
The fraud continues/extends.
Still OK?
The victim obtains the information, everyone goes back to court.
The judge recuses.
The new judge ignores the truth and rules against the victim. The judges does not want to embarrass the court.
STILL OK?
The crime with the evidence is reported to the District Attorney.
The crime report is ignored.
The fraud continues/extends.
The injustice is leveraged in the court causing further damage to the victim.
A NEW PARTY files in court referring to the fraud.
The injustice is leveraged in the court causing further injustice to the victim.
The victim has no opportunity to escape, or for resolution, or for redress.
The victim is being denied any protection under the law.
The victim is being denied their constitutional rights.
The lawyer can do nothing to end the crimes against the victim.
The courts will do nothing to end the crimes against the victim.
Law Enforcement will to nothing to end the crimes against the victim.
The Law requires a lawyer to conceal information of a client fraud, or in the furtherance of a fraud.
That Law is denying the victim of their constitutional rights and protection of the law.
Any law which denies a person of the rights and privileges which are secured and protected by the US Constitution is unconstitutional, a nullity, and was never a law.
The law is unconstitutional.
The judge denied, obstructed and prevented the victim's constitutional rights based on an unconstitutional law.
The judge knew that constitutional rights were being denied, prevented and ignored.
Law Enforcement is following the same law at state and federal levels.
Government Officials ignore the victim.
The Legislature ignores the victim.
The Governor ignores the victim.
The State Supreme Court ignores the victim.
... they swore to preserve, protect, defend, support, enforce, etc ... the US Constitution.
IT'S IMPORTANT. WHY WOULD THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT BE IGNORING THE VICTIM?
The Unconstitutional law was enacted in 1987, effective in 1988.
Enacted by the Supreme Court, under their authority, except the court lacks authority where a law affects a litigant's rights. The law is improperly enacted.
The Governor sent you a letter - but it was wrong, partial phrases, and disinformation.
The Legislature - after meetings with Representatives and Senators - no replies.
CONSIDER THAT INITIAL FRAUD IN THE EXAMPLE....
1) The fraud was a fake/forged deed used to foreclose on the victim.
2) The judge threw a child in jail. The judge was paid to do it.
3) The lawyer committed the fraud and blamed it on the client.
| WHO IS THE CLIENT? People may be surprised to learn that the opposing attorney is not who you may think. The perception is logical, the reality may be different. Their client is not there. Only an attorney appears - never indicating who's interests he is responsible for. The people, the bank, the title company, or a contract lawyer who specializes - appearing in court on single issues? The subject matter expert - able to throw all available rhetoric to misdirect no regard for fact, or truths, or reality. Lawyers are excused to mislead by attorney-client privilege, BUT that's only for their client. Lawyers may become undone when asked WHO they represent, who is paying them to appear in court, and in who's interest are they employed? THE HESITATION, RESISTANCE OR INABILITY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION will demonstrate deception. |
| It happens often... Watergate attorneys didn't know if the represented Richard Nixon, or the Office of the President of the United States. They went to jail because they got it wrong. |
| Sometimes clients think government attorneys are representing them, and NOT the government/public interests. Proximity is not privilege. The lawyer sitting next to you may not be YOUR lawyer protecting YOUR interests. Same goes for the opposing lawyer. ASK THE WHO IS YOUR CLIENT? QUESTION. It won't seem so stupid, when they evade the response. |
| Foreclosures have occurred. Only a lawyer appeared against the homeowner. Paperwork was forged, robo-signed, fake and fraudulent. People lost their homes. People only thinking the bank committed the fraud. But, NO ONE WENT TO JAIL. Was it Attorney Client privilege protecting the bank? or Attorney Client PRETEND - permitting a lawyer to commit a crime while pretending to have a client? A serious concern quickly exposed... |
| FOLLOW THE MONEY - the one getting paid or profiting from the experience. Who DOES that lawyer work for anyway? Ask, and the response or evasion, might surprise you. |
| Rule 1.6 provides an opportunity for a lawyer to conceal a fraud for their client, and to act further to conceal the fraud for their client. When pretending they have a client, lawyers get those same protections. (The lawyers know that already, did you?) |
An Unconstitutional law which requires unethical, immoral and illegal conduct and prevents a person from discretion between right and wrong which has resulted in victims being victimized denied their constitutional rights and prevented protection under the law without opportunity for escape.
... has been on the books affecting lives in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania since 1988.
The Governor, Legislature and the Courts should be ashamed of their inaction. They were informed over a year ago and have done nothing to address the unconstitutional 'law'.
The American Bar Association who knew that their 'minimum ethical standard' which lacked ethics and was titled the Model Rules of Professional Conduct were unconstitutional. Yet, they provided the Model Rules to be enacted into LAW by the state Supreme Court.
The American Bar Association rolled out their Model Rules to every state from 1984 (New Jersey) to 2009 (Maine). When addressing the unconstitutionality of the confidentiality section, they REMOVED provisions which would have allowed disclosure to address a fraud, AND disclosure to stop the continuance of fraud.
The Governor, at least half of the Legislature, and the Court are lawyers. Members. SNAP!
The National Foreclosure crisis frequently featured a forged, fraudulent and/or robo-signed deed submitted to the courts. The courts allowed the false documents and proceeded with foreclosures against victims whose rights were ignored. The law was ignored to allow the foreclosures to proceed.
Law Enforcement informed of the fraud has prosecuted no one for the crime. Rule 1.6 explains that.
No comments:
Post a Comment