Layers of Lawyers - Corruption by Confidentiality

IT IS LAW. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

A lawyer has an obligation to maintain confidentiality where information
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary, or
- would reveal the misconduct of their own office, or
- would expose individual liability, or
- would negatively impact their client.

When a lawyer hires a lawyer to represent him, that lawyer must maintain confidentiality where information
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary, or
- would reveal the misconduct of their own office, or
- would expose individual liability, or
- would negatively impact their client.

Government lawyers are unsure of WHO their client even is...
- 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.

THE LAW MANDATES CONFIDENTIALITY FOR THE CLIENT - even when you have no idea who your client is, or may be, or might be, or will be.

---

Along comes Attorney General Kathleen Kane ending an investigation and saying nothing. CONFIDENTIALITY - mandated by LAW.

Along comes Kathleen Kane with a lawyer to visit the Philly newspapers and saying nothing. CONFIDENTIALITY - mandated by LAW.

Read the accusations by other lawyers who know what she cannot say and speculating. Those lawyers know very well that Kathleen Kane BY LAW must not say anything. But they can speculate all they want.
CONFIDENTIALITY - mandated by LAW.

---

NJ Governor Chris Christie releases a report on BRIDGEgate through his lawyer.
CONFIDENTIALITY - mandated by LAW.

Christie must do that to protect the state, the governor's office, he can't say anything. IT's THE LAW.
CONFIDENTIALITY - mandated by LAW.

So Chris Christie hires a lawyer, who must protect the client, and the lawyer says nothing. He can't say anything. IT's THE LAW.
CONFIDENTIALITY - mandated by LAW.

---

Aside from the political games being played in full view of the entire country, the Rule 1.6 game plays out in every level of courts every day. It denies and obstructs justice to litigants when the lawyers and the courts must take every action to maintain confidentiality of the corruption and the injustice in the United States Courts.

The law becomes clearly unconstitutional when it denies rights and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

The lawyers can't fix it because they would violate the LAW.

The courts can't fix it because it would violate the LAW.

The legislature can't fix it because it would violate the LAW.

ONLY A NON-LAWYER CAN LAWFULLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is in the Federal Courts - Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Filed and served upon every state which is following the same 'law' which demands the unconstitutional denial of the rights of litigants to protect a system which has self destructed protecting the integrity of a judiciary which lacked integrity, concealing the misconduct of lawyers, hiding the individual liability of lawyers and law enforcement who are prevented from their responsibilities because of a 'law' buried in the Rules of Professional Conduct.

---

And then there are the media lawyers who have informed the news media to ignore the story.

The American Bar Association, the author of the 'law", has undermined and corrupted the judiciary of the entire United States... and they hide from the two pro se litigants who proved the ABA's conspiracy and mandate of silence in the name of integrity. You cannot encourage integrity by a mandate which sacrifices integrity. JUSTICE IS COMING.

Asking... is always cheaper than spying.

"Together we can find a better balance, end mass surveillance and remind the government that if it really wants to know how we feel asking is always cheaper than spying." - Edward Snowden

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/alternative-christmas-message/4od

The missing part of the Edward Snowden story is WHY? Perhaps the necessity of preventing the American public from being informed of the problem with it's judicial branch necessitated the surveillance. It just went out of control because no one could be told the true purpose.

Each state judiciary, under their lawful authority to self-regulate, rendered themselves a nullity. The Rules of Professional Conduct once enacted into LAW rendered the state courts unconstitutional because they denied the people of their rights protected by the US Constitution. The state courts were void... a nullity...

The state courts did not have the authority and necessary jurisdiction YET terrorized honest law abiding people into poverty, homelessness and suicide. Nowhere is this more evident than the family courts... where the twisted mental perversions and hatred of judges like Rhonda Lee Daniele, Thomas DelRicci, Garrett Page and Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio attacked every effort of their victims to persevere and survive. In my case, because of my ability to persevere and my incapacity for suicide, eighteen judicial terrorists attacked and annihilated every aspect of my life and existence. NOT ANY ONE OF THEM DID ANYTHING TO ADDRESS OR RESTORE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Sen. Tom Coburn: We need a constitutional convention to take back our country

Senator, the problem is that there was no lawful way to approach the crisis the country is facing.

Until 2 guys from suburban Philadelphia found the law which enabled the crisis and prevented resolution, and THEY COULD ADDRESS IT LAWFULLY. Once that law is declared by the court to be unconstitutional, a nullity, justice will be resurrected.

Pay attention to how many times you have been told about lack of jurisdiction. Rule 1.6 prevented lawful action.

"We have agencies that are rife with fraud and programs that are rife with fraud, and Congress has not done anything about it, they have agreed not to do anything about it. I think we're working too well together." Sen. Tom Coburn

We need a constitutional convention to take back our country

Senator Tom Coburn does not know that there can be no convention, because the lawyers can't repair the damage they have done. Not until we get this Rule out of the way. Anyone in the government who mentions the issues which subvert the Constitution is likely NOT a lawyer. The lawyers know that is CONFIDENTIAL, and the punishment for talking is brutal.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-tom-coburn-we-need-a-constitutional-convention-to-take-back-our-country/article/2534671