Recommended Reading

Part of the Bibliography in the next filing - this about 50% of the documents studied for the information presented on this site.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following journal articles, documents and collateral information are presented as reference resources which have contributed to the review, study and presentation within this document.

The documents include demonstrations of the intentional carelessness and deception, and also the tactics of disinformation which conceal their actions from within and without.

( FYI, this is the difference between following the scripts into corruption... and understanding the law... and recognizing the perversion which undermined the judiciary. )

JUSTICE IS COMING.

If you want to do something evil, do it inside something boring... INDEED.

---

PROFESSIONAL SECRECY AND ITS EXCEPTIONS: Spaulding V. Zimmerman Revisited
Roger C. Cramton and Lori P. Knowles, 83 Minn. L. Rev. 63 (1998)
Download

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER: The Three Hardest Questions
Monroe H. Freedman, 64 Mich. L. Rev. 1469 (1966)
Download

WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT ETHICS: A Critical View of the Model Rules
Stephen Gillers, , 46 Ohio St. L.J. 243 (1985)
Download

RECTIFICATION OF CLIENT FRAUD: Death and Revival of a Professional Norm
Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., 33 Emory L.J. 271 (1984)
Download

ON LEARNING OF A CORPORATE CLIENT'S CRIME OR FRAUD
Junious Hoffman, 3 Bus. Law. 1389 (1978)
Download

THE LAW BETWEEN THE BAR AND THE STATE
Susan P. Koniak, 70 N.C.L. Rev. 1389 (1992)
Download

THE CENTRAL MORAL TRADITION OF LAWYERING
Robert P. Lawry, 19 Hofstra L. Rev. 311 (1990)
Download

CONFIDENTIALITY AND THE DANGEROUS PATIENT: Implications of Tarasoff for Psychiatrists and Lawyers
Vanessa Merton, 31 Emory L. Rev. 263 (1982)
Download

THE LAWYER’S ALLEGIANCE: Priorities Regarding Confidentiality
R.W. Nahstoll, 41 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 421 (1984)
Download

THE FUTURE CRIME OR TORT EXCEPTION TO COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGES
Harvard Note, 77 Harv. L. Rev. 730 (1964)
Download

THE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND THE NEW MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Blowing the Whistle and Waving the Red Flag
Ronald R. Rotunda, 63 Ore. L. Rev. 455 (1984)
Download

PROFESSIONALISM AS BAR POLITICS: The Making of the Rules of Professional Conduct
Ted Schneyer, 14 Law & Social Inquiry 677 (1989)
Download

THE LAWYER AS SUPEREGO: Disclosure of Client Confidences to Prevent Harm
Harry I. Subin, 70 Iowa L. Rev. 1091 (1985)
Download

CLIENT CONFIDENCE AND THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY: Too Little Consensus and Too Much Confusion
Harris Weinstein, 35 S. Texas L .Rev. 727 (1994)
Download

REVISING THE ETHICAL RULES OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY: Towards a New Discretionary Rule
Limor Zer-Gutman, 45 Loyola L. Rev. 669, 681 (1999)
Download

SCHAFER'S DILEMMA: Client Confidentiality vs. Judicial Integrity -- A Very Different Proposal for the Revision of Model Rule 1.6
LaRue T. Hosmer and Daniel C. Powell, 49 Loyola L. Rev. 405-469 (2003)
Download

THE GEORGETOWN PROPOSALS
Harvey J. Pitt, 36 Bus. Law. 1831 (1981).
Download

THE KAYE SCHOLER AFFAIR: The Lawyer’s Duty of Candor and the Bar’s Temptations of Evasion and Apology
William L. Simon, 23 Law & Soc. Inquiry 243 (Spring, 1998)
Download

RETHINKING CONFIDENTIALITY II: Is Confidentiality Constitutional?
Fred C. Zacharias, 75 Iowa L. Rev 601 (March. 1990)
Download

RETHINKING CONFIDENTIALITY
Fred C. Zacharias, 74 Iowa L. Rev. 351 (January 1989)
Download

WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION: INTERIM FORMAL ETHICS OPINION Re: The Effect of the SEC's Sarbanes-Oxley Regulations on Washington Attorneys' Obligations Under the RPCs
Approved by Board of Governors July 26, 2003
Download

THE CONCEPT OF A RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS
Charles W. Wolfram, 1 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 199 1987-1`988
Download

PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATOR'S MUNICIPAL DESKBOOK, Third Edition (2006)
Download

WORLD JUSTICE PROJECT INDEX REPORT 2012
Download

U.S. 7TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS
IN RE A WITNESS, 288 F. 3d 289 (7th Cir. 2002)
Decided April 23, 2002
Download

WISCONSIN RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR ATTORNEYS
November 14, 2001
Download

WHOSE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT SHOULD GOVERN LAWYERS IN FEDERAL COURT AND HOW SHOULD THE RULES BE CREATED
Bruce A. Green, 64 Geo. Wash L. Rev. 460 (1995-1996)
Download

WHO ARE CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF – On the Effective Use Of Resources in Pennsylvania
Stephen J. McEwen, Jr – Court Review 1998
Download

WHEN CANARIES WON;T SING: The Failure of the Attorney Self-Reporting System in the “Cash For Kids” Scheme
Sarah L. Primrose, 36 J. Legal Prof. 139 (2011)
Download

WATCHING THE HENHOUSE: Judicial Rulemaking and Judicial Review
Carrie Leonetti, 91 Neb. L. Rev (2013)
Download

WASHINGTON STATE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Adopted July 10, 2006 - Effective September 1, 2006
Download

WANT TO TAKE MY HOME? A Tale of David, the Homeowner, versus Goliath, the Bank
Eastburn & Gray, P.C. (2012)
Download

MAKING LAWYERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TRUTH: The Influence of Marvin Frankel’s Proposal for Reforming the Adversary System
Daniel Walfish, J.D. 2004 Yale Law School
Download

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, United States of America v. John Doe PRECEDENTIAL, October 25, 2005
Download

TWENTY­FIVE WAYS TO SUPPRESS TRUTH: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)
H. Michael Sweeney (2000) www.proparanoid.com
Download

Truth in Lawyering Act (“TILA”) - (Washington State) December 18, 2001
Download

THE VARYING PARAMETERS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW
John F. Decker, 65 La. L. Rev. (2004)
Download

THE SEPARATE BUT UNEQUAL CONSTITUTION
Adam Lamparello and Charles MacLean, January 2014
Download

THE NEXT STEP IN LEGAL ETHICS: Some Observations About the Proposed Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Robert J. Kutak, 30 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1 (1981)
Download

THE KUTAK MODEL RULES V. THE AMERICAN LAWYER'S CODE OF CONDUCT
Monroe H. Freedman, 26 Vill. L. Rev. 1165 (1981)
Download

THE CLIENT-FRAUD DILEMMA: A NEED FOR CONSENSUS
Kenneth F. Krach, 46 Md. L. Rev. 436 (1987)
Download

COMPARATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF LEGAL STAFF IN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTS
Council of Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeal, (April 2011)
Download

THE LEGALITY OF STATE PROTECTIONIST LAWS AGAINST LEGAL PROCESS OUTSOURCING
Anne J. Lee, J. ON TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH. L Vol. 11 (2013)
Download

".... IN THE SPIRIT OF PUBLIC SERVICE:" A Blueprint for the Rekindling of Lawyer Professionalism
American Bar Association , Commission on Professionalism, 1986
Download

OVERSTEPPING ETHICAL BOUNDARIES? LIMITATIONS ON STATE EFFORTS TO PROVIDE
ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN FAMILY COURTS
Jessica Dixon Weaver, 82 F ORDHAM L. R EV . 2563 (2014).
Download

VALID RULE DUE PROCESS CHALLENGES: BOND v.
UNITED STATES AND ERIE’S CONSTITUTIONAL SOURCE
Kermit Roosevelt, III,, WILLIAM & MARY LAW REVIEW Vol. 54:987
Download

DISQUALIFYING JUDGES WHEN THEIR IMPARTIALITY MIGHT REASONABLY BE
QUESTIONED : MOVING BEYOND A FAILED STANDARD
Raymond J. McKoski, ARIZONA LAW REVIEW VOL. 56:411 (2014)
Download

IS CONFIDENTIALITY REALLY FOREVER---EVEN IF THE CLIENT DIES OR CEASES TO EXIST?
By Anne Klinefelter and Marc C. Laredo, Volume 40, No. 3 Litigation 47-51 (Spring, 2014)
Download

AGAINST CONFIDENTIALITY
Dru Stevenson ? 2014
Download

THINNING OUT STRUCTURAL THEORY
Garrick B. Pursley, (2014)
Download

THE PARADOX OF ADMINISTRATIVE PREEMPTION
David S. Rubenstein, (2014)
Download

DETERMINING THE PREEMPTIVE EFFECT OF FEDERAL LAW ON STATE STATUTES OF REPOSE
Adam Bain, University of Baltimore Law Review Vol. 43
Download

THE SUPREME COURT ’ S JURISDICTIONAL INFIDELITY
John David Ohlendorf , July 11, 2013
Download

HIDING BEHIND THE CLOAK OF INVISIBILITY : THE SUPREME COURT AND PER CURIAM OPINIONS
Ira P. Robbins, TULANE LAW REVIEW Vol. 86:1197 (2012)
Download

THE RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS AND THE COURTS
1997 Symposium, The Professional Lawyer
Susan Martyn, (1997)
Download

HOW MUCH JUSTICE CAN WE AFFORD?: DEFINING THE COURTS’ ROLES AND DECIDING THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF TRIALS, SETTLEMENT SIGNALS, AND OTHER ELEMENTS NEEDED TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE
John Lande, JOURNAL OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION Vol. 2006
Download

SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY, THE SMITH ACT, AND PROSECUTION FOR RELIGIOUS SPEECH ADVOCATING THE VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT
John Alan Cohan, Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development: Vol. 17: Iss. 2, Article 2. (2003)
Download

SPECULUM JURIS VOLUME 25 PART 2 2011
Nelson Mandela School of Law, Faculty of Law Rhodes University (2011)
Download

VITAE REPUBLICAE – THE LIFE OF THE REPUBLIC – SHERIFF'S
Carson J. Tucker
Download

REVIVING A TRADITION OF SERVICE:
REDEFINING LAWYER PROFESSIONALISM IN THE 21 ST CENTURY
Ronald C. Minkoff, ABA Standing Committee on Professionalism. (2010)
Download

RESTORING CONSTITUTIONAL EQUILIBRIUM
Adam Lamparello, October 2014
Download

RECTIFICATION OF CLIENT FRAUD
Marcia A. Johnson, Director - Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility
Bench & Bar of Minnesota (April 1993)
Download

SECTION 1983 LITIGATION
Martin A. Schwartz and Kathryn R. Urbonya, Federal Judicial Center 2008
RULES VERSUS STANDARDS: An Economic Analysis
Louis Kaplow, DUKE LAW JOURNAL Vol. 42:557
Download

KUTAK COMMISSION
Robert Kutak, 1977 – 1983
Download

“LAWYER AS PUBLIC CITIZEN” – A Futile Attempt to Close Pandora’s Box
Matthew E. Meany, 35 Campbell L. Rev. 119 (2012)
Download

STANDING OF INTERVENOR - Defendants in Public Law Litigation
Matthew I. Hall, 80 Fordham L. Rev. 1539 (2012).
Download

THE RULE OF LAW AS A LAW OF STANDARDS
JAMAL GREENE, 56 U. C HI . L. R EV . 1175, 1175 (1989)
Download

HOW LAWYERS ACT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE
Monroe H. Freedman, 70 Fordham L. Rev. 1717 (2002)
Download

THE FINE PRINT, VOL. 1, NO. 3
Download

Students of the University of Georgia School of Law, Other Law School Publications. Paper 304 (1982)
Download

ATTORNEY PAPERS, HISTORY AND CONFIDENTIALITY: A Proposed Amendment to Model Rule 1.6
Patrick Shilling, 69 Fordham L. Rev. 2741 (2001)
Download

RULES AGAINST RULIFICATION
Michael Coenen, (2013)
Download

CONFLICT AND TRUST BETWEEN ATTORNEY AND CLIENT
Robert A. Burt, Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 796. (1981)
Download

LEGAL ETHICS: Discretion and Utility in Model Rule 1.6
Charles A. Kelbley, Fordham Urban Law Review Vol XIII (1984)
Download

CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION UNDER SECTION 1983 AND THE BIVENS DOCTRINE IN THE OCTOBER 2008 TERM
Martin A. Schwartz, Touro Law Review: Vol. 26: No. 2, Article 9 (2012)
Download

RULE 201. JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS.
PA Code Article II Rule 201
Download

THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
112th Congress, (2013)
Download

FEDERAL USURPATION
FRANKLIN PIERCE , Family Guardian Fellowship (1908)
Download

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE: An Overview of Some of the Federal Statutes That Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities
Charles Doyle, Congressional Research Service 7-5700 (2014)
Download

JUDICIAL SUPREMACY AND NONJUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
Scott E. Gant, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly Vol.24:359 (1997)
Download

HIDING BEHIND THE CLOAK OF INVISIBILITY : The Supreme Court And Per Curiam Opinions
Ira P. Robbins (2012)
Download

TOWARD A HISTORY OF THE LEGALIZATION OF AMERICAN LEGAL ETHICS – II The Modern Era
Charles W. Wolfram, 8 U. Chi. L. Sch. Roundtable 469 (2001)
Download

WHY KENTUCKY SHOULD ADOPT THE ABA'S MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Eugene R. Gaetke, 74 Ky. L.J. 581 (1986)
Download

QUALIFICATIONS OF MONROE H. FREEDMAN AS AN EXPERT WITNESS ON LAWYERS ’ AND JUDGES ’ ETHICS
Monroe H. Freedman, Qualifications 2014
Download

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Intersection And Integration
Martha F. Davis, School of Law Faculty Publications. Paper 162. (2010)
Download

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Intersection And Integration
Martha F. Davis, COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW 42:157 (2011)
Download

GIVING NEW MEANING TO “JUSTICE FOR ALL”: CRAFTING AN EXCEPTION TO ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
Brittney Kern , 2014 M ICH . S T . L. R EV . 149
Download

LAWYER-CLIENT CONFIDENCES: The Model Rules' Radical Assault on Tradition
Monroe H. Freedman, 68 American Bar Association Journal 428
Download

A CASE FOR INCREASED DISCLOSURE
Deborah Abramovsky, Fordham Urban Law Review Vol XIII (1984)
Download

AGAINST CONFIDENTIALITY
Dru Stevenson , Abstract (2014)
Download

THE SUPREME COURT AS A LEGISLATURE
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr, Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2407
Download

HOW FAR MAY A LAWYER GO IN ASSISTING A CLIENT IN LEGALLY WRONGFUL CONDUCT?
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2402. (1981)
Download

REVISITING THE SECOND RESTATEMENT OF JUDGMENTS: Issue Preclusion and Related Problems
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2404.
Download

RECTIFICATION OF CLIENT FRAUD: Death and Revival of a Professional Norm
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2396. (1984)
Download

PRECLUSION AS TO ISSUES OF LAW: The Legal System's Interest
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2397. (1984)
Download

RISING ABOVE PRINCIPLE
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2393. (1986)
Download

A LAWYER'S PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2392. (1987)
Download

PROFESSIONALISM: The Deep Theory
Daniel R. Coquillette, North Carolina Law Review 72, (1994): 1271-1278. (1994)
Download

IN PRAISE OF OVERZEALOUS REPRESENTATION- Lying to Judges, Deceiving Third Parties, and Other Ethical Conduct
Monroe H. Freedman, (3 rd ed., 2004) (with Abbe Smith)
Download

FOUR PORTRAITS OF LAW PRACTICE
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2386.
Download

THE FUTURE OF LEGAL ETHICS
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2380.
Download

THE CLIENT FRAUD PROBLEM: A Justinian Quartet
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2370.
Download

STATE SUPREME COURT REGULATION OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2365.
Download

IT’S NOT OVER: Empowering the Different Voice in Legal Academia
Elvia R. Arriola, 29 Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. (2014).
Download

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

The following letter was sent to the Justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Using the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice Report to demonstrate the failure within the 'system' to take responsibility for the Kids for Cash injustice and the failure to present the cause of the problem - Rule 1.6 Confidentiality.

There have been filings with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania by which they were aware of our effort though dismissals by unsigned per curiam orders offer plausible deniability to their being informed. As petitions had been filed with the court, it would have been inappropriate to communicate with the judiciary at that time.


One persistent Question lingers...

WHY DID THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ENACT THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT INTO LAW?

What was the reason which necessitated their action? You may wonder why the supreme court in EVERY state did the same thing at staggered times from 1984 through 2009.

We have asked for a meeting where the issue can be discussed and those essential questions can be answered.

---

August 28, 2014

Chief Justice Ron Castille
Justice Max Baer
Justice Michael J. Eakin
Justice Seamus P. McCaffrey
Justice Thomas G. Saylor
Justice Correale F. Stevens
Justice Debra Todd
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania


Your Honor,

After meetings with Senator Chuck McIlhinney have failed to demonstrate any progress, it is clearly necessary to raise this issue to your attention directly.

The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was made up of lawyers (9 of 12) who heard information from county judges, district attorneys, public defenders and the Judicial Conduct Board. Attributing the blame to “silence, inaction, inexperience, ignorance, fear of retaliation, greed, ambition, carelessness.”, the lawyers on the commission maintained ‘confidentiality of information’ as required by law – Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Their realization was correct – “What good would [reporting] it do?” HOWEVER, the Commission’s report neglected to indicate the reason for the silence (Rule 1.6) and it also neglected to expose the cause (the Rule 1.6 mandate) , and as such their recommended reforms do nothing to prevent a recurrence of the judicial corruption.

Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information where it adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary, the reputation of legal professionals, self-incriminates, or negatively affects their client. Protecting the integrity of a judicial which lacks integrity is foolishness. Mandating it has unconstitutional effects.

The Commission Report and Reform Recommendations amount to fraud – a deliberate effort to conceal the root cause of the failure of the justice system to address judicial misconduct, corruption and injustice.

Far more frightening and perilous, is that the lawyers associated with the Commission have now been ‘educated and trained’ in how to execute and conceal crimes such as those committed by Ciavarella and Conahan – who only went to prison because they had failed at money laundering.

The Supreme Court’s authority to enact law is limited to situations where ‘such rules are consistent with this Constitution [Pennsylvania] and neither abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of any litigant.’

The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who must follow the US Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Rules of Professional Conduct which were enacted by the Supreme Court.

For the Attorney General, the Rule 1.6 mandate of ‘confidentiality of information’ with regard to client information undermines ‘everything’ where an attorney general’s clients include (1) the public, (2) the Pennsylvania government, (3) the Office of the Attorney General, (4) government agencies and departments statewide, (5) personnel within those agencies and departments, (6) and themselves.

The Rules of Professional Conduct enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have substantially affected the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Attorney General preventing and obstructing law enforcement responsibilities when it relates to judicial corruption and injustice within the courts.

The Supreme Court, by the same mandate, has caused a ‘lawful’ requirement within every court and by every lawyer in the commonwealth to ignore injustice and judicial corruption.

Previous Codes of Professional Responsibility (among other titles) have included similar guidelines, BUT once enacted into ‘law’ in 1987 ignoring injustice and judicial corruption ceased being discretionary and was MANDATED BY LAW.

The result, the Rules of Professional Conduct collaterally affect and negate ‘the substantive rights of the litigant’. Specifically, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality causes a mandatory conspiracy of silence within the courts which ignores the damage and harm caused to litigants and further hinders and prevents any resolution.

The substantive rights of the children and families of Luzerne County were clearly ignored.

The Supreme Court lacked authority to enact Rule 1.6 into law as the substantive rights of the People have been ‘abridged’, ‘modified’, denied and ignored.

Additionally, the role of the Sheriff as Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the county has been negated and minimized by judicial decisions. Constitutionally, the Sheriff has the lawful authority and resources to enforce the law within the county.

Failing to act because the judiciary has convinced them of a greatly diminished role, the non-lawyer Sheriffs (reluctantly) defer authority to the county District Attorney who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.6. A necessity to prevent prosecution. District Attorneys take no action to investigate and prosecute the injustice and judicial corruption. Related crimes against the victims of injustice are ignored leaving the litigant with no protection under the law.

The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct were rolled out to the states and enacted into law nationwide without the involvement of the state legislatures, the signature of the governors or any constitutional review.

“What is right is not always the same as what is legal.” was offered by Edward Snowden as an explanation for his actions revealing unconstitutional activity. This statement may also apply to the failure of attorneys general, judges, district attorneys and lawyers to address the unconstitutional actions made ‘legal’ which have undermined justice over the last 25 years.

It is the responsibility of the Governor to represent the People, to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution and the state Constitution, and to recognize that collaterally Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional to the People.

The act of sedition which enacted Rule 1.6 and mandated the silent participation of all legal professionals, perverted the judiciary, sacrificed the personal integrity of every judge, and undermined justice can no longer be ignored and excused because of the intimidation and threats of disciplinary action by the corrupt who have deliberately violated the public trust.

The Commission on Juvenile Justice have not done what was requested of them. They have participated in concealing the truth. They have endorsed and enabled continuing injustice.

You, the members of the Legislature and the Judiciary who assembled the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice must review their report findings and recommendations. The deliberate knowledgeable failure of those lawyers to indicate the root cause of the problem in Luzerne County, which also less publicly affects every court in the Commonwealth, was caused by Rule 1.6 - An unconstitutional and repugnant law which has been improperly enacted by the state Supreme Court without proper review of its affect on constitutional rights.

You attention to this matter of statewide importance is appreciated. A meeting to discuss the issue would be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim


PDF version
Attachment - Letters sent to other government officials

Kids for Cash... The deliberate failure to see Rule 1.6 impact

Rule 1.6 impacts a person quickly causing the loss of their rights and privileges protected by the United States Constitution. No one helps. No one explains.

Rule 1.6 impacts the judiciary as the judges sacrifice their integrity without explanation - the victims learn to have no faith or trust in the judiciary.

---

INTERBRANCH COMMISSION ON JUVENILE JUSTICE
So extraordinary were the circumstances that the executive, legislative and judicial branches of Pennsylvania government agreed to undertake a noncriminal investigation to determine the root causes of the breakdown of Luzerne County's juvenile justice system and to propose remedies.

As stated by Act 32, The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was to determine how the Luzerne County juvenile justice system failed, to restore public confidence in the administration of justice and to prevent similar events from occurring in Luzerne County or elsewhere in the Commonwealth.


THE COMMISSION FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPACT OF RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. Here's a few reasons / influences...

THE COMMISSIONS MEMBERS
Judge John M. Cleland	A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Judge James A. Gibbons	A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Judge John C. Uhler	A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Judge Dwayne Woodruff	A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Kenneth J. Horoho, Jr, Esquire	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Jason A. Legg, Esquire	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Robert L. Listenbee, Jr. Esquire	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
George Mossee, Esquire	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Darren M. Breslin, Esquire	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Tod C. Allen	???
Valerie Bender	???
Ronald P. Williams	???

Witnesses who appeared before the commission:
The president judge of Luzerne County	A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
the former district attorney	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
the incumbent district attorney	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
the county public defender	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
assistant district attorneys	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
assistant public defenders	A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
juvenile probation officials	???
former juvenile defendants	???
parents of juvenile defendants	???
school officials	???
county commissioners	???
officials of the Judicial Conduct Board	judges and lawyers mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
and others	???

Prosecutors, defenders and probation officials had witnessed and had participated in proceedings in Ciavarella's courtroom.

The Commission finds a complex and nuanced picture in which many individuals may be seen to have shared the responsibility attributing their inaction and silence to inexperience, ignorance, fear of retaliation, greed, ambition, carelessness.

For some, hesitation to act stemmed from a quandry: They were not sure where to turn to report concerns.

For some there was a coinciding skepticism: What good would it do?

"WHAT GOOD WOULD IT DO?" is not coinciding skepticism. It is the impact of the unconstitutional 'law' that caused the moral and ethical quandry where injustice and denial of constitutional rights is mandated to conceal the corruption and injustice of the judiciary.

THE COMMISSION FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THEIR INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED BY PERSONS WHO MUST FOLLOW THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT?
AND THAT THE LAW MANDATES CONFIDENTIALITY?
AND HAD THE CORRUPTION BEEN REPORTED TO ANY SUPERIOR, OR HIGHER COURT OR DISCIPLINARY BOARD OR JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD, THEY TOO WERE MANDATED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY?

Silence, inaction, inexperience, fear of retaliation. Greed, ambition, carelessness. MAYBE.
BUT, There was no ignorance of the law requiring CONFIDENTIALITY... their failure to act was deliberate and deceptive and calculating.

Rule 1.6 mandates an obligation to maintain confidentiality where information
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary, or
- would reveal the misconduct of the lawyers office, or
- would expose individual liability of the lawyer, 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.

Rule 1.6 concealed the single point of failure... itself.

After all, Rule 1.6 was why the District Attorney did not prosecute the judges or ever investigate.

After all, Rule 1.6 was why the Attorney General did not prosecute the judges or ever investigate.

After all, Rule 1.6 was why Judge Ann Lokuta was removed from the bench for reporting the corruption to the FBI. The Commission failed to interview Judge Ann Lokuta. The FBI involvement was in response to HER report. While the Commission was meeting, Judge Ann Lokuta was disciplined for violating Confidentiality of Information.

While the Juvenile Law Center may be credited with exposing the injustice and corruption, you must recognize that The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania didn't care about their complaint. NOT ONE BIT. Repeatedly dismissing it in every format submitted. Rule 1.6 required that they dismiss.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's own law enacted in 1987 (effective 1988) undermined their own power to act, or take steps to rectify the situation. Rule 1.6 sacrificed the judges integrity. Rule 1.6 prevented and denied justice.

Rule 1.6 undermines and causes the loss of the constitutional rights of the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Kids for Cash scandal exposes the deliberate actions of the 'law' and the effect on the families and the communities.

Post Operation Greylord, The ABA wanted to make sure judges could not be prosecuted for corruption and injustice... so the ABA made it possible to deny the constitutional rights of people and children leaving the victim with no other place to turn but to go to the wrongdoers and request justice - and when ignored and denied, they were forced to return again and again without mercy.

Injustice doesn't end injustice. It extends it.


References:
Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice
Summary of Recommendations
Progress Report
Kids for Cash Final Report


Kids for Cash Luzerne County Task Force

Kids for Cash Beck Report(Life before)

Lokuta Opinion
Lokuta Sanction
Lokuta Dissent
Lokuta Opinion and Order 2nd
Lokuta Opinion 2nd
Lokuta Order 1st
Lokuta Opinion and Order

Not so funny.... because it is true.

This would be funny... except IT IS TRUE.

The separate set of laws are THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT which must be followed by lawyers and legal professionals. Enacted by each state Supreme Court without any legislature, governor or constitutional review, .

IT IS NOT LEGAL. Rule 1.6 denies constitutionally protected rights, therefore it is repugnant to the US Constitution. So, it also violates each state constitution. It is definitely not legal

IT IS ILLEGAL TO ASK ABOUT IT. An attorney or judge must maintain CONFIDENTIALITY. Not only can they not discuss it, they cannot lawfully address it's unconstitutionality.