Unconstitutional Nullity: Peek-a-boo... Justice is Coming

Freedom is IMPORTANT. Constitutional rights are IMPORTANT.

If your solution violates either My Freedom or the US Constitution, then YOU have some more work to do.

Freedoms and Rights can coexist.

Once permitted to infringe upon each other, it is a slippery slope.
(OY! I hate cliche's but no better choice there.)

I am grateful for the effort by the founders of the US, because in today's 140 char or less environment they would never have been allowed to think in a broad sense which permits freedom and rights to co-exist.

Their archived papers and documents explained the basis for their decisions, and the aspects which they wrestled with to come to the decision. They exerted considerably more thought while founding the American Government than people expect. It was not haphazard. Decisions were not reached by exhausting the person who did not agree. Only one known and argued issue seems to have been conceded while it left the government at risk.

One issue which was a necessity left a loophole in the separation of powers. They did foresee the problem, but did not imagine that it would ever occur. They got it wrong. Very wrong.

By permitting the Judicial branch to self-police, the administration of justice, and the independence of the judiciary and the reasons which necessitated absolute judicial immunity all pivoted on one point of failure - THE PUBLIC TRUST.

The Public Trust in the judiciary is mandated by law. Respect towards the judicial branch is mandated by law.

The courts were open rooms in the centers of towns. Justice was transparent and open to the public. The public could witness proceedings. When necessary, where the trust placed in the judiciary was violated, the public would remove a judge from office. Occasionally by hanging. Justice was swift. Violations of the Public Trust could not be permitted to continue and erode the entire system of justice and government..

It was this type of violation of the public trust which endorsed and enabled apartheid to persist in South Africa. Their judiciary jailed the outspoken without regard for their own injustice.

When South Africa wrote their new Constitution in the 90's, they made certain that the judicial branch was accountable to the people and the Executive and Legislative branches of government, and not just to the judicial branch. They recognized the problem which existed in the US, once corrupted the judiciary find justice in permitting injustice to continue.


THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT
(because trust, honor and respect is mandated by law)

The judiciary did not recognize Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION for the pervasive corruption it would permit, cause, enable and conceal.

Once under the control of Rule 1.6, with the leverage of exposing the violation of the public trust concealed by the judiciary, the American Bar Association had effectively usurped the authority and independence of the judiciary. The ABA then manipulated the authority of the courts over lawyers and legal professionals, even in other branches of government. Where Rule 1.6 expanded to affect federal lawyers, Rule 1.6 undermined the jurisdiction and authority of the Federal Government to act to address corruption within the state. Rule 1.6 required active participation in the conspiracy and the injustice.

The McDade Murtha Amendment which prevents the exposure of Rule 1.6 by government lawyers was enacted against the objections of several US Attorneys General, and DOJ officials. It would have been so simple had they only informed the Congress of the central issue. Applying the ethical standard enacted within the state to all government lawyers would cause considerable damage to the government.

The Rules of Professional Conduct lacked ethics, permitted fraud and the efforts to conceal fraud and prevent resolution. The US Congress never checked to see if the state ethics laws were ethical. Pennsylvania describes the Rules as a minimal ethical standard. Minimal is none. Points for not lying about the law which would require their silence about the corruption it would cause.

Did the state law, Rule 1.6 prevent exposing that state ethics laws lacked ethics? even where the country was about to mandate all government attorneys to follow the 'Rules' within the respective state where they were investigating and working? even where it denied constitutionally protected rights?

Apparently, the lawyers who foreclosed upon over 48 million homes using fraudulent and forged robo-signed documents were confident that their corruption of the authority of the judiciary had been successful.

The big injustices, the little injustices all combine to create a sense of national urgency. Injustice is occurring across the country. The US Constitution is being ignored. One law enacted in every state affects every case secretly, confidentially. Promotion to law was begun in 1984, generations of lawyers find this 'acceptable' because they were mandated to conceal the problem if they discovered it. Trained to perceive Rule 1.6 as attorney-client privilege, and neglecting the affect on the law, justice and the judiciary.... even while it undermined and usurped the authority of the other branches of government.

When recognized by PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane, an unconstitutional law would not be effective to silence her, The courts issues several secret court orders. AG Kane is silenced while those corrupt orders are under appeal.... and while it undermines the constitutional rights of every American.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 removes an unconstitutional law and restores justice to the entire country. Discovered by victims of injustice with standing to address the unconstitutional effect of the 'law'. Without the assistance, or cooperation, of any legal professional or member of the American Bar Association and affiliated organizations formed in every jurisdiction at every level of state and federal courts.

Hindered from the effort by legal professionals within the state and federal government mandated to follow the unconstitutional law, the government lawyers knew better and cannot be excused from damages and repartations for their participation in the denial of the rule of law and prevention of rights secures by the US Constitution.

Did those secret court orders require Kathleen Kane to file for divorce in an attempt to secure her personal assets? Is that why those lawyers are representing 'the person' Kathleen Kane (and not the Office of the Attorneyh General)?

The laws work when not prevented by an unconstitutional requirement to conceal injustice in every state and federally.

If your solution violates either My Freedom or the US Constitution, then you have some more work to do.

If their defense is that they were following the law, then they need to recall that an unconstitutional law is no law, a nullity, as if it never existed. It can no longer be obstructed by an unconstitutional law mandating non-disclosure and confidentiality and participation in a conspiracy to deny constitutional rights.


A nullity cannot conceal a nullity.

A nullity cannot justify or excuse a nullity.

PEEK-a-Boo... JUSTICE IS COMING.

Peek-a-boo Pennsylvania!

Governor Wolf and the Legislature can act now, or after a federal lawsuit is filed against them?

Those who know better ought to know better than to continue their participation in a conspiracy to deny the constitutional rights of every American in every state. EVERY PERSON MATTERS.

Pwennsylvania, whatcha gonna do?

Mail Fraud

MAIL FRAUD AND WIRE FRAUD


Prosecution Policy Relating to Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud

Prosecutions of fraud ordinarily should not be undertaken if the scheme employed consists of some isolated transactions between individuals, involving minor loss to the victims, in which case the parties should be left to settle their differences by civil or criminal litigation in the state courts. Serious consideration, however, should be given to the prosecution of any scheme which in its nature is directed to defrauding a class of persons, or the general public, with a substantial pattern of conduct.
See also USAM 9-85.210 (requires prior consultation with the Public Integrity Section to use the mail or wire fraud statutes in the prosecution of election fraud cases).

Further guidance and legal analysis of issues surrounding the investigation and prosecution of frauds involving use of the mail or wire, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341 and 1343 can be found in the Criminal Resource Manual:


Investigative Authority

Primary investigative jurisdiction of possible violations of the mail and wire fraud statutes is vested in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In some cases, complaints involving securities may be investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, the Postal Inspection Service of the United States Postal Service may initiate mail or wire fraud investigations. In both situations, the investigations are usually continued by the agency initiating the investigation. Reports of investigation are disseminated directly to the appropriate United States Attorney.


18 U.S.C. Section 1341—Elements of Mail Fraud

"There are two elements in mail fraud: (1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme to defraud (or to perform specified fraudulent acts), and (2) use of the mail for the purpose of executing, or attempting to execute, the scheme (or specified fraudulent acts)." Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 721 n. 10 (1989); see also Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954) ("The elements of the offense of mail fraud under . . . § 1341 are (1) a scheme to defraud, and (2) the mailing of a letter, etc., for the purpose of executing the scheme."); Laura A. Eilers & Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 704 (1994) (cases cited).


The Scheme and Artifice to Defraud

The wire fraud statute was patterned after the mail fraud statutes. United States v. Lemon, 941 F.2d 309, 316 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Castillo, 829 F.2d 1194, 1198 (1st Cir. 1987). Thus, the same principles apply in defining "scheme to defraud" for mail and wire fraud prosecutions. See Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 25 n. 6 (1987) ("The mail and wire fraud statutes share the same language in relevant part, and accordingly we apply the same analysis to both sets of offenses here."); United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327, 1334-35 n. 6 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("The requisite elements of 'scheme to defraud' under the wire fraud statute [§ 1343] and the mail fraud statute [§ 1341], are identical. Thus, cases construing mail fraud apply to the wire fraud statute as well."), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1226 (1984).

The mail fraud and wire fraud statutes do not define the terms "scheme" or "artifice" and the courts have traditionally been reluctant to offer definitions of either term except in the broadest and most general terms. Lemire, 720 F.2d at 1335 ("Congress did not define 'scheme or artifice to defraud' when it first coined that phrase, nor has it since. Instead that expression has taken on its present meaning from 111 years of case law.").

The fraudulent aspect of the scheme to defraud is to be measured by nontechnical standards and is not restricted by any common-law definition of false pretenses. "[T]he words 'to defraud' in the mail fraud statute have the 'common understanding' of '"wrongdoing one in his property rights by dishonest methods or schemes," and "usually signify the deprivation of something of value by trick, chicane, or overreaching."'" Carpenter, 484 U.S. at 27 (quoting McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 358 (1987) (quoting Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924))). "The concept of 'fraud' includes the act of embezzlement, which is '"the fraudulent appropriation to one's own use of the money or goods entrusted to one's own care by another."'" Id. (quoting Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 189 (1902)).


No Loss or Gullible Victims

"It is the scheme to defraud and not actual fraud that is required." United States v. Reid, 533 F.2d 1255, 1264 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

"No particular type of victim is required . . . nor need the scheme have succeeded." United States v. Coachman, 727 F.2d 1293, 1302-03 n. 43 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

No actual loss to the victims is required. See United States v. Pollack, 534 F.2d 964, 971 (D.C. Cir.)

"The fraud statutes speak alternatively of devising or intending to devise a scheme to defraud and do not require that the deception bear fruit for the wrongdoer or cause injury to the intended victim as a prerequisite to successful prosecution. [S]uccess of the scheme and loss by a defrauded person are not essential elements of the crime under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 . . . .", cert. denied, 429 U.S. 924 (1976); see also United States v. Jordan, 626 F.2d 928, 931 (D.C. Cir. 1980)

"The amount of money realized as a result of the scheme is not an essential element of mail fraud. It was not even necessary to prove that the scheme succeeded."

For a discussion of fraud loss computation in sentencing see Guidelines Sentencing (Federal Judicial Center, 1997), Section II.D.2. Offense Involving Fraud and Deceit.

"[I]t makes no difference whether the persons the scheme is intended to defraud are gullible or skeptical, dull or bright . . . . " United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299, 311 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 (1980)).

"[T]he monumental credulity of the victim is no shield for the accused . . ." Id. (quoting Deaver v. United States, 155 F.2d 740, 744-45 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 766 (1946)); cf. Pollack, 534 F.2d at 971 (To hold that actual loss to victim is required "would lead to the illogical result that the legality of a defendant's conduct would depend on his fortuitous choice of a gullible victim.") (quoted in Maxwell, 920 F.2d at 1036).


Proof of Scheme and Artifice to Defraud

To sustain a conviction the government must prove the existence of a scheme; it is not required, however, to prove all details or all instances of allegedly illicit conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Stull, 743 F.2d 439, 442 n. 2 (6th Cir. 1984) ("It is well established that proof of every allegation is not required in order to convict; the government need only prove that the scheme to defraud existed."), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1062 (1985); United States v. Halbert, 640 F.2d 1000, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) ("[T]he Government need not prove every misrepresentation charged conjunctively in the indictment."); United States v. Jordan, 626 F.2d 928, 930 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ("The Government is not required to prove the details of a scheme; it is, however, required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt . . . that the defendant . . . willfully and knowingly devised a scheme or artifice to defraud . . . .") (quoting with approval the trial court's instruction on § 1341); United States v. Amrep Corp., 560 F.2d 539, 546 (2d Cir. 1977)

("A scheme to defraud may consist of numerous elements, no particular one of which need be proved if there is sufficient overall proof that the scheme exists."), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1015 (1978); Anderson v. United States, 369 F.2d 11, 15 (8th Cir. 1966) (all instances of illicit conduct need not be proved to sustain a conviction), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 976 (1967).

"All that is required is that [the defendant has] knowingly and willingly participated in the scheme; she need not have performed every key act herself." United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 1990). The "evidence need only show that defendant was a 'knowing and active participant' in scheme to defraud and that scheme involved interstate wire communications." Id. (quoting United States v. Wiehoff, 748 F.2d 1158, 1161 (7th Cir. 1984)).


McNally and Intangible Rights

In McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), the Supreme Court held that the mail fraud statute does not reach "schemes to defraud citizens of their intangible rights to honest and impartial government" . . . and that the statute is "limited in scope to the protection of property rights." See Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 25 (1987) (quoting McNally and extending it to wire fraud statute); see also Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 292 (1992) ("[I]n McNally . . . we rejected the Government's contention that the federal mail fraud statute . . . protected the citizenry's 'intangible right' to good government . . . . ") (Thomas, J., dissenting).

In response to McNally, Congress passed Section 1346 of Title 18, United States Code, which provides that "For the purposes of this Chapter, the term 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

Section 1346, which became effective November 18, 1988, seemed to resolve the intangible rights issue. See Madeoy, 912 F.2d 1486, 1492 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("McNally has been overruled by legislation."), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1105 and 498 U.S. 1110 (1991); cf. United States v. Bush, 888 F.2d 1145, 1145-46 (7th Cir. 1989) (ex post facto concerns bar the application of section 1346 to pre-1988 conduct). In United States v. Brumley, 79 F.3d 1430, 1440 (5th Cir. 1996), petition for rehearing en banc pending, however, the court concluded that the wording of § 1346, "simply does not effect a change in the portion of the McNally opinion which held that the mail fraud statute does not reach 'schemes to defraud citizens of their intangible rights to honest and impartial government.'"


Tangible Versus Intangible Property Rights

In Carpenter, 484 U.S. 19, 25 (1987), the Court confirmed that "McNally did not limit the scope of § 1341 to tangible as distinguished from intangible property rights." The Court held that the intangible nature of "confidential business information" does not make it any less "property" protected by the mail and wire fraud statutes. Id. Carpenter accordingly distinguished intangible property rights, which were still protected by the mail and wire fraud statutes, and intangible non-property rights, which were not protected. Cf. United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327, 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("[A]lthough the scheme to defraud must threaten some cognizable harm to its target, that harm need not be a deprivation of tangible property or money; criminal fraud encompasses schemes to defraud persons of significant intangibles as well."), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1226 (1984).

QUERY: Whether interests such as contract rights, licenses, permits, trade secrets, franchises, government grants, goodwill, market share, etc., are intangible or tangible property rights that can be the subject of a mail or wire fraud violation. See, e.g., Carpenter, 484 U.S. at 25 (suggesting that contractual right to honest and faithful services is too ethereal in itself to fall within the protection of the mail fraud statute); United States v. DeFries, 43 F.3d 707, 709-11 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (union ballots are tangible property); United States v. Henry, 29 F.3d 112, 114-15 (3d Cir. 1994) (fair bidding opportunity is not a property right); United States v. F.J. Vollmer & Co., 1 F.3d 1511, 1521 (7th Cir. 1993) ("It is well established that the government's regulatory interests are not protected by the mail fraud statute.") (citing cases concerning licenses and permits), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 688 (1994); United States v. Loney, 959 F.2d 1332, 1336 (5th Cir. 1992) (flight award coupons are property); United States v. Madeoy, 912 F.2d 1486, 1492 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (a FHA insurance commitment, by which the Government promises to pay the lender if the borrower defaults on the loan, is a "property interest," not an "intangible right" because it involves the Government's "control over how its money [is] spent."), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1105 and 498 U.S. 1110 (1991). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia's decision in DeFries provides a brief survey of cases finding property interests in permits, city liquor licenses, medical licenses and other items. See generally, 43 F.3d at 709-10 and n. 2; see also Laura A. Eilers & Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 706-11 (1994) (discussing "traditional frauds" and "frauds involving intangible rights").

QUERY: How to determine whether an interest is property? See, e.g., United States v. D'Amato, 39 F.3d 1249, 1258 (2d Cir. 1994) (shareholder's property rights to information are defined by state law and the law of fraud); cf. Henry, 29 F.3d at 115 ("[T]o determine whether a particular interest is property for purposes of the fraud statutes, we look to whether the law traditionally has recognized and enforced it as a property right."); see also Eilers & Silikovitz, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. at 706 n. 19 (case cited).


Fiduciary Duty

QUERY: Whether a fiduciary duty or relationship is a necessary ingredient to frauds relating to intangible property rights. See generally Laura A. Eilers & Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 706 n. 19 (1994) ("Unlike traditional frauds which may arise regardless of the relationship between the defendant and the victim, frauds related to intangible rights stem from a fiduciary relationship between the defendant and the defrauded party or entity."). "At the core of the judicially defined 'scheme to defraud' is the notion of a trust owed to another and a subsequent breach of that trust." United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327, 1335 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("But '[n]ot every breach of a fiduciary duty works a criminal fraud.'") (quoting United States v. George, 477 F.2d 508 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 827 (1973)), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1226 (1984). But cf. United States v. Sawyer, 878 F. Supp. 279, 288-90 (D. Mass. 1995) (mail fraud statutes do not require that a public fiduciary be a participant in the scheme). It may follow that to defraud one of the "right to honest services" would generally require a fiduciary relationship that creates the right to provide or protect honest services. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the existence or protection of an intangible property right must depend upon the existence of a fiduciary relationship or duty. Nonfiduciaries can steal, embezzle and defraud others of property interests, regardless of whether the property interest is tangible or intangible. Cf. United States v. Allen, 554 F.2d 398, 410 (10th Cir.) ("While the existence of a fiduciary duty is relevant and an ingredient in some mail fraud prosecutions, . . . it is not an essential in all such cases.") (citations omitted), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 836 (1977); Eilers & Silikovitz, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. at 711 ("There is some debate in the Circuit Courts about whether intangible rights can be violated if they are not premised upon fiduciary duty.").

Courts have held nonfiduciaries criminally liable for frauds related to intangible rights when a co-schemer or co-conspirator was a fiduciary. See United States v. Alexander, 741 F.2d 962, 964 (7th Cir. 1984) (an intangible rights scheme is cognizable when at least one of the schemers has a fiduciary relationship with the defrauded person or entity), overruled on other grounds by, United States v. Ginsburg, 773 F.2d 798 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1011 (1986); see also Sawyer, 878 F. Supp. at 289 (describing situation of nonfiduciary) (citing United States v. Margiotta, 688 F.2d 108, 121-23 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 913 (1983), and Alexander, 741 F.2d at 964).


Intent to Defraud

The government must prove that the defendant had the specific intent to defraud. See United States v. Diggs, 613 F.2d 988, 997 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ("Because only 'a scheme to defraud' and not actual fraud is required, proof of fraudulent intent is critical."), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 982 (1980); see also United States v. Costanzo, 4 F.3d 658, 664 (8th Cir. 1993) (intent is an essential element, inquiry is whether defendants intended to defraud); United States v. Porcelli, 865 F.2d 1352, 1358 (2d Cir.) (specific intent requires intent to defraud, not intent to violate the statute), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 810 (1989); cf. United States v. Reid, 533 F.2d 1255, 1264 n. 34 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ("Proof that someone was actually defrauded is unnecessary simply because the critical element in a 'scheme to defraud' is 'fraudulent intent,' Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306 . . . (1896), and therefore the accused need not have succeeded in his scheme to be guilty of the crime."); United States v. Bailey, 859 F.2d 1265, 1273 (7th Cir. 1988) (court held that there must be sufficient evidence that the defendant acted with intent to defraud, that is, "willful participation in [the] scheme with knowledge of its fraudulent nature and with intent that these illicit objectives be achieved." (quoting United States v. Price, 623 F.2d 587, 591 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 (1980), overruled on other grounds by, United States v. DeBright, 730 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir. 1984)), cert denied, 488 U.S. 1010 (1989).


Proof of Fraudulent Intent

"The requisite intent under the federal mail and wire fraud statutes may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances and need not be proven by direct evidence." United States v. Alston, 609 F.2d 531, 538 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 918 (1980). Thus, intent can be inferred from statements and conduct. United States v. Cusino, 694 F.2d 185, 187 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing United States v. Beecroft, 608 F.2d 753, 757 (9th Cir. 1979)), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 932 (1983). Impression testimony, that is, testimony of victims as to how they had been misled by defendants, is admissible to show an intent to defraud. See Phillips v. United States, 356 F.2d 297, 307 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 952 (1966). Also consider complaint letters received by defendants as relevant to the issue of intent to defraud. The inference might be drawn that, since the defendant knew victims were being misled by solicitation literature and other representations, the continued operation of the business despite this knowledge showed the existence of a scheme to defraud.

Fraudulent intent is shown if a representation is made with reckless indifference to its truth or falsity. Cusino, 694 F.2d at 187. In addition, "[f]raudulent intent may be inferred from the modus operandi of the scheme." United States v. Reid, 533 F.2d 1255, 1264 n. 34 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ("[T]he purpose of the scheme 'must be to injure, which doubtless may be inferred when the scheme has such effect as a necessary result of carrying it out.") (quoting United States v. Regent Office Supply Co., 421 F.2d 1174, 1180-81 (2d Cir. 1970) (quoting Horman v. United States, 116 F. 350, 352 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 187 U.S. 641 (1902))). "Of course proof that someone was actually victimized by the fraud is good evidence of the schemer's intent." Id. (quoting Regent Office Supply Co., 421 F.2d at 1180-81). In United States v. D'Amato, the court explained the government's burden of proving fraudulent intent as follows:

The scheme to defraud need not have been successful or complete. Therefore, the victims of the scheme need not have been injured. However, the government must show "that some actual harm or injury was contemplated by the schemer." Because the defendant must intend to harm the fraud's victims, "[m]isrepresentations amounting only to a deceit are insufficient to maintain a mail or wire fraud prosecution." "Instead, the deceit must be coupled with a contemplated harm to the victim." In many cases, this requirement poses no additional obstacle for the government. When the "necessary result" of the actor's scheme is to injure others, fraudulent intent may be inferred from the scheme itself. Where the scheme does not cause injury to the alleged victim as its necessary result, the government must produce evidence independent of the alleged scheme to show the defendant's fraudulent intent.
39 F.3d 1249, 1257 (2d Cir. 1994) (citations and footnote omitted) (holding that the government failed to produce legally sufficient evidence of criminal intent).



Use of Mailings and Wires in Furtherance of the Execution of the Scheme

"The federal mail fraud statute does not purport to reach all frauds, but only those limited instances in which the use of the mails is a part of the execution of the fraud, leaving all other cases to be dealt with by appropriate state law." United States v. Schmuck, 489 U.S. 705, 710 (1989) (quoting Kann v. United States, 323 U.S. 88, 95 (1944)); accord United States v. Coachman, 727 F.2d 1293, 1302 n. 43 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ("The offense of mail fraud demands proof of a scheme to defraud which, at some point, is intentionally furthered by use of the mails.").

"It is not necessary that the scheme contemplate the use of the mails as an essential element." Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954); Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306, 313 (1896) (proof of specific intent to use the mails on the part of defendants need not be proven). "It is sufficient for the mailing to be 'incident to an essential part of the scheme,' . . . or 'a step in [the] plot' . . . . " Schmuck, 489 U.S. at 710-11 (citations omitted); cf. United States v. Diggs, 613 F.2d 988, 998 (D.C. Cir.) ("[A]lthough the schemer need not 'contemplate the use of the mails as an essential element,' the mailings must be sufficiently closely related to [the] scheme to bring his conduct within the statute.") (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 982 (1980); United States v. Alston, 609 F.2d 531, 538 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ("For conviction under the mail fraud statute, the mails must be used 'for the purpose of executing' the fraudulent scheme, and not merely 'as a result of' such scheme.") (quoting Kann, 323 U.S. 88), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 918 (1980).

As in the case of mail fraud, a wire transmission may be considered to be for the purpose of furthering a scheme to defraud if the transmission is incident to the accomplishment of an essential part of the scheme. United States v. Mann, 884 F.2d 532, 536 (10th Cir. 1984). Moreover, it is not necessary to show that the defendant directly participated in the transmission, where it is established that the defendant caused the transmission, and that such use was the foreseeable result of his acts. United States v. Gill, 909 F.2d 274, 277-78 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Jones, 554 F.2d 251, 253 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 866 (1977) (cases cited); United States v. Wise, 553 F.2d 1173 (8th Cir. 1977).

The gist of the offenses is not the scheme to defraud, but the use of the mails or interstate wire communication. See United States v. Garland, 337 F. Supp. 1, 3 (N.D. Ill. 1971); see also United States v. Gardner, 65 F.3d 82, 85 (8th Cir. 1995) ("The use of the post office establishment in the execution of the alleged scheme to obtain money by false pretenses is the gist of the offense which the statute denounces, and not the scheme to defraud.") (quoting Cochran v. United States, 41 F.2d 193, 197 (8th Cir. 1930)), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 748 and 116 S.Ct. 1044 (1996); United States v. Lebovitz, 669 F.2d 894, 898 (3d Cir.) ("The gist of the offense of mail fraud is the use of mails by someone to carry out some essential element of the fraudulent scheme or artifice."), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 929 (1982). Accordingly, each use of the mails (in the case of mail fraud) and each separate wire communication (in the case of wire fraud) constitutes a separate offense, i.e., each mailing and/or wire transmission can constitute a separate count in the indictment. See, e.g., United States v. Pazos, 24 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 1994) (mail fraud); United States v. Rogers, 960 F.2d 1501, 1514 (10th Cir.) (each use of mails is separate offense), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1035 (1992); United States v. Castillo, 829 F.2d 1194, 1199 (1st Cir. 1987) (wire fraud).


Proof of Mailings and Transmissions

The mailing or wire communication may be proven by circumstantial evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Griffith, 17 F.3d 865, 874 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 149 (1994); United States v. Bowman, 783 F.2d 1192, 1197 (5th Cir. 1986) (mailings performed in the course of the bank's customary practices) (citing United States v. Ledesma, 632 F.2d 670, 675 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 998 (1980)); United States v. Brooks, 748 F.2d 1199, 1202-03 (7th Cir. 1984) (introduction of envelope). But see United States v. Hannigan, 27 F.3d 890, 895 (3d Cir. 1994) (defendant's statement that he received check was insufficient to prove check was sent through the mails).

"To constitute a violation of [§ 1341] . . ., it is not necessary to show that [defendants] actually mailed . . . anything themselves; it is sufficient if they caused it to be done. Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954) (citing 18 U.S.C. (Supp. V) § 2(b)); United States v. Kenofskey, 243 U.S. 440, 443 (1917) ("Cause" is used "in its well-known sense of bringing about . . . ."); accord United States v. Diggs, 613 F.2d 988, 998 (D.C. Cir.) ("One must 'cause' the mails to be used" to satisfy the element of "use of the United States mails 'for the purpose of executing the scheme.'") (quoting United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395, 400 (1974) (quoting Kann v. United States, 323 U.S. 88, 94 (1944), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 982 (1980). The government need show only that the defendant "caused" the mailing by acting "with knowledge that the use of the mails follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended." Pereira, 347 U.S. at 8-9.


"'[I]nnocent' mailings - ones that contain no false information - may supply the mailing element." United States v. Schmuck, 489 U.S. 705, 715 (1989) (citing Parr v. United States, 363 U.S. 370, 390 (1960)). Moreover, the elements of mail fraud may be satisfied where the mailings have been routine. Mailings that may lead to the uncovering of the fraudulent scheme may also supply the mailing element of the mail fraud offense. Id. ("The relevant question at all times is whether the mailing is part of the execution of the scheme as conceived by the perpetrator at the time, regardless of whether the mailing later, through hindsight, may prove to have been counterproductive and return to haunt the perpetrator of the fraud.").


Conspiracy to Violate the Mail Fraud or Wire Fraud Statutes

Where a scheme and artifice to defraud is shared by two or more, it becomes a conspiracy to defraud. The essential elements of conspiracy to commit mail fraud or wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, are (1) an agreement between two or more persons; (2) to commit mail fraud or wire fraud; and (3) an overt act committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. See United States v. Brumley, 79 F.3d 1430, 1442 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Hatch, 926 F.2d 387, 393 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 943 (1991)); United States v. Massey, 827 F.2d 995, 1001 (5th Cir. 1987); United States v. Gordon, 780 F.2d 1165, 1170 (5th Cir. 1986)). "Conspiracy to commit a particular substantive offense cannot exist without at least the degree of criminal intent necessary for the substantive offense." Massey, 827 F.2d at 1001 (quoting Ingram v. United States, 360 U.S. 672, 678 (1959)).

As in any conspiracy, it is sufficient that the defendant knowingly joined the conspiracy in which wire fraud or mail fraud was a foreseeable act in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Leahy, 82 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Basey, 816 F.2d 980, 997 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that once a defendant's knowing participation in a conspiracy has been established, "the defendant is deemed guilty of substantive acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy by any of his criminal partners")).


Venue in Mail Fraud

Generally, 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a) provides that in cases where the offense was begun in one district and completed in another, venue may be laid in any district through which the offense was continued.

Section 1341, however, has its own "built-in" venue provisions. The locus of the offense under section 1341 has been carefully specified; and only the acts of "placing", "taking" and "causing to be delivered" at a specified place have been penalized. Venue should therefore be placed according to the specific prohibitions of section 1341, irrespective of section 3237(a). See Travis v. United States, 364 U.S. 631, 636-37 (1961) ("[V]enue should not be made to depend upon the chance use of the mails, when Congress has so carefully indicated the locus of the crimes."). The locus for mail fraud prosecutions is specifically set forth in section 1341; since Congress has "otherwise expressly provided," section 3237 is inapplicable to mail fraud.

Accordingly, venue must be charged in either (1) the district in which the letter was placed in the mail by the defendant; (2) the district in which the defendant took or received the letter from the mails; or (3) the district in which the defendant knowingly caused a letter to be delivered according to the direction thereon. Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427 (1932)); see also United States v. Turley, 891 F.2d 57, 60 (3d Cir. 1989) (government conceded that section 3237 is not applicable to mail fraud).

Several decisions, citing as authority the provisions of section 3237(a), have held that venue for mail fraud prosecutions also lies in any district through which the count letter passed. Section 3237(a) must, however, be read in light of the constitutional requirements and the explicit provisions of section 1341.


Defenses—Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations for mail fraud and wire fraud prosecutions is five years (18 U.S.C. § 3282), except for mail and wire fraud schemes that affect a financial institution, in which case the statute is ten years (18 U.S.C. § 3293).

COMMENT: Consider that a scheme may extend back beyond the limitations period; the gist of the offense is the use of the mails, and if the prohibited use of the mails was within the period, the prosecution is timely. See O. Obermaier and R. Morvillo, White Collar Crime: Business and Regulatory Offenses, § 9.04[5], at 9-67 (Rel. 2, 1991) (citing cases); cf. United States v. Garfinkel, 29 F.3d 1253, 1259 (8th Cir. 1994) (mail fraud scheme may continue after mailing). That a scheme may extend back beyond the limitation period does not preclude prosecution of an offense committed in furtherance of the scheme within the period.


Defenses—Good Faith

Good faith is recognized as a defense to a charge of mail or wire fraud. See, e.g., United States v. Casperson, 773 F.2d 216, 223 (8th Cir. 1985). For a discussion of the defense of good faith and the entitlement of jury instructions on this issue, see Green v. United States, 474 U.S. 925 (1985); see also Laura A. Eilers & Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 719 (1994) (and cases cited).

---

Drafting a Mail Fraud and/or Wire Fraud Indictment

The Criminal Division has published a collection of indictment forms, Drafting Indictments most recently updated in March, 1995. These forms can be conveniently accessed and saved as word processing documents using USABook:
Mail Fraud
Mail Fraud Scheme/Artifice


Sufficiency of Indictment—Generally

Generally, Rule 7(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires an indictment to provide "a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged." United States v. Yefsky, 994 F.2d 885, 893 (1st Cir. 1993) ("The Supreme Court has instructed that an indictment is sufficient if it contains the elements of the offense charged, fairly informs the defendant of the charges against which he must defend, and enables him to enter a plea without fear of double jeopardy.") (citing Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974)); see also Collins v. Markley, 346 F.2d 230, 232 (7th Cir.) (en banc) ("The sufficiency of an indictment is to be measured by certain guide lines. First, the indictment standing alone must contain the elements of the offense intended to be charged, and it must be sufficient to apprise the accused of the nature of the offense. Second, after conviction, the record of the case must be sufficient so that the accused can plead the judgment in bar of any subsequent prosecution for the same offense."), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 946 (1965).

Accordingly, a mail fraud or wire fraud indictment should contain a reasonably detailed description of the particular scheme the defendant is charged with devising to ensure that the defendant has sufficient notice of the nature of the offense. See Yefsky, 994 F.2d at 893 ("The indictment may incorporate the words of the statute to set forth the offense, but the statutory language '"must be accompanied with such a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific offense, coming under the general description, with which he is charged."'") (quoting Hamling, 418 U.S. at 117-18 (quoting United States v. Hess, 124 U.S. 483, 487 (1888))); cf. United States v. Nance, 533 F.2d 699, 702 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (noting with approval mail fraud count that specifies misrepresentations); United States v. Curtis, 506 F.2d 985, 990 (10th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted) (dismissing mail fraud indictment that excludes false pretenses).

In Yefsky, the court held that the indictment was defective in that it did not provide the defendant with adequate notice of the charge (conspiracy to commit mail fraud) against him. 994 F.2d at 993 ("Where guilt depends so crucially upon . . . a specific identification of fact, . . . cases have uniformly held that an indictment must do more than simply repeat the language of the criminal statute.") (citing Hamling, 418 U.S. at 118).

In Curtis, the court stated the following in considering the sufficiency of the allegations contained in an indictment charging mail fraud:

Mere evidential matters or detail more appropriate in bills of particular need not be pleaded in an indictment based upon 1341. [citations omitted] But as these cases demonstrate, some substantial indication of the nature or character of any scheme or artifice to defraud, or to obtain money or property by means of false pretenses, representations or promises is requisite. And it is not sufficient in this regard to merely plead the statutory language. [citations omitted] A reference to the cases cited first above will disclose that in each instance the nature of the schemes or artifices is identified or described, including the particular pretenses, representations or promises claimed to have been false.

506 F.2d at 989-90 (holding that the indictment, which pleaded little more than the statutory language without any fair indication of the nature or character of the scheme or artifice relied upon, or the false pretenses, misrepresentations or promises forming a part of it, was fatally defective); see also United States v. Crummer, 151 F.2d 958 (10th Cir. 1945) ("While the particulars of the scheme are matters of substance and therefore must be described with a degree of certainty sufficient to show its existence of character, and fairly to acquaint the defendant with the particular fraudulent scheme charged against him, still the scheme itself need not be pleaded with all the certainty in respect of time, place, and circumstance requisite in charging the mailing of the letter or other matter.") (allegations of the scheme held to be sufficient), cert. denied, 327 U.S. 785 (1946); cf. United States v. Azad, 809 F.2d 291, 295 (6th Cir. 1986) ("What distinguishes this indictment from the indictment found defective in [Curtis], . . . is the clear and specific description of the fraudulent scheme found in the present indictment. The indictment before us does provide some 'substantial indication of the nature or character' of the scheme involved, and 'the scheme itself need not be pleaded with all the certainty in respect of time, place, and circumstance requisite in charging the mailing of the letter or other matter.'" ) (quoting Curtis, 506 F.2d at 990), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1004 (1987); United States v. Adamo, 534 F.2d 31, 35 (3d Cir.) ("The Curtis indictment was so vague that trial might have proceeded upon an entirely different concept of the scheme than that contemplated by the grand jury when it returned the indictment. By contrast, the indictment in this case explicitly outlines the elements of the fraudulent plan."), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 841 (1976).


Sufficiency of Indictment—Victims and Loss

Victims of the fraud do not have to be identified by name in the indictment. United States v. Mizyed, 927 F.2d 979 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 937 (1991). Moreover, actual monetary loss need not be alleged. United States v. Barber, 881 F.2d 345, 348-49 (7th Cir. 1989) ("It is true that the indictment does not allege an actual monetary or economic loss to any insurance company. However, it is not necessary that an indictment charging mail fraud contain such an allegation."), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 922 (1990); see also United States v. Ginsburg, 909 F.2d 982, 988 n. 8 (7th Cir. 1990) ("McNally does not require that actual loss of money or property be alleged in the indictment."); United States v. Bucey, 876 F.2d 1297, 1311 (7th Cir.) ("[S]ince the mail fraud statute punishes the scheme to defraud, this court has reiterated on numerous occasions that the ultimate success of the fraud and the actual defrauding of a victim are not necessary prerequisites to a successful mail fraud prosecution."), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1004 (1989).


Sufficiency of Indictment—Mailings or Transmissions in Furtherance of Scheme

"The Government need not allege the subordinate evidentiary facts by which it intends to prove the 'in furtherance' element of the crime charged, and an indictment setting out the mailings charged and alleging that they were in furtherance of the scheme should not be dismissed as insufficient on its face unless there is no conceivable evidence that the Government could produce at trial to substantiate its 'in furtherance' allegation." United States v. Castor, 558 F.2d 379, 385 (7th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1010 (1978). In Castor, the court observed the following concerning the requirement of alleging that the mailings were in furtherance of the scheme:

The question is not whether the indictment particularly alleges sufficient facts from which a jury could find that the mailings charged were in furtherance of the scheme, but rather whether the Government conceivably could produce evidence at trial showing that the designated mailings were for the purposes of executing the scheme. United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75, 76, 83 S.Ct. 173, 9 L.Ed.2d 136 (1962). The resolution of the question of whether the mailings alleged were in furtherance of the scheme must await trial "unless it so convincingly appears on the face of the indictment that as a matter of law there need be no necessity for such delay." United States v. Feinberg, 50 F. Supp. 976, 977 (E.D.N.Y. 1973), aff'd, 140 F.2d 592 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 322 U.S. 726, 64 S.Ct. 943, 88 L.Ed. 1562 (1944).
Id. at 384-85.


Sufficiency of Indictment—Separate Offenses

Each mailing or transmission in furtherance of the scheme and artifice to defraud is a separate offense. See, e.g., United States v. Pazos, 24 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 1994)(mail fraud); United States v. Rogers, 960 F.2d 1501, 1514 (10th Cir.)(each use of mails is separate offense), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1035 (1992); United States v. Castillo, 829 F.2d 1194, 1199 (1st Cir. 1987)(wire fraud). Accordingly, proper draftsmanship requires that only one mailing or transmission should be alleged in each count. Otherwise, the count may be duplicitous.

Because descriptions of the scheme are frequently quite lengthy, it is suggested that those descriptive paragraphs set out in full in one count be adopted and incorporated into another count by suitable reference pursuant to the provision of Rule 7(c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.


Sufficiency of the Indictment—Special Considerations

Take care to charge the proper method of violation of the statute! For example, if the letter is mailed to the district of indictment from another district, be sure to charge a taking from the mails, or delivery according to the direction thereon, rather than a placing in the mail. Conversely, charge a placing in the mail in the district of indictment of a letter addressed to someone outside that district. See Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427 (1932) (indictment loosely and inartfully drawn).


Statement of Policy concerning Venue in Mail Fraud Prosecutions

Department of Justice policy opposes mail fraud venue based solely on the mail matter passing through a jurisdiction.


18 U.S.C. Section 1341—Elements of Mail Fraud

"There are two elements in mail fraud: (1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme to defraud (or to perform specified fraudulent acts), and (2) use of the mail for the purpose of executing, or attempting to execute, the scheme (or specified fraudulent acts)." Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 721 n. 10 (1989); see also Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954) ("The elements of the offense of mail fraud under . . . § 1341 are (1) a scheme to defraud, and (2) the mailing of a letter, etc., for the purpose of executing the scheme."); Laura A. Eilers & Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 704 (1994) (cases cited).



Knowingly and Willfully

The prohibition of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 requires that the false statement, concealment or cover up be "knowingly and willfully" done, which means that "The statement must have been made with an intent to deceive, a design to induce belief in the falsity or to mislead, but § 1001 does not require an intent to defraud -- that is, the intent to deprive someone of something by means of deceit." United States v. Lichenstein, 610 F.2d 1272, 1276-77 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 907 (1980). The government may prove that a false statement was made "knowingly and willfully" by offering evidence that defendants acted deliberately and with knowledge that the representation was false. See United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207, 214 (5th Cir. 1990). The jury may conclude from a plan of elaborate lies and half-truths that defendants deliberately conveyed information they knew to be false to the government. Id. at 214-15.

As used in the statute, the term "knowingly" requires only that the defendant acted with knowledge of the falsity. See United States v. Lange, 528 F.2d 1280, 1287-89 (5th Cir. 1976). As in other situations, to commit an act "knowingly" is to do so with knowledge or awareness of the facts or situation, and not because of mistake, accident or some other innocent reason. See Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, § 1.35 (1990). Knowledge of the criminal statute governing the conduct is not required.

The false statement need not be made with an intent to defraud if there is an intent to mislead or to induce belief in its falsity. Reckless disregard of whether a statement is true, or a conscious effort to avoid learning the truth, can be construed as acting "knowingly." United States v. Evans, 559 F.2d 244, 246 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1015 (1978).

A defendant is not relieved of the consequences of a material misrepresentation by lack of knowledge when the means of ascertaining truthfulness are available. In appropriate circumstances, the government may establish the defendant's knowledge of falsity by proving that the defendant either knew the statement was false or acted with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth. See United States v. West, 666 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1981); Lange, 528 F.2d at 1288; United States v. Clearfield, 358 F. Supp. 564, 574 (E.D. Pa. 1973). Proof that the defendant acted with reckless disregard or reckless indifference may therefore satisfy the knowledge requirement, when the defendant makes a false material statement and consciously avoids learning the facts or intends to deceive the government. See United States v. Schaffer, 600 F.2d 1120, 1122 (5th Cir. 1979).

The term "willfully" means no more than that the forbidden act was done deliberately and with knowledge, and does not require proof of evil intent. McClanahan v. United States, 230 F.2d 919, 924 (5th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 824 (1956); McBride v. United States, 225 F.2d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 934 (1956). An act is done "willfully" if done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids. There is no requirement that the government show evil intent on the part of a defendant in order to prove that the act was done "willfully." See generally United States v. Gregg, 612 F.2d 43, 50-51 (2d Cir. 1979); American Surety Company v. Sullivan, 7 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1925)(Hand, J.); United States v. Peltz, 433 F.2d 48, 54-55 (2d Cir. 1970),cert. denied, 401 U.S. 955 (1971) (involving 15 U.S.C. § 32(a). See also 1 E. Devitt, C. Blackmar, M. Wolff & K. O'Malley, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 17.05 (1992).


Obstructing or Impairing Legitimate Government Activity

Under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the fraud or impairment of legitimate government activity may take any of several forms:

Bribery of a government employee, kickbacks to government employees or extortion of money or favors by government employees, misrepresentations of financial capability, alteration or falsification of official records, submission of false documents; and

Obstructing, in any manner, a legitimate governmental function.


18 U.S. Code § 1342 - Fictitious name or address

Whoever, for the purpose of conducting, promoting, or carrying on by means of the Postal Service, any scheme or device mentioned in section 1341 of this title or any other unlawful business, uses or assumes, or requests to be addressed by, any fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address or name other than his own proper name, or takes or receives from any post office or authorized depository of mail matter, any letter, postal card, package, or other mail matter addressed to any such fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address, or name other than his own proper name, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The unspoken Rule 1.6 affect which defies exposure/resolution

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information has a broad affect on victims of an injustice. The affect will deny, prevent and obstruct justice FOREVER. There is no escaping it. There is no method by which you can succeed. NONE. EVER.

A person can lose all protection of the law and all constitutional rights because of a simple injustice, even when that injustice is being concealed. The efforts to conceal that injustice can, and likely will, become far worse than the initial injustice. With no protection of the law and no constitutional rights, the person can only be described as 'victim'.

The initial injustice in my case, which was documented in 2010, had occurred in August 2007. It was concealed for three years while affecting and undermining every proceeding.

Every document which I filed with the courts was in good faith and not designed to build a massive volume of evidence. I wanted to see my children. I wanted court orders to be enforced. The volume of evidence created by my efforts to survive the concealed injustice is massive.

The case has been before 20 judges of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, yet has NEVER been before the judge responsible for the initial injustice. Judge Rhonde Lee Daniele, head of the Family Court Division.

Clearly, I believed in justice. I was not aware that the judiciary had been undermined and usurped. It took seven years of constant litigation and lawlessness until it was impossible to deny the single point of failure. The only person in the courtroom who believed in justice was ME. Their victim who could never succeed who repeatedly pointed out the fraud and lawlessness and was IGNORED.

Rule 1.6 - Confidentiality of Information is referred to by lawyers as Attorney Client privilege, but the affect of Rule 1.6 is far broader than a lawyer keeping a secret for his client. Rule 1.6 affects every legal professional, lawyer and law enforcement, and MANDATES their silence, non-exposure, participation in every effort which prevents disclosure or exposure.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality involves four distinct aspects...
1. Confidentiality
2. Non-Disclosure
3. Fraud, and continued fraud to conceal fraud
4. No action which rectifies the fraud is allowed.

Where fraud is undeniably a crime, the American Bar Association have made fraud not only legal, but mandatory for all lawyers.

Where continued fraud and prevention of any resolution is wrong and unethical, the American Bar Association has mandated unethical activities for all lawyers within their "Ethics Rules".

Where the American Bar Association has presented their Model Rules of Professional Conduct to the state supreme courts to enact into law, their mandates to commit crime and unethical activity have caused systemic problems which undermine the judicial branch.

RULE 1.6 CAUSES THE LOSS OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE/IMMUNITY

In order to assure the independence of the judiciary to make decisions, judges are granted immunity from prosecution for judicial errors no matter how malicious or grievous their actions.

HOWEVER, Rule 1.6 requires that the "initial injustice' not be addressed at anytime. Ever.

Rule 1.6 allows any and every action which prevents exposure. This is most often accomplished by the judge IGNORING the issue, even when it is the only issue which the judge is considering.

Where Rule 1.6 MANDATES continued injustice to the victim who cannot succeed where the injustice may be revealed, the judge is not permitted to render an independent decision based on the facts. The lack of an ability to render an independent decision affects the immunity accorded to the judge.

Where the continued injustice defies explanation...
Where errors can not be excused...
Where single issues are ignored within decisions...
Where law is not applied...
Where appearances in court are prevented...
Where facts ON THE RECORD are ignored...
Where there is an overall disregard for the facts...
NON-DISCLOSURE is evident.
FRAUD is evident.
Any action to RECTIFY FRAUD is evident.
Rule 1.6 is evident.

While an evident and proven lack of judicial independence causes the loss of judicial immunity, the judge could be subjected to criminal and civil lawsuits, or disciplinary actions.

NO, you CANNOT win. Rule 1.6 prevents justice FOREVER.

Criminal prosecution does not occur because the District Attorney/state Attorney General are mandated by Rule 1.6. The crime will be ignored.

Federal criminal prosecution does not occur because the Department of Justice/US Attorneys and all government lawyers are mandated by Rule 1.6 under the McDade-Murtha Amendment - the local version of Rule 1.6 applies to them. The violation of constitutional rights will be ignored.

Civil lawsuit within Pennsylvania cannot be successful as the Court is mandated by Rule 1.6. The lawsuit will be avoided by the courts based on disinformation.

Federal lawsuit brought in Federal district court will not be successful as the District Court has indicated within their 'LOCAL RULES' that the local Rules of Professional Conduct apply. The lawsuit will be avoided by the courts based on disinformation.

I persist only for the purpose of removing this corrupt and unconstitutional law with the knowledge that every lawyer and court in the United States is prevented from permitting any exposure, resolution or fix to the Rule 1.6 corruption.

I persist with the knowledge that every action with the court will be obstructed, prevented or ignored.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had enacted the Rule into Law. Rule 1.6 prevents the Supreme Court from removing their own law as it would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. A self-defense mechanism within Rule 1.6.

The Pennsylvania Constitution does not permit the Supreme Court to enact a law which affects a persons substantive rights. Rule 1.6 prevents the court from addressing that it lacked the authority to enact Rule 1.6.

No lawyer may take any action to remove the law, pursuant to Rule 1.6.

No judge may take any action to remove the law, pursuant to Rule 1.6.

No Government Attorney may take any action to remove the law, pursuant to Rule 1.6 AND the McDade-Murtha Amendment which requires federal lawyers to follow the rules within the state they are investigating or working.

In accordance with the Pennsylvania Constitution, ONLY THE PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE can set aside a law.
After ten months of attempts to get a meeting with State Representative Kathy Watson, we met.

As a non-lawyer in the Pennsylvania Legislature, Rep. Watson is not obligated under Rule 1.6. Rep. Watson's recognition and willingness to address this issue within the Pennsylvania Legislature put her in harms way. There is no doubt that the threat she received was real. A local state senator, a lawyer, had relayed the information about a supposed threat to her. I had made no threat. Why would I threaten the ONLY person who could fix the issue?

I persist with the fear and peril heard in the voicemail from State Representative Kathy Watson demonstrating genuine panic and jeopardy from a threat against her.

Where Representative Kathy Watson was preparing to inform the Pennsylvania Legislature of the corruption and systemic problems caused by Rule 1.6, because of a reported unsubstantiated threat, she indicated that she would take no action, no meeting, no discussion of the matter any further. EVER.

I went to the police to explain the reality of the threat which she had received. The police were already certain that I had made no threat. I would not be investigated, prosecuted, etc. The police at the same time would take no action to address the Rule 1.6 problem even where a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature had been threatened.

The systemic problem caused by the American Bar Association whose membership is permitted to do ANYTHING to continue the fraud or to conceal the fraud. The ABA with local, state and affiliated organizations existing at every level of the judiciary are permitted to obstruct, deny and prevent justice in violation of every law, every procedure and every constitutional right pursuant to Rule 1.6.

Rule 1.6, an unconstitutional law, improperly enacted without authority, has trumped the Constitution of the United States.

The American Bar Association did it. Deliberately. Had it not been deliberate and intentional, every opportunity for resolution would not be prevented.

The ABA will do everything without regard for any law to conceal how they have usurped the authority of the judiciary and undermined the judicial branch of the American Government.

ex tenebris ad lucem 2

Breakdown of Rule 1.6 Issues - Volume List

- Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct	Volume 1
- Improperly Enacted by the state supreme court(s)	Volume 2
- Presented by the American Bar Association	Volume 3
- Model Rules of Professional Conduct	Volume 4
- The Collateral, Indirect and Absolute Denial of Rights	Volume 5
- Rights Secured and Protected by the Constitution of the United States	Volume 6
- Denying and Preventing Any Protection of the Law	Volume 7
- A Litigant who has been the Victim of Fraud	Volume 8
- Concealed from Disclosure	Volume 9
- All Persons Directly Mandated to Follow the Rules of Professional Conduct	Volume 10
- All lawyers, All judges, and All Law Enforcement	Volume 11
- Within Each State	Volume 13
- Within Each State Government	Volume 14
- Within the Federal Government	Volume 15

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality - Immoral? Unethical? Illegal? Wrong?

Any law which denies a person of the rights and privileges which are secured and protected by the US Constitution are unconstitutional, a nullity, and were never a law.
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.

False Flag - "greatest judicial system'

When those who are informed and knowledgeable about the inner workings of anything begin to speak of it's superiority without any basis in fact and contrary to reality... yet supported by pride, arrogance and nationalism...

When they have worked with great effort to conceal the failings and the calamity caused by those failures...

When they have done nothing to correct the failure and obstructed and prevented correction of problems and prevented exposure of problems...

When the disinformation comes as a non-sequitur, that totally unnecessary thrown-in statement...

It is a false flag.

You are witnessing and experiencing disinformation created to conceal facts. Recently demonstrated by Attorney General Eric Holder as he resigned - seems he has his eye on a position within the Supreme Court - a possible reward for his not exposing the complete corruption of the US Judicial system. Attorney General Eric Holder knows the issue. he was involved. He has testified to Congress on both sides of the issue. He was informed of findings and filings since the discovery of the issue in July 2013. And, HE IGNORED IT.

---

The United States does not have the greatest judicial system in the world.

Of the 97 countries in the index...

The US ranks 17th in Limited Government Powers	#1 is DENMARK
The US ranks 18th in Absence of Corruption	#1 is SWEDEN
The US ranks 22nd in Order and Security	#1 is SINGAPORE
The US ranks 25th in Fundamental Rights	#1 is SWEDEN
The US ranks 13th in Open Government	#1 is SWEDEN
The US ranks 19th in Regulatory Enforcement	#1 is SWEDEN
The US ranks 22nd in Civil Justice	#1 is NORWAY
The US ranks 26th in Criminal Justice	#1 is DENMARK

[Source: The World Justice Project www.WorldJusticeproject.org ]

The US is NOT EVEN in the Top 10 in any category.

Usually, the problem has to be big enough to warrant the lies.

In the United States the problem with the judicial system is massive. It is at such an incomprehensible scale that the government prefers to crumble into anarchy than to address how the judiciary has caused themselves to be undermined and the entire government has become undone.

The US government is too ashamed to correct it. Every government representative contacted about the judiciary has failed to take any corrective action for the failure. It is as if the US Constitution never existed. The US Constitution and the Rule of Law is IGNORED without consequence.

The US government is leaving every citizen AT RISK in the unchecked system after allowing over 10% of the population to experience the extreme injustice. Over 40 million people have been victimized by the corruption of the American judicial system without mercy. Survivors are 1) Homeless/Destitute, 2) Incarcerated or 3) Suicides. They become "The Disenfranchised".

Occasionally the media notices and the story of unconstitutional injustices are revealed. BUT, there is no consequence. The victim gains nothing from the exposure and will be further terrorized. No one looked for the root cause of the problem - or the root cause of why everyone thought it appropriate to IGNORE the Rule of Law and the US Constitution.

The Foreclosure Crisis
Kids for Cash
Judicial Corruption
Due Process Failures
Injustice - affected individuals have no protection under any law in any court or forum
Family Courts - the only court where a person who has committed no crime can lose everything
US Congress does NOTHING [except campaign to keep their office]
US President fails to enforce laws
US Court make decisions beyond their authority

WHAT HAPPENED???
US courts had functioned for 200 years. What changed?

Rule 1.6 was enacted by every state supreme court into law - without any constitutional review, without any construction by a legislature, without any governor. Enacted quietly and without explanation of the necessity from 1984 (New Jersey) to 2009 (Maine).

Rule 1.6 is incorporated into federal practice by "Local Rules" in every Federal District Court and Federal Appeals Court.

Rule 1.6 is incorporated into federal law by the McDade-Murtha Amendment preventing ALL federal agencies and attorneys from prosecuting or exposing judicial corruption or constitutional violations.

Rule 1.6 undermines the Rule of Law, the US Constitution and every state Constitution.

Rule 1.6 undermines judicial independence.

Prior to being enacted into law, confidentiality was a discretionary decision of personal ethics for lawyers.

Rule 1.6 is Confidentiality of Information - an aggressively enforced mandate of silence where the information
– would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
– would reveal the misconduct of their own office,
– would expose individual liability,
– would adversely affect any client.

Once an act of judicial misconduct or injustice occurs, the litigant has effectively lost ALL of their rights and has no protection under the laws, the constitutions and is further victimized without mercy because no one may affect the integrity of the judiciary.

An act by the judiciary, EVERY state judiciary, which defies exposure and resolution has undermined the entire US government. The American people see the constitutional problems and the failure to enforce the law but are kept blind in misinformed nationalistic pride and arrogance. They fail to recognize that once they have been denied justice, they are no longer a part of the unaffected majority. They become part of the disenfranchised group without any rights and denied any voice. They are destined to become 1) Homeless/Destitute 2) Incarcerated or 3) Suicide.

Federalism further prevents the Federal Government from taking action while an improperly enacted and unconstitutional state law hinders the function of the state and federal government. Only a Federal Court has authority to address the unconstitutional law.

The Federal Judiciary sacrificed their integrity when dismissing the matter before the court through their own irrelevant fiction. Rule 1.6 would also conceal if the issue never went to any judge and the paperwork was all the misdirection of the lawyers working for the courts. Everything was done on paper - and without signatures.

After the first meeting where a Pennsylvania State Representative offers to address the Rule 1.6 issue, Representative Kathy Watson gets a false warning about threats against her and her office staff. The information of the threat relayed from a Pennsylvania State Senator. Kathy Watson cancels any further meetings in a phone message where you could hear the fear and peril in her voice. Kathy Watson calls the police who go to her office to take a report. The police know there is nothing to the report.

That FALSE ALLEGATION has prevented further meetings with any Pennsylvania government officials. No one responds to any communication. A successful disinformation campaign based on the affirmation that JUSTICE IS COMING. Only the guilty could be threatened by that affirmation... and Kathy Watson had been quick to understand, interested, helpful and eager to resolve the issue. A peculiar report from Senator Tomlinson who had never returned a phone call or letter and had never met with us on the issue. Why would Senator Tomlinson scare Representative Watson? Her voice mail message demonstrated her 'fear'.

After hearing her message, I went to the police because of the level of panic and terror I heard in her voice. The threat was real, but I was not the one who threatened Representative Watson.

Meetings occurred with Pennsylvania Senator Chuck McIlhinney starting in December 2013, reports are he was directed to IGNORE the issue and stop any further meetings on the topic.

Kathy Watson and Chuck McIlhinney are NOT required to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. They are lawfully permitted to act.

Indeed, it is only the Legislature which has the constitutional authority to suspend the law. The last remaining loophole, unless the county sheriffs realize they have been played into their diminished role. ONLY non-lawyer members of the Pennsylvania state legislature may act to suspend Rule 1.6 in Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania Governor through his counsel has written a letter which contains so much of the scripted misinformation it may take a volume to respond to it all. A tactic which is all too familiar. It was litigation by overwhelming chaotic misinformation and fraud which lead to the issue being experienced and exposed - a never-ending, judicial bench-clearing divorce - since 2007 over 20 judges in the unresolved matter.

When lawyers use lawyers, they do it with intent. Rule 1.6 mandates the lawyer conceal information for their client. It suggests a deception. Heck, Rule 1.6 mandates that deception by lawyers. There was no surprise when the scripted misinformation from the governor was identical to the scripted misinformation observed previously. The surprise was that Senator McIlhinney accepted the misinformation when he knew it was incorrect.

The news media remains oddly silent.

The Constitutional Crisis - The Cause and The Resolution

The Preamble to the US Constitution clearly indicates the intent and scope of the document.

The first action item on the list - ESTABLISH JUSTICE - is a necessity for the remaining actions. Without JUSTICE a government cannot insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.


The U.S. Constitution is not Dead, Dead, Dead.

JUSTICE was entrusted to the Judicial Branch which has failed to acknowledge and accept that the judiciary has been undermined by state supreme court actions which has affected every court in the country and caused the current Constitutional Crisis.

---

The American Bar Association presented their MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT to each state supreme court to enact into law.

BUT, WHY?

After 200 years, WHY was it necessary to enact the Model Rules into law?

Why do it quietly over 25 years? (1984 New Jersey to 2009 Maine)

The Model Rules of Professional Conduct include Rule 1.6 "Confidentiality of Information".

---

WITHIN THE STATE
When judicial misconduct or injustice occurs, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality triggers a denial of constitutionally protected rights to litigants without any recourse within the state, without equal or ANY protection of the law.

Attorneys General, District Attorneys, Prosecutors - Every level of law enforcement and the judiciary within the state are prohibited from action to address the corruption of the judiciary. The only exception, the Sheriffs, have been incorrectly convinced of their diminished responsibilities ... by lawyers, the Attorneys General and the courts.

---

WITHIN FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
When a litigant turns to the Federal Government for help, they are ignored.

By 1998 after 90% of the states had enacted the Model Rules into LAW, the McDade-Murtha Amendment (28 U.S.C. 530B) required Department of Justice staff and US Attorneys to follow the Model Rules of Professional Conduct enacted in the respective state.

---

WITHIN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS
The Federal District Courts across the country have enacted "LOCAL RULES" which require attorneys to follow the Model Rules of Professional Conduct enacted in the respective state. The Confidentiality causes a further denial of due process. Cases are summarily dismissed under improper doctrine or fictional inferences- while the court deliberately neglects to acknowledge the facts OR the denial of constitutional rights.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed to address SPECIFICALLY AND ONLY the constitutional issue. A pre-emptive constitutional challenge of a state law which collaterally results in the loss of rights and liberties. The state courts dockets, records and actions would demonstrate the unconstitutional issue. After, the litigants could return to the state court with their previously ignored rights available to them.

The Federal District Court improperly dismissed the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 which had been filed and served on 56 United States Attorneys General.

The Federal District Court failed to certify the law being challenged with each state. Certification is a process where the federal courts request that the state supreme courts indicate if the challenged law is constitutional.

The Federal District Court Clerk neglected to certify the matter with any state. The failure to follow the federal law was ignored. The District Court Clerk is a lawyer MANDATED to Confidentiality by Rule 1.6.

---

INJUSTICE IGNORED BY ATTORNEYS GENERAL
EVERY ONE of the 56 United States Attorneys General failed to answer the challenge and DEFAULTED (as was appropriate and expected). Yet, the challenge was dismissed by the District Court.

The 56 state attorneys general, parties and witnesses to this injustice, did nothing. They are lawyers mandated to remain silent pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality.

No lawyer may expose the unconstitutional affect of Rule 1.6 without violating it and facing disciplinary action.

Those disciplinary actions are also kept confidential under Rule 1.6.

---

WITHIN FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
The Federal Circuit Courts across the country have enacted "LOCAL RULES" which require attorneys to follow the Model Rules of Professional Conduct enacted in the respective state. The Confidentiality causes a further denial of due process constitutional rights when appeals are not handled according to the applicable law. Facts are ignored. The litigant is further denied justice without explanation which erodes justice and destroys the integrity of the judiciary.

The Federal Circuit Court affirmed the district court dismissal of the Constitutional Challenge and refused reconsideration en banc to address an issue of national importance. The careless paperwork indicated their deliberate and ADMITTED failure to address the issues raised on appeal.

---

ALL ON PAPER - PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY FOR THE JUDGES
The Constitutional Challenge litigants who had been denied "access to the court for redress of grievances" were never permitted the opportunity to address the federal district court or the circuit court in person.

EVERYTHING WAS DONE ON PAPER.

PER CURIAM ORDERS. ORDERS WITHOUT ORIGINAL SIGNATURES OF ANY JUDGE.

COURT DOCKETS DISAPPEARING AND UNAVAILABLE.

NO RECORD OF DISTRIBUTION OF COURT DOCUMENTS TO ALL PARTIES.

All of which could well have been written and executed by the lawyers in the court offices AND left unexplained and ignored by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality.

The actions of the judicial branch to conceal that
- their judicial independence had been compromised
- their jurisdiction was invalid and
- their integrity undermined
by a 'law' improperly and unconstitutionally enacted by each state supreme court without proper construction by any state legislature and without the signature of any Governor.

Misinformed by lawyers mandated to CONFIDENTIALITY,
- Non-Lawyer state representatives fail to act.
- Non-Lawyer state senators fail to act.
- Non-Lawyer governors fail to act.

The MANDATE of CONFIDENTIALITY prevents the state supreme courts from any corrective action.

---

SEDITION and TREASON

Provided by the American Bar Association and enacted by each state supreme court from 1984 (New Jersey) to 2009 (Maine), this 'law' which usurped the authority and independence of the court; caused a lack of jurisdiction; undermined the integrity of the judiciary; and had nullified the U.S. Constitution.

The American Bar Association which has affiliated organizations which exist within every level of state and federal courts AND every level of state and federal law enforcement.

American Bar Association membership includes lawyers, judges and court personnel, senators and representatives, governors and attorneys general.

THE ABA MEMBERSHIP IGNORED AND CONCEALED THE DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. Government Officials and 'ABA members' neglected their oath "TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES."

The CONFIDENTIALITY by the ABA membership has caused the Constitutional Crisis which the United States is experiencing. That CONFIDENTIALITY prevents them from actions which expose the unconstitutional law. That CONFIDENTIALITY prevents them from taking any corrective action.

---

WE THE PEOPLE NOTICED
The American People have noticed the government's disregard for the US Constitution.
The American People have recognized the overwhelming disinformation in the news media.
The American People have been terrorized by corruption ignored by lawyers and judges.
The American People are denied justice when lawyers are MANDATED to conceal the corruption and injustice of unconstitutional laws.

The Judicial Branch who was uniquely entrusted with JUSTICE find themselves incapable of acknowledging that they have been undermined. Rule 1.6 MANDATES that they keep their downfall CONFIDENTIAL. The MANDATE OF CONFIDENTIALITY prevents corrective action by persons mandated to follow the RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

---

The American Bar Association presented their MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT to each state supreme court to enact into law.

BUT, WHY?

After 200 years, WHY was it necessary to enact the Model Rules into law?

Why do it quietly over 25 years? (1984 New Jersey to 2009 Maine)

---

EXAMPLES
- The Foreclosure Crisis brought about using fraudulent and robo-signed documents affected over 40 Million people without mercy.
- Kids For Cash continued for years affecting 4000 families. There was no intervention until Judge Ann Lokuta called the FBI. FBI investigated and prosecuted. Ann Lokuta was disciplined and removed from the bench (Rule 1.6 violation).
- The destructive injustice of Family Court judges nationwide annihilates families and leads too many people to suicide.

The FBI's Operation Greylord decimated the Cook County Courthouse in Chicago. In the end—through undercover operations that used honest and very courageous judges and lawyers posing as crooked ones... and with the strong assistance of the Cook County court and local police — 92 officials had been indicted, including 17 judges, 48 lawyers, eight policemen, 10 deputy sheriffs, eight court officials, and one state legislator. Nearly all were convicted, most of them pleading guilty.

The ABA acted to make sure corruption like that was never exposed again... by making it illegal to prosecute judicial corruption and injustice... by mandating CONFIDENTIALITY.

Feeble denials that Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information does not directly indicate any MANDATE demonstrate the duplicity of the ABA actions - Each Rule includes Comments which explain the application of the rule. If you want to do something evil, do it inside something boring.... or unnecessary.

Duplicity is further exposed when people misrepresent that the state constitution ALLOWS the courts to enact the laws. THEY ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS paraphrase and fail to include the condition that the laws enacted by the courts cannot abridge the substantive rights protected by the state constitutions and the US Constitution.

---

INCOMPREHENSIBLE INJUSTICE FOR 30 YEARS
The refusal to acknowledge the incomprehensible amount of irreparable damage done to tens of millions of Americans is not an acceptable reason for perpetuating the injustice to Americans. A treasonous organization has deliberately and intentionally committed sedition to undermine the government of the United States. They have conspired and acted to conceal their actions by manipulating the law. They have coordinated their efforts and infiltrating every level of law enforcement. They have organized and trained their membership to continue their actions without mercy denying human rights, civil rights, constitutional rights. The same tactics which were used in Germany and lead to a Holocaust.

A CEASE AND DESIST letter was sent to the American Bar Association and every affiliated organization on August 29, 2014 with instructions to stop all operations and activities. The ABA has defiantly failed to reply or heed the letter.

---

ACT RESPONSIBLY
The Judiciary and Government must face responsibility for the corruption and injustice. Prosecute the corrupt and unjust.

Those who took an oath to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States are now presented with the opportunity to act in accordance with their oath.

The US Constitution REQUIRES some preserving, protecting and defending.

An unconstitutional state law has undermined the judicial branch of state and federal government. The repugnant law threatens and affects domestic tranquility, the common defense, the general welfare and the blessings of LIBERTY.

We the People of the United States, DEMAND THAT THE GOVERNMENT
1. RE-ESTABLISH JUSTICE
2. insure domestic Tranquility,
3. provide for the common defense,
4. promote the general Welfare, and
5. secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
returning to the principles established in the Constitution for the United States of America.