How's this for some STANDING? THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6
THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE COURT
Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane's deliberate and intentional failure to take any action regarding the denial of the constitutional rights of the litigants is the basis of the 'controversy' before the Court. The Attorney General has done nothing.
Attorney General Kane's failure to take any action results in the denial of the constitutional rights of the litigants. The Attorney General has failed to execute the responsibilities of the Office of Attorney General.
(So did Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly.
So did Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett.
So did every Attorney General upon whom the Challenge was served. How's that for some case/controversy and standing for fixing this nationwide problem?)
Attorney General Kane cites Article 5 Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution as the 'lawful' basis for non-responsibility and inaction.
'Lawful' BUT UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS NOT LAWFUL even when enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
The Attorneys General of Pennsylvania have repeatedly indicated a lack of jurisdiction or 'lawful' inability to become involved in the cases of the litigants and the basis for inaction.
The Plaintiff's challenge a law Rule 1.6 which collaterally results in the denial of their constitutional rights.
Any law which denies rights and liberties is repugnant to the US Constitution and is a nullity.
The Attorney General's 'lawful' inaction and 'lawful' failure to address an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is the Constitutional Controversy before the Court.
The Attorney General's 'lawful' actions are unconstitutional and are not lawful.
How's that for a case and controversy pursuant to Article III?
It's already been accepted that Rooker-Feldman and Younger are NOT valid doctrine for dismissal of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6.
NOW, TELL ME AGAIN WHY THE COURT FAILED TO ASK EACH STATE IF THE LAW WAS CONSTITUTIONAL? Why did the court fail to CERTIFY the Constitutional Challenge? I think that answer is clear.
THE COURT KNOWS THE ANSWER TO THE 'Is Rule 1.6 constitutional?' QUESTION.
Plaintiffs have stated that Rule 1.6 sacrifices the reputation and integrity of the judiciary.
'Lawfully but unconstitutionally' under Rule 1.6, the Attorney General is mandated to not reveal the unconstitutionality of Rule 1.6 as it applies to the litigants... The court knew this and failed to Certify the Constitutional Challenge.
Judicial Reputation and integrity sacrificed... and FAILED ANYWAY.
JUSTICE IS COMING.
Showing posts with label KNOWS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label KNOWS. Show all posts
Monday, March 10, 2014
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Reality vs. The Smokescreen
The Rule 1.6 debate waves the trust of attorney-client relationships as a badge of honor for the profession. It then authorizes and mandates a denial of justice to anyone who is affected by their inability to tell the truth.
Get this. It is unconstitutional, SO the lawyers must tell the truth to the court. The client must tell the truth to the court. So, if they are afraid of the truth being stated in court, they will lie and be exposed for their fraud.
Rule 1.6 is a ridiculous notion of integrity, ethics and morality which suggests that a LAW which requires an attorney to present untrue information to the court to obstruct the court from learning the truth, while compromising justice, integrity and personal reputation is designed to make a client trust his attorney.
The Client just watched the attorney lie to the Court. To think that builds trust is flawed logic.
We are really supposed to believe that a client will trust someone more because that person will lie for them AT ALL COSTS WITHOUT REGARD FOR ANYTHING OR ANYONE ELSE EVEN AT THE COST OF THEIR OWN INTEGRITY. THAT'S JUST STUPID. Shared lies do not build trust. The relationship is called a conspiracy and it is co-dependant at best. All the honor, truth and integrity synonyms in the world when presented to conceal a MANDATE TO MISLEAD will not result in TRUST.
The pig is still a pig.
Rule 1.6 prevents truth and encourages making every effort to mislead the court to further conceal a falsehood.
There is nothing admirable about telling a lie in a proceeding designed to determine the truth.
The other thing that just doesn't seem to make ANY appearance in any of the voluminous rhetoric surrounding The Rules of Professional Conduct.
(I have learned that what is not addressed or presented is often the baseline to consider.)
What about when the attorney is the one who initiates the untruth? When the attorney instructs the client to commit a crime? Their client can't risk exposing that to the court. The client needs the lawyer, AND THE CLIENT KNOWS THAT THE ATTORNEY WILL LIE TO THE COURT. If the lawyer will lie to the court, what kind of lies might he tell the court to retaliate against a client that exposes the lawyers fraud upon the court
The explanation for what necessitates the Confidentiality is a lie. And yes, it seems lawyers MUST do that.
They are telling you they are required to lie and will do so, what makes anyone believe that they are telling the truth?
Get this. It is unconstitutional, SO the lawyers must tell the truth to the court. The client must tell the truth to the court. So, if they are afraid of the truth being stated in court, they will lie and be exposed for their fraud.
Rule 1.6 is a ridiculous notion of integrity, ethics and morality which suggests that a LAW which requires an attorney to present untrue information to the court to obstruct the court from learning the truth, while compromising justice, integrity and personal reputation is designed to make a client trust his attorney.
The Client just watched the attorney lie to the Court. To think that builds trust is flawed logic.
We are really supposed to believe that a client will trust someone more because that person will lie for them AT ALL COSTS WITHOUT REGARD FOR ANYTHING OR ANYONE ELSE EVEN AT THE COST OF THEIR OWN INTEGRITY. THAT'S JUST STUPID. Shared lies do not build trust. The relationship is called a conspiracy and it is co-dependant at best. All the honor, truth and integrity synonyms in the world when presented to conceal a MANDATE TO MISLEAD will not result in TRUST.
The pig is still a pig.
Rule 1.6 prevents truth and encourages making every effort to mislead the court to further conceal a falsehood.
There is nothing admirable about telling a lie in a proceeding designed to determine the truth.
The other thing that just doesn't seem to make ANY appearance in any of the voluminous rhetoric surrounding The Rules of Professional Conduct.
(I have learned that what is not addressed or presented is often the baseline to consider.)
What about when the attorney is the one who initiates the untruth? When the attorney instructs the client to commit a crime? Their client can't risk exposing that to the court. The client needs the lawyer, AND THE CLIENT KNOWS THAT THE ATTORNEY WILL LIE TO THE COURT. If the lawyer will lie to the court, what kind of lies might he tell the court to retaliate against a client that exposes the lawyers fraud upon the court
The explanation for what necessitates the Confidentiality is a lie. And yes, it seems lawyers MUST do that.
They are telling you they are required to lie and will do so, what makes anyone believe that they are telling the truth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)