Breadcrumbs ... The Rules of Professional Conduct

Each time there has been a prosecution or the public has been made aware of judicial corruption, misconduct and injustice, the state Supreme Courts modify Rule 1.6 and the Rules of Professional Conduct to close the loophole. This leaves a trail of 'breadcrumbs' which demonstrates the true purpose for enacting the 'rules' into law without constitutional review, legislative oversight or a governors signature.

Where in the Constitution does it permit the Judiciary to enact trade rules for any profession. Just because lawyers conduct 'some' work in courts, WHY DO THE JUDICIARY BELIEVE THEY CAN MAKE THE LAW FOR THE ENTIRE LEGAL PROFESSION and allow those rules to deny constitutional rights.

There are toilets in the courthouses, does that place the plumbing code under the purview of the state supreme court? I don't think so.

WHO PERMITTED THE JUDICIARY TO DENY PEOPLE's RIGHTS IN ANY PROCESS? That's not in any constitution that I have read.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality has caused the Constitutional Crisis in America.

Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional.

As such, the state supreme courts had no authority to enact law.

Why did the American Bar Association put them up to it? Why have the state and federal Courts neglected and ignored the Constitutional rights of EVERY AMERICAN simply because they made a HUGE mistake and refuse to own up to it?

Nationwide Foreclosures based on fraudulent documents.
Kids for Cash in Luzerne County PA.
Incarceration of the Innocent to fill private prisons.
Widespead injustice causing families to be destitute, homeless and suicidal.

Letter to President Obama

July 28, 2014

Barack Obama
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

Please permit us to officially bring this national issue to your attention.

Operation Greylord – An undercover federal investigation of judicial corruption of an unprecedented magnitude has lead to a conspiracy of incomprehensible scope and magnitude where the judiciary is undermined and justice is denied to millions of Americans while and entire profession of lawyers and law enforcement is mandated to silence/confidentiality which prevents exposure and resolution of the unconstitutional injustice by the government.

The surviving victims of nationwide state and federal judicial corruption and injustice are relegated to (1) BEING HOMELESS/DESTITUTE, (2) INCARCERATION UNDER FALSE PRETENSES or (3) SUICIDE.

An unaffected majority does nothing. A responsible minority witnesses and reacts to the ‘broken’ condition of the government. We SEE the cause. We CAN fix this. There IS a resolution.

The response to Operation Greylord, perpetrated by the American Bar Association and enacted into law by state Supreme Courts in every state over a 25 year period from 1984 (New Jersey) to 2009 (Maine), was a level of corruption by an unchecked and self-policing judiciary giving rise to injustice of a scope and magnitude that ANY government would be unwilling and hesitant to admit.

The United States, the world leader of democracy, has denied the most basic rights of millions of Americans and controlled the media preventing the exposure of the government’s corruption… while doing nothing to address the corruption. There can be no effective reform while Rule 1.6 remains.

Even after presentment to the Judiciary and Government Representatives at state and federal levels, the Government continues to perpetrate a fraud of unfathomable proportions… and continues to deny the citizens of their most basic rights.

Addressing the injustice of Rule 1.6 is an inevitability. Facing it responsibly will affect the public reaction to this realization. Continuing to ignore this national issue is not an alternative. We ask your involvement, or where your direct action is ‘unlawful’, whatever assistance of support and resources which will permit us to succeed for the betterment of the nation in the best interests of every American.

Sincerely,
Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim


PDF Letter to President
PDF Attachment

Rule 1.6 Discretion and Utility

This document dates back to 1984. Rule 1.6 had only just begun undermining the American Judiciary. The Supreme Courts in each state were without proper authority enacting an unconstitutional 'law' with the full knowledge that Rule 1.6 additionally had serious ethical and moral problems.

ENACTING RULE 1.6 INTO LAW WAS A DELIBERATE ACT OF SEDITION DONE WITH INTENT TO COMMIT INJUSTICE.

The Ethics and Morality issues are well documented. Lawyers, who are the people usually authoring these Legal Reviews, always stopped short of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL label. If they were to write it, they would be violating the'law' and face discipline.

In this article, Rule 1.6 represents two incompatible views. The permissive language of the text of the Rule accomodates the view which favors disclosure. The policy statements accomodates the view which would prohibit disclosure. In the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6, I refered to this incompatibility as a self-nullifying feature of the statements which comprise Rule 1.6.

FORDHAM URBAN LAW JOURNAL
Legal Ethics: Discretion and Utility in Rule 1.6
Charles A. Kelbley
Fordham UniversityNo other professions require practitioners to identify so closely and completely with the interests and confidences of their clients, as in the legal profession. Unlike doctors, preists, rabbis and other professionals, the lawyer is an advisor but also an advocate.

Rule 1.6 is a major flaw in the legal professions history of self-discipline.

The rule fails the test of logic because the concept of discretion which it reflects is self-contradictory.

The rule is a crude form of utilitarianism and should be reformulated to require disclosure whenever clients have no right to confidentiality and their conduct would constitute unjustified aggression or seriously invade the interests of others.

[It is not the intention of this web site to infringe on copyrighted material. The Document presented above is widely available and can be found by anyone who searches on the internet.]