Rule 1.6 has NOT been Misinterpreted or Misunderstood
The Constitutional Challenge posed by us, Todd Krautheim and Terance Healey, is NOT misinterpreting or misunderstanding Rule 1.6 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the association’s most important confidentiality rule.
These are the dismissive suggestions of lawyers with regard to the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6. It is what they tell people who ask them about it. They offer no further information to back up their statement. They further indicate that we will never succeed (and neglect to explain why we won’t).
These lawyers are WRONG.
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 backs up every statement. Every post on the web features supporting documentation which corroborates every statement.
Within Pennsylvania we have four clear examples of corruption and injustice where the actions of the judiciary and lawyers involved in the matters have defied any logical and acceptable explanation. When Rule 1.6 is applied, the actions of law enforcement are clearly explained, including in the following:
• Kids for Cash
• Jerry Sandusky prosecution and the Sandusky Report
How about we have a discussion? A debate. In public. On television. Anytime . . . Anywhere . . .
Let’s see who understands the improperly-enacted and unconstitutional law . . . lawyers mandated to say nothing about it, or two non-lawyers who can demonstrate the mandate for lawyers to conspire to conceal injustice and corruption?
As those same lawyers are MANDATED to silence/confidentiality of information, even where it is
about Rule 1.6, Confidentiality of Information, we will see who is misinterpreting, misunderstanding, OR misinforming.
And we will see who gets disciplined for discussing the issue.
Rule 1.6 is frequently the subject of law review articles. Usually those articles are also addressing the problems with the Rule which cause it to undermine morality, ethics, personal integrity . . . AND TO UNDERMINE JUSTICE. Search for those keywords in your favorite search engine. You may be surprised at the volume of material that turns up. The step that seems to be missing from any article is the unconstitutional aspect and the inescapable situation it causes for the victims of judicial corruption and injustice.
Addressing the injustice of Rule 1.6 is an inevitability. Facing it responsibly will affect the public
reaction to this realization.
Where substantive rights are violated, directly or collaterally, the law is repugnant to the
Constitution and a nullity.
The judiciary has buried an unconstitutional law so deep in the law books that they never expected any non-lawyer to find it, let alone survive to prove its danger, even while being denied their constitutional rights and the protection of the law.
No matter how deeply the mandate of Rule 1.6 is buried and concealed, THE LAW MAY NOT
VIOLATE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 has been presented to the President of the United States, the United States Congress, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
We welcome your questions and will endeavor to answer each one. Comments are reviewed and responded to on a regular basis at www.Work2BDone.com/live.