A Terroristic Divorce

I spoke with Robert Graci of the Judicial Conduct Board yesterday.

I had wanted to speak with him for years about how Rule 1.6 Confidentiality rendered the JCB moot when judges commit and conceal acts of injustice.

My last report to JCB was hand delivered on August 1, 2013.  The dismissal of that report arrived on September 4, 2015.  OVER TWO YEARS LATER.

Mr. Graci took my call.  He attempted to suggest that the JCB was busy and he cited the volume of complaints he receives.  Horseshit.

I explained that in the 2 years they were ‘conducting the necessary review’ and ‘careful consideration’, there was no contact for further information, clarification or explanation.

I did not call to argue.  I did explain to him that I understood that the actions of the JCB were lawful.  Rule 1.6 Confidentiality prevented the JCB from addressing the injustice of a judge… even where that injustice was the culmination of the injustice by 19 other judges, with one acting to retaliate for their wrongdoing.
I mentioned to him that the same form letter had been used for ALL of the reports I made to JCB.

I explained to him how Rule 1.6 undermined his job, and the courts themselves.

I explained to him that unconstitutional Rule 1.6 caused me to have no protection of the law and causes all Constitutional rights to be ignored.

I mentioned that I had wanted to have a dialog with him about it for the last two years.

I went thru my discovery process, and then cited examples of Rule 1.6 Injustice within Pennsylvania and nationwide.  He disagreed with my findings about Rule 1.6, but was also not interested in learning more.  He also could not provide an explanation for the excuses provided by lawyers to conceal RULE 1.6 injustice.

He listened attentively to explanations and while disagreeing, he also suggested examples which might prove my findings incorrect.  Those examples were promptly addressed and explained.

I explained that I understood he could not be ‘converted’ in the phone call.  The Rules don’t permit that. It was not the point.

The 30+ minute phone call during which he attempted to poke holes in the Rule 1.6 Challenge. 

The only thing he had left was to say was he didn’t agree with me and it was not his responsibility.  He was wrong on that also. 

It is the responsibility of every lawyer to work to the betterment of JUSTICE.  That too is part of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  I explained that Rule 1.6 undermines Constitution, Law, rights, and even all the other Rules of Professional Conduct… and it does it confidentially.

There was the usual citing of Article V.  I asked him if there was a reason that the entire sentence or paragraph was never included in the citation.  The part which is left out is the part about the judiciary only having authority where the substantive rights of litigants are not affected.

He kept trying to suggest the conversation adversarial… suggesting I was trying to set him up.  I told him that was not the case at all.  I then mentioned that there were 20 judges involved in Healy v Healy which was indicative of problems.  It was necessary to review the jurisdiction of the courts, and how the courts only have jurisdiction where they follow the law.  Where a judge issued defective and void orders which are improperly enforced, Rule 1.6 conceals the lawlessness and lack of jurisdiction.  Rule 1.6 even conceals the efforts which undermine the related appeals.

We disagreed on subject matter jurisdiction, however when we talked it through the difference was the perspective on hearing a matter, and issuing a defective and void decree order without any basis in law resulting in a lapse of subject matter jurisdiction.

I told him I had waited years to have the conversation with him.  I mentioned I only filed one report per judge and that I wasn’t interested in wasting anyone’s time. 

I asked his support now that he was aware of the Constitutional issue involved.

I advised him that I would keep him in the loop on my efforts and documents which are being prepared currently.

He said he did not want that.  I told him I would include him anyway.  It would help him to perform his job responsibilities.  It wasn’t my intent to suggest that Rule 1.6 undermined the JCB completely, but clearly the JCB didn’t believe there was any responsibility for the proliferation of injustice and constitutional denials by judges.

We covered just about every aspect of Rule 1.6.

The strange thing is that the judges should have been reporting the affect as well.  THE LAWYERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTING THE AFFECT AS WELL.

Of course, if they had been reporting it…. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONFIDENTIALLY AND HE WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO DISCUSS IT. 

PERHAPS, I WILL GIVE MR. GRACI THE BENEFIT OF THAT DOUBT.  He did seem to comprehend and grasp the information and examples immediately.  He engaged with examples which were immediately addressed into my findings.

My hope for him is that he begins to seek to improve justice … and stop  concealing and ignoring injustice.

The victim has no other recourse but to persevere.