Source: http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=792:how-attorneys-violate-the-rules-commit-fraud-upon-the-court-and-corrupt-the-legal-process&catid=38&tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&Itemid=210
Timestamp: 2020-07-05 03:06:01
Document Index: 308783674

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1964', '§ 1962', '§ 1962', '§ 1621', '§ 1623', '§ 1622', '§ 371', '§ 1001']

Created: Thursday, 22 March 2012 11:20
"I,_________________, swear that I will truly and honestly, justly and uprightly conduct myself as a member of this learned profession and in accordance with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, as an attorney and counselor and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Georgia. So help me God."
I find that dishonest attorneys routinely violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, and when they do, they violate their oath.
I find that attorneys routinely allow judges and judicial personnel to violate the Constitutional rights of litigants. When they do, they have violated their oath. If a judge denies your rights to due process, as I have experienced repeatedly, the opposing counsel has a DUTY to act on your behalf, but this has never happened. The dishonest attorneys simply look the other way and laugh their behinds off when no one is looking.
shall not counsel to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent.
shall not knowingly assist a client in such conduct.
When an attorney allows his client to falsify documents or file bogus documents, he is sanctioning the crimes of tampering with evidence, obstruction of justice, and perhaps forgery.
When an attorney knows his client is lying, concealing evidence, obstructing justice, violating any criminal statute, or committing fraud in any way, the attorney has an ethical obligation to tell the client that this cannot be allowed. Unfortunately, my experience indicates that opposing counsel often supports their clients in such activities, especially committing perjury and concealing evidence. In one of the first lawsuits I was ever involved in, the defense of a man who owed me $500,000 for the purchase of a business claimed he never received various disclosures about the business. I had the copy that was provided, but he claimed he never received it. I knew that was false. When my deposition was taken, one exhibit number was omitted. Chronologically, it would have been the disclosure. When we finally had a hearing, there was one wide table in the middle of the courtroom where the parties and their attorneys sat face-to-face. As I looked at the crook directly across from me, I saw that he was reading the document that he claimed he never received. It even had the missing exhibit sticker and number on it. He filed bankruptcy, and I never received a cent.
RULE 3.1 MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS -- In the representation of a client, a lawyer shall not: (a) file a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial, or take other action on behalf of the client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another; (b) knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer may advance such claim or defense if it can be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law."
Rule 3.1 -- The advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client's cause, but also a duty not to abuse legal procedure.
Rule 3.1 -- The filing of an action or defense or similar action taken for a client is not frivolous merely because the facts have not first been fully substantiated or because the lawyer expects to develop vital evidence only by discovery. Such action is not frivolous even though the lawyer believes that the client's position ultimately will not prevail. The action is frivolous, however, if the client desires to have the action taken primarily for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring a person, or, if the lawyer is unable either to make a good faith argument on the merits of the action taken or to support the action taken by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.
Rule 3.1 -- "It is not ethically improper for a lawyer to file a lawsuit before complete factual support for the claim has been established provided that the lawyer determines that a reasonable lawyer would conclude that there is a reasonable possibility that facts supporting the cause of action can be established after the filing of the claim; and provided further that the lawyer is not required by rules of procedure or otherwise to represent that the cause of action has an adequate factual basis. If after filing it is discovered that the lawsuit has no merit, the lawyer is obligated to dismiss the lawsuit or in the alternative withdraw."
shall not file a suit that isn't meritorious. This means that when an action is filed against you with no factual or legal merit whatsoever, the attorney has violated the Rules. This was precisely what happened to me when Carl H. Anderson, Jr. of Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young filed a lawsuit against me that had not one word of truth in the entire 50-paragraph verified complaint.
shall not assert a position that isn't meritorious. My experience is that attorneys do this a lot. They should go by the law and the rules, but they will take positions that do not have merit. When they have the right kind of relationshiup with the judge, they get away with stuff like this. In one of thre worst examples from my own experience, Carl H. Anderson, Jr. of Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young filed a motion for sanctions saying I failed to respond to requests for discovery. I provided absolute, undeniable proof that I had responded. Carl H. Anderson, Jr. knew I had contacted him repeatedly about the discovery and had made arrangements for documents to be picked up from me. But he filed the motion that had absolutely no merit, and I believe he did so because he knew the track record of Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. was that Judge Duffey would rule against me on anything and everything because I was attempting to expose the rampant corruption in the federal courts in Georgia. I was ordered to pay over $50,000 in legal fees run up by Carl H. Anderson, Jr. Proving an arrangement between Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. and Carl H. Anderson, Jr. of Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young will be close to impossible since I have been blocked from any discovery at all. However, that proof is not necessary to prove that the attorney took a position that was not meritorious or to prove that the Judge issued an order with statements in the order that the record before the court proved to be absolutely false. I have always tried to focus on what I can prove rather than what dishonest people will block me from proving.
shall not take other action on behalf of the client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another. I have experienced this from time to time, too. Outlandish discovery requests, involving my spouse (a non-party) in discovery, seeking all of my wife's personal financial and medical information, etc. Forcing people to appear for depositions who have absolutely no testimony to offer. Harassment can be inflicted in a variety of ways, so just remember that it violates the Rules when you feel it.
shall not knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law. This is probably violated by most litigators on a routine basis. They take a ridiculous position when they know the law and the valid case law do not support that position.
duty not to abuse legal procedure. Thinking back about my litigation experiences over the years, I believe that the opposing counsel have always abused legal procedure. Be very familiar with the rules applicable to your court. When the opposing counsel violates the rules of procedure, they have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as well. When I have called this to my attorney's attention, I find that they do not want to pursue sanctions and complaints against the opposing counsel. I believe attorneys take this position for their own personal protection. They are afraid of what the other law firm or the judge may do to them down the road for acting against a member of "the club." I know all of the judges and attorneys are against me, so I don't worry about it. My goal is to always generate as much proof of wrongdoing as possible. In taking such action, you run the risk that the corrupt judge will take every penny you have by awarding sanctions without any valid justification. They have the power and can do it, so those who still have any money left after experiencing corruption may not want to risk this. You can always file a Bar Complaint against the attorney, and these violations can be included in that complaint. There are no sanctions for filing bar complaints...at least as far as I know.
If after filing it is discovered that the lawsuit has no merit, the lawyer is obligated to dismiss the lawsuit or in the alternative withdraw. I do not believe attorneys do this; it would certainly be rare. At the very least, Carl H. Anderson, Jr. had a duty to withdraw in Maid of the Mist v. Windsor, 1:06-CV-0714-ODE, after his clents admitted in their depositions that the entire verified complaint was false. He never did, and Judge Orinda D. Evans found me liable for $450,000 of Carl H. Anderson, Jr.'s legal fees at summary judgment. I can't prove that the judge had a special arrangement that caused her to issue an order that the record in the case would not justify whatsoever, but it is hard for me to believe that the opposing counsel didn't know that he would win despite the facts and the law. Once again, we don't have to prove their was collusion, we just have to prove that the attorney discoverd that the lawsuit had no merit and failed to dismiss the action or withdraw. That has been easy for me to prove.
RULE 3.2 EXPEDITING LITIGATION -- A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.
Dilatory practices bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation.
In the Maid of the Mist case, Carl H. Anderson, Jr. did not produce anyone for a deposition until 45 days before discovery closed -- 15 months after the lawsuit was filed. Many documents were never produced, and the lion's share of the important documents that were produced did not appear until just a few weeks before discovery closed. All of this dilatory practice seems to me to be clearly calculated to delay the process, run up the expenses, and deprive me of due process. From my experience, I always want to be the first to get discovery going, and I want to do it on the earliest dates possible. This helps provide some protection against the dilatory practices of a slimy attorney on the other side.
RULE 3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL -- (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client; (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.
Rule 3.3 -- The advocate's task is to present the client's case with persuasive force. Performance of that duty while maintaining confidences of the client is qualified by the advocate's duty of candor to the tribunal.
Rul3 3.3 -- Representations by a Lawyer -- The obligation prescribed in Rule 1.2(d): Scope of Representation not to counsel a client to commit or assist the client in committing a fraud applies in litigation.
My experience has been that this is violated routinely by opposing counsel. This is easy to prove. Identify the false statements of fact, false statements made in pleadings, and false statements made at hearings. Then provide the evidence that proves them to be false. I take great care to show how the opposing counsel continues to make the false statements and use erroneous law after they had undeniable evidence.
Rule 3.3 -- CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL -- False Evidence -- [4] When evidence that a lawyer knows to be false is provided by a person who is not the client, the lawyer must refuse to offer it regardless of the client's wishes. [5] When false evidence is offered by the client, however, a conflict may arise between the lawyer's duty to keep the client's revelations confidential and the duty of candor to the court. Upon ascertaining that material evidence is false, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client that the evidence should not be offered or, if it has been offered, that its false character should immediately be disclosed. If the persuasion is ineffective, the lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures. The rule generally recognized is that, if necessary to rectify the situation, an advocate must disclose the existence of the client's deception to the court or to the other party. Such a disclosure can result in grave consequences to the client, including not only a sense of betrayal but also loss of the case and perhaps a prosecution for perjury. But the alternative is that the lawyer cooperate in deceiving the court, thereby subverting the truth-finding process which the adversary system is designed to implement. See Rule 1.2(d): Scope of Representation.
Rule 3.3 -- CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL -- Remedial Measures -- If perjured testimony or false evidence has been offered, the advocate's proper course ordinarily is to remonstrate with the client confidentially. If that fails, the advocate should seek to withdraw if that will remedy the situation. If withdrawal will not remedy the situation or is impossible, the advocate should make disclosure to the court. It is for the court then to determine what should be done-making a statement about the matter to the trier of fact, ordering a mistrial or perhaps nothing. If the false testimony was that of the client, the client may controvert the lawyer's version of their communication when the lawyer discloses the situation to the court. If there is an issue whether the client has committed perjury, the lawyer cannot represent the client in resolution of the issue, and a mistrial may be unavoidable.
Rule 3.3 -- CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL -- Constitutional Requirements -- The general rule is that an advocate must disclose the existence of perjury with respect to a material fact, even that of a client.
Rule 3.3 -- Refusing to Offer Proof Believed to Be False -- Generally speaking, a lawyer has authority to refuse to offer testimony or other proof that the lawyer believes is untrustworthy. Offering such proof may reflect adversely on the lawyer's ability to discriminate in the quality of evidence and thus impair the lawyer's effectiveness as an advocate.
shall not make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal.
shall not offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.
False Evidence -- When evidence that a lawyer knows to be false is provided by a person who is not the client, the lawyer must refuse to offer it regardless of the client's wishes.
an advocate must disclose the existence of the client's deception to the court or to the other party.
If there is an issue whether the client has committed perjury, the lawyer cannot represent the client in resolution of the issue, and a mistrial may be unavoidable.
Special obligation to protect a tribunal against criminal or fraudulent conduct.
RULE 3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL -- A lawyer shall not: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act; (b) (1) falsify evidence; (2) counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely; (f) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless: (1) the person is a relative or an employee or other agent of a client; or (2) the information is subject to the assertion of a privilege by the client; and (3) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person's interests will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information and the request is not otherwise prohibited by law; (g) use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of the opposing party or counsel; or (h) present, participate in presenting or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
Rule 3.4 -- The procedure of the adversary system contemplates that the evidence in a case is to be marshaled competitively by the contending parties. Fair competition in the adversary system is secured by prohibitions against destruction or concealment of evidence, improperly influencing witnesses, obstructive tactics in discovery procedure, and the like.
Rule 3.4 -- Documents and other items of evidence are often essential to establish a claim or defense. Subject to evidentiary privileges, the right of an opposing party, including the government, to obtain evidence through discovery or subpoena is an important procedural right. The exercise of that right can be frustrated if relevant material is altered, concealed or destroyed. Applicable law in many jurisdictions makes it an offense to destroy material for purpose of impairing its availability in a pending proceeding or one whose commencement can be foreseen. Falsifying evidence is also generally a criminal offense.
Rule 3.4 -- The responsibility to a client requires a lawyer to subordinate the interests of others to those of the client, but that responsibility does not imply that a lawyer may disregard the rights of the opposing party or counsel.
shall not unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence.
shall not unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value.
shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act.
shall not request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party.
shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
shall ensure that evidence in a case is to be marshaled competitively.
Falsifying evidence is also generally a criminal offense.
RULE 4.1 TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS - In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or â€œfail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.
In my experience, opposing counsel routinely make false statements of material fact to other attorneys not involved in the case and to the media. In both such cases, this is a violation of Rule 4.1 To prove this, I always identify each false statement, and then I provide citations to the record before the court to prove that the statements were false. I always do a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury in which I swear that each such statement was false.
Rule 4.1 -- TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS - Misrepresentation -- A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act.
Rule 4.1 -- Statements of Fact -- This Rule refers to statements of fact. Whether a particular statement should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances. Under generally accepted conventions in negotiation, certain types of statements ordinarily are not taken as statements of material fact. Comments which fall under the general category of "puffing" do not violate this rule. Estimates of price or value placed on the subject of a transaction and a party's intentions as to an acceptable settlement of a claim are in this category, and so is the existence of an undisclosed principal except where nondisclosure of the principal would constitute fraud.
Rule 4.1 TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS - Fraud by Client -- Paragraph (b) recognizes that substantive law may require a lawyer to disclose certain information to avoid being deemed to have assisted the client's crime or fraud. The requirement of disclosure created by this paragraph is, however, subject to the obligations created by Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information.
shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person
A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false.
Misrepresentations can also occur by failure to act
RULE 8.4 MISCONDUCT -- (a) It shall be a violation of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to: (1) violate or attempt to violate the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (4) engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
Rule 8.4 -- The prohibitions of this Rule as well as the prohibitions of Bar Rule 4-102 prohibit a lawyer from attempting to violate the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct or from knowingly aiding or abetting, or providing direct or indirect assistance or inducement to another person who violates or attempts to violate a rule of professional conduct. A lawyer may not avoid a violation of the rules by instructing a nonlawyer, who is not subject to the rules, to act where the lawyer can not.
This Rule, as its predecessor, is drawn in terms of acts involving "moral turpitude" with, however, a recognition that some such offenses concern matters of personal morality and have no specific connection to fitness for the practice of law. Here the concern is limited to those matters which fall under both the rubric of "moral turpitude" and involve underlying conduct relating to the fitness of the lawyer to practice law.
Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return. However, some kinds of offenses carry no such implication. Traditionally, the distinction was drawn in terms of offenses involving "moral turpitude." That concept can be construed to include offenses concerning some matters of personal morality, such as adultery and comparable offenses, that have no specific connection to fitness for the practice of law. Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.
Rule 11 -- Signing Pleadings and Motions
Rule 26 -- Duty to Disclose
Rule 30 -- Depositions by Oral Examination (Witness Coaching)
Rule 33 -- Interrogatories to Parties
Rule 34 -- Producing Documents
Rule 37 -- Failure to Make Disclosures
From my experience, attorneys have violated these Georgia statutes and federal statutes:
Violation of Georgia RICO Act -- O.C.G.A. 16-14-3, 16-14-4
Violation of Federal Civil RICO Act -- 18 USC § 1964(c) and 18 USC § 1962(c) and 18 USC § 1962(d)
Theft by Deception -- O.C.G.A. 16-8-3
False Statements to State -- O.C.G.A. 16-10-20
Perjury -- O.C.G.A. 16-10-70 and USC 18 § 1621 and USC 18 § 1623
Subornation of Perjury -- O.C.G.A. 16-10-72 and/or USC 18 § 1622 and/or O.C.G.A. 16-10-72 and/or O.C.G.A. 16-10-93
Witness Tampering -- O.C.G.A. 16-10-93and 18 U.S.C. 1503 and/or O.C.G.A. 16-10-93
Conspiracy To Defraud United States (Obstruct Justice) -- 18 USC § 371
Making false statements -- 18 USC § 1001
We need to introduce legislation in each state that will make LAWS out of each of the so-called Rules of Professional Conduct. I have prepared 17 amendments to the Georgia Code, and the amendments on attorneys will do just that.