Attorneys defending Gov. Bill Lee and health administrator Becky Barnes in Hamilton County are in breach of their lawyerly ethics rules in fighting a petition for writ of mandamus to end the fraudulent state of emergency in chancery court.
By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 92.7 FM
Sharon Milling is defending Mrs. Barnes, and Janet Kleinfelter of the attorney general’s office is defending Gov. Lee. These two assist and represent the respondents in their personal capacities as man and woman, and also in their capacities as individuals or person in the cloak and investiture of office.
“A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is criminal or fraudulent,” according to the supreme court’s lawyer/ attorney rules of ethics,
but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law.
The parties I am suing in chancery to be compelled to obey the law are in open and flagrant violation of it, whose wrongs have opened the way for a statewide innoculation program — or vaccine program — that promises to lead to many deaths, potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths. The DNA-altering shots are a sort of genetic malware, untested, part of a long-planned global program to subject national populations to new pseudo-legal controls and humiliations, and to reduce population sizes worldwide in the interest of the environment.
The shots are “death shots,” as one of the gnomes looking in on the Chattanooga case have said.
Lawyers cannot cooperate in fraud, or help it
The attorneys are helping respondents-in-fraud violate the law, harm the relator (that’s me) and injure many, many of the state’s 6.8 million citizens.
Rules for lawyers are at Rule 10, and Rule 1.2(d) forbids cooperation in fraud or crime by lawyers and attorneys, who are officers of the court and required to serve the public interest.
The rules define fraud this way: “‘Fraud’ or ‘fraudulent’ denotes an intentionally false or misleading statement of material fact, an intentional omission from a statement of fact of such additional information as would be necessary to make the statements made not materially misleading, and such other conduct by a person intended to deceive a person or tribunal with respect to a material issue in a proceeding or other matter.” Rule 1.0(d)
Says a commentary on the rules:
There is a critical distinction between presenting an analysis of legal aspects of questionable conduct and recommending the means by which a crime or fraud might be committed with impunity.Rule 1.2 commentary
The comments in the rules say when a lawyer knows a client is involved in a fraud, that she must break off relations.
 When the client’s course of action has already begun and is continuing, the lawyer’s responsibility is especially delicate. *** [T]he lawyer is required to avoid assisting the client, for example, by drafting or delivering documents that the lawyer knows are fraudulent or by suggesting how the wrongdoing might be concealed. A lawyer may not continue assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer originally supposed was legally proper but then discovers is criminal or fraudulent. The lawyer must, therefore, withdraw from the representation of the client in the matter. See RPC 1.16(a). In some cases, withdrawal alone might be insufficient. It may be necessary for the lawyer to give notice of the fact of withdrawal and to disaffirm any opinion, document, affirmation or the like. See RPC 4.1.Rule 1.2 commentary
The rules go on to specify when a lawyer should dump the client.
(2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer’s services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(3) the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or imprudent;