CHATTANOOGA, Tenn., Nov. 3, 2022 – Rheubin Taylor, justly fired by mayor Weston Wamp and restored by a fawning county commission, is condemned by his “rules of professional conduct” for his role in fraud and mass harm and death in Hamilton County and beyond in the Covid-19 scam.
By David Tulis / NoogaRadio Network
Mr. Taylor defended the county from my petition for equity and writ of mandamus for the county’s role in rejecting Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104 requiring a determination be made of the agent of contagion in any outbreak, disease or epidemic. Refusal to obey the law opened the broad path toward destruction of the people; the Covid-19 jab that has claimed 101,400 lives among the 7 million people in Tennessee. When I pursue appeal, Mr. Taylor and Hamilton County will be the opposing party defending the county health department administrator in fraud as having done her duty in making obedience to the law “discretionary.”
Such a legal determination is, in the science, the basis for any mitigation efforts by public authority. Without a determination, no public acts are possible legally, nor medically.
Here’s what the lawyer controls at Rule 8 declare.
➤ “A lawyer is an expert in law pursuing a learned art in service to clients and in the spirit of public service and engaging in these pursuits as part of a common calling to promote justice and public good.”
➤ He is “a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice.”
➤ “In all professional functions a lawyer should be competent, prompt, and diligent.”
➤ His “conduct should conform to the requirements of the law.”
➤ He should “use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others.”
Instill ‘public confidence’
The rules intone, “As a member of a learned profession, a lawyer should cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients, employ that knowledge in reform of the law, and work to strengthen legal education.”
➤ A lawyer must “further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority.
➤ Should be “also guided by personal conscience and the approbation of professional peers.”
The rules have limits. “Compliance with the Rules, as with all law in an open society, depends primarily upon understanding and voluntary compliance, secondarily upon reinforcement by peer and public opinion and finally, when necessary, upon enforcement through disciplinary proceedings. The Rules do not, however, exhaust the moral and ethical considerations that should inform a lawyer, for no worthwhile human activity can be completely defined by legal rules.”
Cannot assist in crime
Significantly, attorney professional conduct Rule 1.2(d) says,
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, 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.
A commentary explains that the above graph:
prohibits a lawyer from counseling or assisting a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is criminal or fraudulent. This prohibition, however, does not preclude the lawyer from giving an honest opinion about the actual consequences that appear likely to result from a client’s conduct. Nor does the fact that a client uses advice in a course of action that is criminal or fraudulent of itself make a lawyer a party to the course of action. 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.
Mr. Wamp is right to want to free the county from the services of the ill-starred and blinkered Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor, and Hamilton County chancery court judge Pamela Fleenor, have done yeoman’s work to establish the new definition of public health in Tennessee.
The new definition of public health accepts mass harm and mass death in use of untested pharmaceutical industry products.
These two Hamilton County people thwarted the case State of Tennessee ex rel. David Jonathan v. Bill Lee, governor of Tennessee, et al, that seeks to restore the rule of law over errant state actors. I militantly prosecuted this state in the name of the state 747 days.
The commission cares nothing about these matters, and because of a blackout by mainstream media, have grounds to say they have not been given any notice by press reports of the harms highlighted by this reporter.
http://s6.voscast.com:7162/stream to hear David live on NoogaRadio Network, 7 a.m. & 6 p.m.
Resist & rebuild