US NEWS REPORTS

Breaking US/World News and Analysis

Tag: Utah Bar Association

fbi

FBI Very Interested in Utah Judicial Corruption

According to a source that will go unnamed, the FBI doesn’t think too highly of Utah. He referred to the state as the “Wild West” for corruption. Many individuals, he claims, have been duped into not ratting out their brethren who are members of the Mormon Church.

Apparently, some within the agency still resent the hatchet job the Deseret News and KSL.com (Both owned by the Mormon Church) laid on their good name back in 2011:

fbi

According to a source that will go unnamed, the FBI doesn’t think too highly of Utah. He referred to the state as the “Wild West” for corruption. Many individuals, he claims, have been duped into not ratting out their brethren who are members of the Mormon Church.

Apparently, some within the agency still resent the hatchet job the Deseret News and KSL.com (Both owned by the Mormon Church) laid on their good name back in 2011:

“The sources provided details of multiple violations of internal FBI policies, including lax oversight of highly classified documents stored inside the Salt Lake City office’s Secret Compartmented Information Facility; the failure to enforce rules that restrict access to areas where classified documents are kept; violations of policies that govern the issuance of FBI credentials; and concerns that high-level FBI officials may have covered up a formal complaint of security violations.

The FBI declined to officially comment on any of the allegations.” (Deseret News)

 

“The problem is a unified group of victims coming forward”, explained our source, “Before the FBI gets involved they need multiple statements from multiple victims.” The source implied that it was too easy for the forces of corruption to impune, discredit or intimidate a single victim.

“You bring the FBI multiple statements, from multiple victims, and they will turn this state upside down. They have been waiting a long time for this opportunity.”

And we are only too happy to oblige. If you have been victimized by the following individuals, we need your story. You must also be willing to testify, under oath, of any crimes committed against you by any Lawyer or Judge in Utah including the following:

  1. Judge Christine S Johnson
  2. Commissioner Thomas Patton
  3. Joseph Cannon
  4. Chris Cannon
  5. Mark Stubbs (Utah County Attorney)
  6. The Utah Bar Association
  7. Office of Recovery Services
  8. Kelly Peterson (Utah County Attorney)
  9. Any incidents of fraud, unlawful rulings, perjury, Suborning Perjury, Sexual coercion, sex for legal fees, or other illegal behavior naming any of the above or any other Attorney or Judge in the State of Utah.
  10. Any legal rulings made contrary to law by any Judge in Utah.
  11. Any other illegal behavior by attorneys or judges in Utah.

 

If you have been victimized, email us your story:

Email               admin@citizensgroup.us

All documents will be kept confidential unless you ask them to be published. Otherwise, they will be forwarded to Federal Law Enforcement.

cropped-news.jpg

Does the Utah Bar Violate Federal Anti-Trust Laws?

By T.J. Monson

“26 For behold, have I testified against your law? Ye do not understand; ye say that I have spoken against your law; but I have not, but I have spoken in favor of your law, to your condemnation.

 27 And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges.” (Book of Mormon)

A Trust is basically a monopoly that conspires against the marketplace. Lawyers in Utah have, in effect, created a monopoly that protects its own from prosecution and following the laws of the state.

In a feeble attempt to shield itself from anti-trust cases, the State if Utah and the Bar permit pro-se representation in the Courts, but the man or woman who represents himself in a Utah Court soon finds out how powerless they are going up against Utah’s most powerful monopoly.

Lawyers are part of the Utah Bar Monopoly. Judges and Lawmakers were part of the Bar. To be a Utah Lawyer you have to pass the Bar Exam. In other words, when you challenge a corrupt lawyer or judge in Utah, the success of your case is totally dependent on whether or not the Attorney or Judge is in favor with the Utah Monopoly.

This Monopoly needs to be challenged and dismantled. The State of Utah needs to separate itself from the Bar and the General public need to demand citizen oversight of the Utah Bar.

Justice shouldn’t be dependent on the whims of a Cartel of Utah Lawyers. Justice should be available to all, both lawyers and those they victimize. Here is the Federal Anti-Trust Law in a nutshell.

Private civil suits may be brought, in both state and federal court, against violators of state and federal antitrust law. Federal antitrust laws, as well as most state laws, provide for triple damages against antitrust violators in order to encourage private lawsuit enforcement of antitrust law. Thus, if a company is sued for monopolizing a market and the jury concludes the conduct resulted in consumers’ being overcharged $200,000, that amount will automatically be tripled, so the injured consumers will receive $600,000. The United States Supreme Court summarized why Congress authorized private antitrust lawsuits in the case Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., 405 U.S. 251, 262 (1972):

Every violation of the antitrust laws is a blow to the free-enterprise system envisaged by Congress. This system depends on strong competition for its health and vigor, and strong competition depends, in turn, on compliance with antitrust legislation. In enacting these laws, Congress had many means at its disposal to penalize violators. It could have, for example, required violators to compensate federal, state, and local governments for the estimated damage to their respective economies caused by the violations. But, this remedy was not selected. Instead, Congress chose to permit all persons to sue to recover three times their actual damages every time they were injured in their business or property by an antitrust violation. By offering potential litigants the prospect of a recovery in three times the amount of their damages, Congress encouraged these persons to serve as “private attorneys general”.

New Bar Complaint Exposes Another Utah Lawyer

This was filed with the Utah Bar Association. The problem is you have lawyers disciplining lawyers. That is like a shark disciplining a fellow shark. The system needs elected citizens, not appointed, to investigate corruption in Utah. A civilian Board free from lawyers to represent the public. It used to be the Grand Jury system fulfilled that role. Its time for the people of Utah to stop lawyer abuse.

Here is the Complaint:

Attn Billy Walker, Terrie McIntosh and John Baldwin of the Utah Bar

I wish to register an informal complaint under Article 5 Chapter 14 from the Judicial Council Rules of Judicial Administration against Mark Stubbs, Fillmore Spencer-
3301 N University Ave, Provo, UT 84604

Rule 8.4. Misconduct.

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.

In addition, I include your own Opinion on Ethics…

What are the ethical obligations of an attorney who, unaware his client will lie, hears the client commit perjury or otherwise materially mislead a tribunal?

2 Opinion: Counsel who knows that a client has materially misled the court may not remain silent and continue to represent the client; to do so would be “assisting” the client in committing a fraud on the court. Rather, counsel is obligated to remonstrate with the client and attempt to persuade the client to rectify the misleading or untruthful statements to the court. If this is unsuccessful, counsel must seek to withdraw. If withdrawal is denied, counsel must disclose the fraud to the court.

All the documents you need to establish the facts I am presenting to you are filed with the Court under Case #134401990 and Case #160400590.

FACT 1:  I am litigating against Alyssa Alanis in Case #160400590 for Perjury and Making False Statements to the Court in Case #134401990 and Case #160400590 among other issues. I have documented the following False Statements to the Court made by Miss Alanis:

1. “I did not Assault Chris Drockton, he assaulted me.”  This falsehood was again repeated under Mark Stubbs representation, and he included it in his Complaint Response.

2. The facts are Miss Alyssa Alanis was cited by the Spanish Fork Police for Assault and Domestic Violence. She was then prosecuted by the City of Spanish Fork for Assault and Domestic Violence and She was convicted of Assault and Domestic violence by the Court. She now has Assault and Domestic Violence on her record. You will find all the supporting documentation in the complaints filed above.

3. Chris Drockton was NOT cited for anything. In fact, the arresting officer noted that Alyssa Allanis had NO INJURIES, all medical tests were negative showing she had NO INJURIES and Chris had numerous physical injuries from Miss Allanis.

FACT 2: 
Attorney Mark Stubbs has been notified of these falsehoods and no corrective action has been taken as required by your own Ethics Commission and Utah State Law.  In fact, he has continued to deny any responsibility in this matter.

FACT 3: The Court has issued subpoenas on Miss Alanis dealing with our lawsuit which seeks to establish that she paid for her attorney fees through a sexual relationship with her former attorney. Attorney Mark Stubbs has declared that all of her personal financial information, including bank statements and cancelled checks to her attorney are privileged, a direct violation of Utah Law, which states that ALL financial records are public.

FACT 4: I have recommended that Mr. Stubbs resign from the case do to the ethics violations and he has refused. This is a direct conflict with your own Ethics Committee regulations.

FACT 5: Mr. Stubbs has repeatedly violated State Service requirements, claiming he has not received documents we have a signature requirement on, with his office’s signature. Also, violating timelines on document filings.

Conclusion:
These are serious ethical concerns that merit a criminal investigation and action taken by the Utah Bar Association. Because the case in point is a RICO lawsuit, it brings up the issue of a possible conspiracy to subvert justice and deny me and others are Constitutional Rights. I am considering a RICO lawsuit against all parties involved that neglect to do their duty under the law. I hope the Utah Bar Association does its duty.

Signed:

Paul A Drockton M.A.
Attorney Pro-Se
Representing Self

Utah Lawyer Should Be Prosecuted

Accused of Making Multiple False Statements to the Courts.

Alyssa Alanis is Accused of Making Multiple False Statements to the Courts. She now Faces Perjury Charges.

Kelly Peterson has been reported to the Utah Bar for allegedly knowingly suborning Perjury from Alyssa Alanis

Kelly Peterson has been reported to the Utah Bar for allegedly knowingly suborning Perjury from Alyssa Alanis. He also allegedly did not resign from the case and could be held to be complicit in her alleged frauds.

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

Following is from the Bar Association Ethics Panel:

Issue:

What are the ethical obligations of an attorney who, unaware his client will lie, hears the client commit perjury or otherwise materially mislead a tribunal?

2 Opinion: Counsel who knows that a client has materially misled the court may not remain silent and continue to represent the client; to do so would be “assisting” the client in committing a fraud on the court. Rather, counsel is obligated to remonstrate with the client and attempt to persuade the client to rectify the misleading or untruthful statements to the court. If this is unsuccessful, counsel must seek to withdraw. If withdrawal is denied, counsel must disclose the fraud to the court.

3 Facts
: This issue came to the Committee in the narrow setting of a criminal sentencing hearing in which the court asks the lawyer’s client, who is not under oath, about the client’s prior criminal history. The defendant misleads the court and gives false material information that counsel knows to be untruthful. Counsel is now confronted with ethical considerations.

Analysis:
A. Counsel may not remain silent and continue to represent the client; to do so would be “assisting” the client in committing a fraud on the court.

4 Rule 3.3(a)(2) provides that “[a] lawyer shall not knowingly . . . fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client.”1The issue on the facts presented here is whether a lawyer, by remaining silent in response to unanticipated false client testimony not presented by the lawyer, is “assisting” the client in committing a fraud on the court.

5 Ethical dilemmas arising under Rule 3.3 present difficult issues requiring balancing of competing duties. A lawyer’s duty of candor to the court must be balanced against the duty of loyalty to and zealousness on behalf of a client and the duty to maintain confidential client information.2

6 After the adoption of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct by the American Bar Association, the ABA’s Committee on Professional Ethics reconsidered its prior opinions regarding a lawyer’s duties in response to false testimony by a client. In ABA Formal Opinion 87-353, the ABA Committee stated that Model Rules 3.3(a) and 3.3(b) were a “major policy change with regard to a lawyer’s duty . . . when his client testifies falsely. It is now mandatory under [Model Rule 3.3] for a lawyer who knows the client has committed perjury, to disclose this knowledge to the tribunal if the lawyer cannot persuade the client to rectify the perjury.”3That opinion considered the same facts presented here: “judge asks the defendant whether he has a criminal record and he falsely answers that he has none.”4The opinion states that “where the client has lied to the court about the client’s criminal record, the conclusion of Opinion 287 [decided in 1953 under the 1908 Canons of Professional Ethics] that the lawyer is prohibited from disclosing the client’s false statement to the court is contrary to the requirement of Model Rule 3.3. This rule imposes a duty on the lawyer, when the lawyer cannot persuade the client to rectify the perjury, to disclose the client’s false statement to the tribunal . . . .”5

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén