"Our jurisdiction is
limited to violations of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct
...."
Lois Gail Lerner #294680 has
violated the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct,
including but not limited to Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d)
and 8.4(h) infra.
The evidence is now conclusive
that Lois Gail Lerner failed to execute APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS
and the second OATH OF OFFICE
during her first two (2) years employed at U.S. DOJ's Criminal Division:
Impersonating an
officer of the United States is a FELONY violation of 18 U.S.C. 912.
Retaliating against a
Federal witness is a FELONY violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512, 1513.
Conspiring to engage
in a pattern of racketeering activities is a FELONY violation of 18 U.S.C.
1962(d).
There is no statute of
limitations for fraud.
Kindly also provide ACTUAL
NOTICE to Ms. Deshler that
titles of nobility are expressly
prohibited by two (2)
Clauses in the U.S.
Constitution:
No Title of Nobility
shall be granted by the United States:
Section 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or
Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin
Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver
Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder,
ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,
or grant any Title of Nobility.
"Esquire" is defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary as the
title of an office under the Crown of England:
http://supremelaw.org/ref/dict/blde1.htm#esquire
Esquires by virtue of their office, as justices of the peace, and
others who bear any office of trust under the crown.
Rule
8.4 now follows:
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 (1) to influence
improperly a government agency or official or (2) to achieve results by
means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer
in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or
other law;
(g) fail without good cause to cooperate with the Bar
Counsel or the Board of Bar Overseers as provided in S.J.C.
Rule 4:01, § 3 ; or
(h) engage in any other
conduct that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to practice law.
Ms. Deshler cannot claim ignorance of
the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct,
particularly when she cites those Rules in her own letter
dated June 19, 2019.
It is extremely disappointing to learn
that Ms. Deshler appears to be almost entirely ignorant
of those same Rules and of applicable
provisions in the Federal Criminal Code,
the latter of which are rendered supreme
Law throughout Massachusetts by the
Supremacy Clause in the U.S.
Constitution.
p.s. Letter
dated June 19, 2019 is hereby refused and
hard copy will be returned to sender.
