Ed Truncellito, a Texas Lawyer, is bringing a RICO claim for 7.5 BILLION dollars to expose the ORGANIZED CRIME of the Bar Association. Read these excerpts and then forward this to EVERY NEWSGROUP, E-GROUP, and EVERYONE YOU KNOW!!



EXPOSE THE ORGANIZED CRIMINAL BAR ASSOCIATION.

THIS IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT STATE BARS AND FAMILY LAWYERS AROUND THE COUNTRY ARE CONSCIOUSLY, VICIOUSLY, AND WILLINGLY DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY AND UNDERMINING ITS SOCIAL FABRIC AS WELL AS ERODING THE CONSTITUTION...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Plaintiff, CASUALTIES OF NO-FAULT DIVORCE FRAUD (ASSUMED NAME FOR EDWARD TRUNCELLITO), an individual who is a resident of Texas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brings this class action suit for $7,500,000,000.00 against the State Bar of Texas, for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 USC §1962, for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and extortion.

(Note: Plaintiff is publicizing this action at web site www.no-one-is-married.com.)

SBOT No-Fault Divorce Fraud is a cover-up, like Big Tobacco

7/16/00, Houston Chronicle, p. 17A, "Punitive Damages is memo to industry," quoting Leighton Finegan, jury foreman of the $145,000,000,000.00 tobacco punitive damages verdict:

a.. "I hope it sends a strong message for all companies in America that they can't fraudulently represent anything to the public," he said. "This case was not about choosing to smoke," Chwast said. "It's about if you know you're making a defective product, and these companies knew that."

Lawyer insider exposes SBOT [State Bar of Texas] No-Fault Divorce Fraud

b.. As an insider to Texas law, Truncellito now blows the whistle on an immense criminal Family Law racket being concealed by the State Bar of Texas, "SBOT."

c.. Truncellito has discovered, and explains in allegations below-at the peril of fortune and possibly life-that SBOT's Family Law System was deliberately designed to destroy helpless Texas families for the profit of its own lawyers.

d.. In his 11/24/99 letter, Truncellito informed SBOT that he uncovered massive SBOT corruption causing a family holocaust. An excerpt: "At my own expense I have spent over 1,000 hours researching the law . And my personal investment has not been in vain.

I have uncovered scandalous corruption in Texas family law and in the Texas Family Bar. Texas marriages are being systematically and recklessly destroyed through unlawful adversarial practices of the Texas Family Bar.

But further, in this huge research effort, I have not just uncovered problems. I also have developed reasonable and realistic - though far-reaching - judicial solutions that will substantially remedy those problems at their root.

However, at the same time that marriages are saved, divorces will decline dramatically. Consequently, the revenues of the Family Bar, as the practice exists today, will be dramatically reduced.

The Family Bar lawyers stand to lose a fortune ."

1.. The day after receiving the letter, SBOT, through their agents, Joseph Indelicato and Stephen Statham, began "disability" proceedings to suspend Truncellito's license to practice law. Mr. Statham explained that Mr. Truncellito's letter showed "a lot of passion."

2.. Mr. Truncellito, a teetotaler since 1988, is an honors graduate in computer science who worked eight years as a programmer for the law firm of Baker & Botts. Mr. Truncellito scored in the top one percent on the Law School Admission Test, went to law school at night, at the University of Houston, and graduated in 1995.

3.. On 6/12/00, Mr. Truncellito presented his 220 page "Motion for Rehearing En Banc" to the First Court of Appeals, accusing the First Court's staff of criminal misconduct in their refusal to interpret the Texas no-fault divorce law (see section below about their "4/20/00 Opinion.")

1.. The First Court of Appeals denied Mr. Truncellito a fifteen minute hearing on appeal after they knew he invested (by then) fifteen hundred hours in Texas Family Law research.

1.. SBOT Corruption Cover-up Agency-"The Commission" 1.. Only by Divine Providence has Truncellito avoided-thus far-being silenced by the "The Commission" ("Commission for Lawyer Discipline"), SBOT's secret police, whose rules are designed to conceal SBOT crime and corruption from the public.

2.. "The Commission" (and BODA, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals), is heart of SBOT's organized crime.

3.. "The Commission" keeps "the profession" from falling into disrepute, much as "The Godfather" keeps "The Family" from falling into disrepute.

4.. SBOT legal corruption is carefully disguised to appear reasonable to untrained eyes, and "The Commission" uses totally secret procedures to silence insider lawyers who have training to recognize the criminal scams when they stumble into them. The Commission even has power to imprison lawyers who reveal that they have been subpoenaed to appear at some of "The Commission's" secret hearings.

5.. "The Commission" silences whistle-blowers with secret proceedings, using their "disability" rule, which is like a blank check, which reads: "a mental or emotional condition that results in the inability to practice law."

6.. A license suspension itself results in the "inability to practice law," and then "The Commission" can name any emotion to fulfill the condition of their rule. The net result: for any or no reason, "The Commission" can suspend a lawyer's license-and all the lawyer's earnings.

7.. "The Commission" can have anyone be the initial accuser of "disability." Then, they appoint their own psychiatrist, prosecutor, witnesses, judge, and jury, to "further consider the issue of 'disability.'"

8.. Their tribunals have absolute discretion-"The Commission's" term for absolute power-and absolute secrecy. The Commission knows that absolute tyranny is necessary to enforce absolute silence from whistle-blowers. 1.. All of SBOT is in disorder, but Family Law especially Go To Table of Contents

By the time lawyers graduate from law school and begin to suspect criminal realities in SBOT, they are dependent on their incomes from lawyering, and they cannot afford to make waves.

1.. Some lawyers are in areas of law less prone to the criminal frauds, and their naïveté, and freedom from those schemes, helps protect the image of "the profession."

2.. Other lawyers either join up with the corruption-or they look the other way and keep silent, because otherwise, dissenters are quickly taught their lesson by "The Commission."

3.. By the time a lawyer has substantial influence with any breadth, the lawyer knows what must not be inquired into-for wisdom's sake.

Law schools, by their complex curriculums, assist SBOT's criminal designs by increasing the cost of entry into "the profession."

1.. U. of Houston Professor David Crump points out the absurdity of the law school teaching approach, comparing it to learning about baseball by watching a game through a knothole in the fence.

2.. Yet these brilliant doctors of law leave such an antiquated teaching system in place knowing that the barrier to entry helps protect the image-and monopoly-of "the profession."

1.. 1.. When it comes to disciplining outsiders for "unauthorized practice of law," any lawyer whatsoever can prosecute a lawsuit against the outsider," for swift and effective enforcement.

2.. However, for disciplining insiders, for ethical misconduct, the only way a lawyer can be disciplined, is by "The Commission."

3.. "The Commission's" disciplinary system requires secrecy unless "The Commission" decides to publish. So any of "The Commission's" enemies, or lawyers whose misdeeds cannot be concealed, can be exposed for misconduct, while at the same time, criminal rackets can be protected.

2.. The justice system's present corruption, in Family Law, however, is extraordinary in the scope of its social destructiveness.

3.. Family Law corruption affects the entire population and has destroyed, not only the sacredness of marriage, but the very right to "marry" itself, as marriage has always been known, where spouses must try to stay together peaceably, at least reasonably try to keep their vows, before a divorce can be granted.

4.. Family Law corruption is the focus of this lawsuit. No-Fault Divorce Fraud: Family Hospital deteriorated into a Family Morgue

e.. Letting SBOT's Divorce Lawyers implement No-Fault divorce laws was like letting morticians implement hospital emergency room procedures. They engineered an assembly line straight to the family morgue.

f.. Divorce Lawyers implemented no-fault divorce only partially with legislation, but then added loopholes primarily within the procedures, ethics, and evidence rules, which are controlled exclusively by SBOT.

1.. The regulatory control for these aspects of the legal machinery is given to the Texas Supreme Court, and nothing gets through to the Supreme Court for consideration unless it passes committees standing guard to protect SBOT self-interests.

2.. No legislation is enforceable except through courts controlled by SBOT-developed rules of procedure, ethics, and evidence. 1.. 1.. 2.. Medicine, in contrast to law, has advanced by great strides, because they have lawyers looking over their shoulders, to compel real accountability with consequences for successes-and failures.

1.. This is one reason why law is so little taught in the grade schools, because the unfairness of legal methods quickly becomes evident even to grade school children; 1.. So by the time young adults become married, they owe fiduciary loyalty to their spouses, but they cannot even pronounce it. g.. Marriage law is an emotionally-charged subject. It is easy for lawyers in legislative committees to play on special interests but for a pretense, and hide self-protection and profit motives.

h.. The fraudulent no-fault implementation channeled money from troubled families to divorce lawyers, now at hourly rates in three digits, in exchange for dividing children and property. Moneys were not directed into reconciliation systems. The court's officers were hired and paid to terminate marriages, not to save them.

i.. The fraudulent no-fault implementation abolished the fundamental right to true marriage. Fraudulent no-fault took away the legal protection for the once-irrevocable trust established by marriage vows. Instead, SBOT lawyers protect the solemn vows that lawyers make between themselves and an SBOT judge.

j.. The fraudulent no-fault implementation did not train spouses to discover or solve any of the disputes at the heart of marital discord. The fraudulent implementation simply--and grievously--empowered SBOT lawyers to settle all marital disputes for spouses, in one grand sweep, by divorce, no matter how whimsical or trivial the disagreement.

k.. The driving purpose of divorce reform in the 1960's was women's equality. But the fraudulent no-fault implementation did not elevate the status of wives as co-equal family managers. It subjected both spouses to overreaching legal domination by SBOT lawyers who became the family managers with the first spouse's visit and thereafter managed the spouses through their children with custody battles and orders.

l.. More often than not, spouses go to a divorce lawyer, not because they want a divorce but for relief from spouses who are not trained as good husbands and wives. However, pressured by SBOT, in these traumatic personal circumstances, in the unfamiliar legal setting, spouses acquiesce to the lawyers' lead, and the spouses are unduly influenced to rise up against their own beloved families and children, unknowingly spurred by the ignorance, pride, and greed of unaccountable SBOT lawyers who learn how to inflame even minor irritations into deadly animosities.

But when one-sided, incontestable "divorce on demand," was opened up by court misinterpretation, suddenly every faithless partner got control of the family, always holding the threat of divorce over the faithful partner's head. That doubled the divorce rate in about ten years, by about 1980, because beforehand, that other half of the population's marriages were dominated by the faithful partner-and those marriages weathered the storms.

m.. Fraudulent no-fault divorce implementation was led by Joseph McKnight, who was appointed director of SBOT's Family Code Project in 1966 and stayed in the role at least until 1974.

n.. McKnight's 1970 Texas Bar Journal article showed he understood that Texas no-fault divorce was intended for divorces where there was no contest. o.. p.. Then, in 1973, to further the fraud, McKnight perjured himself before the House Committee on the Judiciary, by omission, while representing the State Bar of Texas, in his official capacity as Director of the Family Code Project, 1.. McKnight's perjury is found on tapes from Hearings on Tex. H.B. 103 Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 63rd Legislature, R.S., Meeting 11, (March 13, 1973) (from Cassette Audio Tape 3 available from House Committee Services, Legislative Reference Library, Austin, TX 78711; (512) 463-0920).

1.. Testimony shows Rep. Hale's alerted suspicion of the McKnight's major overhaul of the entire multiple-subject Family Code Title I, and he was misled by McKnight about the technical significance of the imbedded divorce evidence requirement in §3.64, and it's unmentioned connection to the change in §3.52 pleadings, though Hale finally acquiesced to then-SMU Professor McKnight's assurance about sponsorship by the trustee, SBOT.

2.. McKnight carefully worded a half-truth, intending to mislead-while under oath to tell the whole truth-that there were persons (unnamed divorce-at-will advocates) who thought that §3.64 "full and satisfactory evidence" requirement for divorce was "superfluous" and "it didn't serve any useful purpose," failing to mention that the change would render the "no-fault insupportability" statute, which was already ambiguous, into incontestable "divorce at will."

2.. McKnight, as Director of the Family Code Project was well aware, at the time he testified in 1973, of the pertinent case law which showed the "full and satisfactory evidence" provision and the pleading requirements were the mainstays of Texas government's protection of marriage. q.. No one in the legislature had any idea that the legal protection of marriage was losing a fundamental attribute, and that the fraud of divorce on demand, already begun, would thereafter be unstoppable to implement. McKnight further covered up, in his 1974 Texas Tech. Law Review article, where he said there was "no defense" to a no-fault divorce, although he knew fully well that Texas no-fault divorce was never meant to be defended, but it was only to be used where there was no contest over the divorce.

1.. McKnight, Commentary on Sec. 3.64, 5 Tex.Tech L.Rev. 281, 342 (1974) contains misrepresentations that the burden of proof had not changed, by going from full and satisfactory evidence to ordinary preponderance standard. The article further misleads by complaining of misuse of the evidence standard, an isolated case, while failing to mention its proper use and rationale as had been established for over 100 years by renowned Texas jurists, including Supreme Court Justices.

2.. McKnight, Commentary on Sec. 3.52, 5 Tex.Tech L.Rev. 281, 328 (1974) misleads by assuring everyone that marriages could still be defended by getting facts through discovery, though after 25 years of CLE, discovery is now totally denied at trial, as illustrated in 1999 Amarillo Richards case and now the 2000 Houston First Court Truncellito case, with grounds of divorce ruled irrelevant for discovery, by trial courts, while the courts of appeal uphold these unlawfully-granted divorces. McKnight's article further misleads by failing to mention the true role of fact pleadings and evidence in strengthening the defenses against contested divorce, defenses which discourage divorce and encourage reconciliations. Removing the right to demand pleadings of fact hindered the ability to defend at trial and on appeal, but McKnight omitted any such comment.

The practicing lawyers deceive marriage partners, and the marriage partners and their children are thereby injured.

1999 No-defense, no Jury: In re Marriage of Richards, 991 S.W.2d 32 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1999, pet. dism'd w.o.j.). Richards case absurd but true meaning: "A contested no-fault divorce shall be affirmed on procedural technicalities, through misapplication of the Szczepanik case, where the Collora case applies, even if there is no discovery, even if a properly requested jury is denied, and even if the judge announced the verdict before hearing any evidence, declaring "there is no defense to no fault divorce."



1.. High Court Fraud: First Court of Appeals 4/20/00 Truncellito case opinion 1.. Having sanctioned the Truncellito appeal as frivolous, $4,500, after the First Court denied 1,500 hours of preparation a 15-minute oral argument, there must have been some ulterior motive. The 4/20/00 opinion cannot be explained by reason of honorable judging.

2.. The 4/20/00 opinion does not address the contentions in Appellant's brief, repeats the opponents misconstructions, and capriciously disregards the facts and the law of this case. Intent to defraud, to decide the case apart from its merits, is evidenced in that the 4/20/00 opinion:

3.. The 4/20/00 opinion is a fraud to prevent a fair presentation of the case on the merits, and to prevent rendering a considered opinion of the Court on the substantive law and facts of this case.

In this fraudulent 4/20/00 opinion:

1.. The Court knew it was effectively denying the constitutional right to a fair review.

1.. It knew of the hurdles to overcome the Court's discretion to deny rehearing, which could be exercised as easily as its first denial of a hearing.

2.. It knew of the difficulty of bringing a no-fault divorce challenge to the Supreme Court of Texas for discretionary review.

2.. The Court knew the 4/20/00 opinion's deceit would be virtually impossible to rebut because its vagueness leaves so many escape routes.

3.. The Court knew that it owed explicit rationales, so a rebuttal does not have to analyze exhaustively all the various legal paths the Court might have traveled to arrive at its conclusion.

The Court knew that, with undisclosed reasoning, any formal, written rebuttal would face yet one more clever misconstruction to evade again, by adding a few more words of legal ambiguity, again to overwhelm and wear down the beneficiary-challenger with the same endless and futile task-of trying to defeat a prejudiced tribunal with a reasoned argument on the merits.

1.. It knew that a dishonorable, but experienced, legal authority can easily place an impossible burden on its petitioners, through an unending variety of evasive ambiguities, with just one more twist on the kaleidoscope of legal fraud.

It knew that petitioners, the beneficiaries of the public's Judicial Trust, are helpless to defend themselves against prejudiced tribunals; and, The 4/20/00 opinion avoids consideration of no-fault divorce reform that the case earnestly proposed to the Court to end the family holocaust, and as a result, the SBOT agents within the First Court of Appeals attempted to protect SBOT's criminal racketeering interests and its systematic destruction of families.

It is absurd to suggest that anyone bright enough to ascend to a professional post at an appellate court, even a new briefing attorney, could seat themselves in an ivory tower, face a 1,000 page record and 1,500 hours research, lower a dome of silence, waive issues by overlooking their validity in the record, dispose of the case on the disingenuous presumption of the meaning of a single-word quasi-admission, and meanwhile profess that justice was being served.

r.. A preliminary survey of the Texas Penal Code suggests that the 4/20/00 opinion, with the record of this case, which it distorts, furnishes prima facie evidence to warrant investigation of Tina Snelling, Peter Steinmann, Joseph Indelicato, Stephen Statham, the First Court of Appeals staff and Justices, and other members of SBOT who have become involved, for perpetrating and/or conspiring to perpetrate the following offenses, some classified as felonies:

1.. Ch. 15: Preparatory Offenses.

1.. §15.02 Criminal Conspiracy

2.. Ch. 36: Bribery & Corrupt Influence

1.. §36.02 Bribery

2.. §36.04 Improper Influence

3.. §36.06 Obstruction Or Retaliation

3.. Ch. 37: Perjury & Other falsification

1.. §37.10 Tampering With Governmental Record

Ch. 39: Abuse of Office

1.. §39.02 Abuse Of Official Capacity

2.. §39.03 Official Oppression

1.. Other SBOT abuses of Families 1.. "The Commission" routinely refuses to respond or to investigate complaints, at least from fathers, for two supposed reasons. First, they characterize complaints as unreasonable dissatisfaction with a fair result. Second, there are too many to keep up with.

1.. The Bar refused to return the telephone calls to Rep Holzhouser's office for over three months with the Rep's office calling and writing regularly, on this subject.

Because of three-digit hourly rates of the lawyers, granting interim fees during divorce prosecution is marriage quicksand: the harder the Respondent tries to save the marriage, in a contest, the faster they sink.

1.. either the Respondent will be forced to pay the expenses, thereby crushing Respondent's will to resist, and crippling Respondent's ability to defend; or,

2.. Petitioner will be required to pay the expenses, further inciting Petitioner to unwarranted hatred against Respondent, framed by the adversarial gamesmanship of Petitioner's attorney, contrary to ADR law.

3.. Either way, the family is attacked by Petitioner's attorney who confidently expects enormous personal profit at the family's expense.

SBOT knows that divorce clients are easy to exploit, and so lawyers instruct the clients to follow the lawyer's own purposes, but then they claim that the clients are directing them, for example, into adversarial maneuvers. James R. Elkins, "A Counseling Model for Lawyering in Divorce Cases," 53 Notre Dame Lawyer 229, at P. 237, footnote 39, comments about the well-known phenomenon: " . One extremely manipulative attorney has explained how the dependent victim in the rescue game is managed by the attorney. . The same often happens in matrimonial cases. Merely by indicating there is going to be rejection, a lawyer can get a client to do anything he wants him to." R. Felder, Divorce 69 (1971).



s.. SBOT makes money by divorce, because that is what divorce lawyers have been trained to do, via CLE. Therefore, destroy marriages is what they do.

t.. SBOT has adamantly refused to discipline its lawyers, finding every way to cloud the issues, so it can indulge their lawyers rather than re-train them. SBOT even indulges their criminal exploitation of helpless spouses, via cover-ups in "The Commission," where it should and could place positive controls on divorce lawyers, to prevent them from instigating strife between couples. Thereby, SBOT hinders implementation of ADR and no-fault divorce.

SBOT in this way conspires to restrain trade unreasonably, to restrict competition in marriage reconciliation & restoration market, choosing their methods of family destruction to make money.

u.. SBOT's system cultivates hatred, to justify destroying victims' lives, and it perpetuates itself through greed, by allowing the plunder of the victims' fortunes.

v.. SBOT lawyers cultivate gender hatred against spouses. Then the two lawyers cross-fire that hatred back on the helpless and emotionally confused opposite spouses, who then wrongly blame their spouse for the attack-or they blame the judge-and then the lawyers play golf together on Friday afternoons.

Each state has similar enterprises which are affiliated through the American Bar Association.

Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.