Subject: RICO Suit Against Bar Results In Disbarment Proceedings Date:Sat, 19 Aug 2000 15:06:31 From: "jail4judges" JAIL News Journal Los Angeles - August 19, 2000 Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio M - F, 6-7 pm P.T. (On or about 6/30/00 a Mr. Ed Truncellito called JAIL and talked with Mr. Branson. Branson noted him to be a very positive upbeat person that sounded like a radio announcer. However, Ed unhesitantly responded that he had absolutely no radio experience. Mr. Branson responded with the words, "All you need is a microphone, that's all." Well, there was one little factor that Ed omitted from his conversation with Mr. Branson, and that was that he was an attorney, a fact of which he just found out through an email sent to JAIL. He is now in the media lime-light as a whistle-blower of the Texas State Bar. The TSB is now attempting to disbar Ed from the practice of law because he had the gall to expose TSB fraud involvement. Does anyone smell a conflict of interest somewhere in this? Maybe Mr. Ed would like a little radio time on HotSeat4Judges to talk about this.) For Immediate Release: Contact: Ed Truncellito, Atty. no_one_is_married@juno.com August 17, 2000. (281) 354-5869 TEXAS STATE BAR ATTEMPTS TO SILENCE WHISTLEBLOWER TO COVER UP NO-FAULT DIVORCE FRAUD Houston attorney, Ed Truncellito, was called before the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar of Texas today, in order to undergo examination about his competency to practice law. Yesterday, Truncellito filed a $7.5 billion lawsuit against the State Bar of Texas on behalf of families harmed by Texas' no-fault divorce law fraud. One of the claims in the lawsuit, entitled Casualties of No- Fault Divorce Fraud vs. State Bar of Texas, is that the wording of the 1969 law caused it to be implemented contrary to legislative intent. It also claims that the State Bar was well-aware of the problem but covered up, just like Big Tobacco covered up awareness of the harmfulness of its product. When a Texas' spouse hires an attorney, a divorce has been all-but-assured for the past 30 years. Such 'unilateral divorce' or 'divorce-on-demand' is not what the Texas legislature had in mind when the original no-fault law was enacted. In Texas, the law was meant for 'uncontested-only' cases - those divorces where both spouses agreed to the divorce. Enactment of the no-fault law was meant to eliminate the false charges and angry allegations that too-often erupted in courtroom proceedings. When both spouses agreed to the divorce, there was no reason to make allegations. But in cases where only one of the spouses wished to divorce, and the other spouse did not, Texas law still allowed the partner dissenting the divorce to request reasons or 'grounds' for the divorce, along with 'clear and convincing evidence.' Truncellito maintains that, by reducing acrimony, Texas no-fault was enacted to also allow greater likelihood of reconciliation. But common attorney-practice includes the destruction of any remaining vestiges of marital good-will through hostile language in the legal paperwork and in the courtroom, eliminating any resistance from the objecting spouse. Turning divorce attorneys into 'marriage terminators' is not what Texas legislators had in mind when the original no-fault law was implemented, 30 years ago. But then again, attorneys are paid for divorce work, not peacemaking or reconciliation. And the result of greater hostilities results not only in attorney-assurance of a divorce but also further lucrative litigation after the divorce, in ongoing child custody battles and other fights. Truncellito's RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) lawsuit makes claims of systematic influencing and outright corruption in the State Bar, resulting in undue harm to families in court proceedings. Today, the State Bar examined Truncellito in closed session, in what is known as a 'disability hearing.' These confidential examinations are the way the State Bar deals with sticky problems, like alcohol or drug abuse. But because the sessions are not open to outside scrutiny, they can also be used to deal with other thorny issues, like criticism of State Bar practices. Truncellito will be called back in 90 days to hear the committee's ruling on whether he is fit to practice law, after he has been examined by an appointed psychiatrist. The RICO lawsuit can be viewed on his web site - www.no-one-is-married.com - which also includes a copy of his Texas Supreme Court 'Petition for Review' of the no-fault divorce law, filed August 7th. J.A.I.L. is an acronym for (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government. JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope! JAIL's is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire! JAIL is making headroads into Congress for federal accountability! JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603 Use header to subscribe or to remove: jail4judges@mindspring.com All E-Groups are encouraged to sign on at jail4judges@egroups.com "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <>< ___________________________________________________ http://www.no-one-is-married.com/theme.html Why No One Is Married View Related Articles and Documents Marriage today is no more than "registered cohabitation" because no-fault divorce was misinterpreted as "no cause & no proof" divorce. If you can divorce without true cause--then you were not truly married in the first place. You were merely cohabiting, as in ages past, regardless what name it's called. You could always walk away from a disagreeable cohabitation, but marriage was defined in its protection by law. You couldn't get out of a marriage just because you wanted out. You had to have true cause: abuse, adultery, abandonment, or the like. And not only cause, but genuine proof of it. When the well-meaning no-faulters tried to take adversarialism out of the divorce process, to make it friendly, it failed. The door swung wide open to "no cause & no proof" divorce. Meanwhile, adversarialism went right back into the property and custody battles. The old "fault" laws needed overhaul to bring spousal equality, and to make the system friendlier, but no-fault's "no cause & no proof" divorce, administered by warring lawyers, was the wrong implementation. The law should have required that spouses be taught how, and helped, to settle differences as co-equals, to deliberate justly and fairly, with self-control, while honoring their partner and the vows they made for a permanent union. Beforehand, almost any man could rule his wife and settle disputes by physical force. But spousal equality demands at least a little education, a working knowledge of civilized diplomacy and reasoned compromise--for both genders. The no-fault laws did not train the partners to solve any problems. The laws simply--and grievously--empowered the courts to settle all their disputes for them, in one grand sweep, by divorce, no matter how whimsical or trivial the disagreement. No-fault did not elevate the status of wives as co-equal family managers. It lowered the status of both spouses, while it elevated the courts as the new, and not-so-charitable, family managers. The no-fault divorce system, as implemented, funded divorce. It channeled money from troubled families to divorce lawyers, now at hourly rates in three digits, in exchange for dividing children and property. The court's officers were hired and paid to terminate marriages, not to save them. The no-fault legal system, as envisioned, was to be a family hospital, to comfort the hurting spouses and bandage the wounded marriages. Instead, it became a family morgue. It promised to give relief from the former hostilities of the "fault" legal system, but it became more hostile than ever. Reconciliation dollars, facilities, and assistance were promised, but they never materialized. A generation and a half later, we know that the experiment did not work as planned. In truth, our no-fault laws, as implemented, abolished true marriage. After many years of no-fault, we no longer even respect the solemn covenants that partners make between themselves and God. Instead, we respect the solemn covenants that lawyers make between themselves and a judge. Although cohabitation is handicapped in many ways, it unfortunately has one important advantage: ordinary cohabitation keeps government out of the home. In contrast, the registered cohabitation that we still call marriage invokes the jurisdiction of government officers. They receive authority to manage the lives of both spouses and their children with legal force. No wonder people cohabit. No wonder we have so many broken homes. Partners can walk away from the slightest inconvenience, at any time, with court assistance. They don't ever have to conciliate, or swallow their pride and say they are sorry, or try to please anyone but themselves. When divorce was made into a guaranteed certainty, it became an easy way out of hard times. Partners knew they would no longer be pressed by embarrassing questions about covenants and faithfulness, as they moved on to their next cohabitation. Nor could they be stopped. The fundamental attribute, the unique defining characteristic, the earmark, that always distinguished true marriage from cohabitation, is legal security--protection by law--protection by divorce law. Today, that protection is gone. Genuine proof of true cause was always required for divorce, and anything else--but that--should have changed in an overhaul of divorce law. It is one thing to let spouses decide, without intrusion, for their own private reasons, whether to live together, or to live apart indefinitely. But it is another thing altogether, for government not to question the cause, when government has already intervened, when government is asked to destroy a marriage, totally and permanently. The legal security of true marriage cannot be a chain. But neither can it be a thread. It must be a sturdy fabric, a flexible but tough canvas, to weather the gales of life. That's why true marriage is so secure and stable for mates. When spouses cannot easily shake off their yoke, they soften it by mutual accommodation. In other words: spouses don't stay together because they get along; they get along because they stay together. And that's why true marriage is so secure and stable for children. True marriage is underwritten by law. Children can rest assured that no passing storm will carry either of their parents away. They know that the whole force of government stands as a benevolent guard to protect their homes and both of their providers. We are not in the midst of a divorce crisis. It is a marriage crisis. No one is married, and no one can marry. The right to marry was taken away. The happy voices of the bride and the bridegroom are gone from our land. Article By Ed Truncellito, JD, April, 2000; revised 8/4/00. Ed Truncellito 4582-E Kingwood Dr. #214 Kingwood, TX 77345 Phone: 281-354-5869; fax: 281-354-4829 Contact Ed Truncellito by e-mail (note Juno e-mail uses underscores not dashes...)