Legal ethics

The HONOUR of
Legal Profession
must be protected
Prepared by:
Ron Korkut
ron@ethicsfirst.ca
Slideshare.net
Legal Ethics November 16, 2019
www.ilaw.site
www.ethicsfirst.ca
Legal Ethics

• The LAW PROTECTS NATURAL RIGHTS and Human
DIGNITY.
• Therefore, the LAW is absolute NECESSITY,
like the air we breathe every minute. Everyone has a DUTY
to know and PROTECT the LAW.
• Since, the LAWYERS are the responsible professionals for
the application of the LAW and serving JUSTICE, they are
vitally IMPORTANT for the protection of the PUBLIC.
• Therefore, the PUBLIC TRUSTS the lawyers and respects
the HONOUR of LEGAL PROFESSION.
THE HONOUR OF LEGAL PROFESSION
Canons of Legal ethics:
2.1 A lawyer is a minister of justice, an
officer of the courts and a member of an
ancient and honourable profession.

• By definition, a CROOK is a lawyer who is
NOT BOUND with the rules of LEGAL ETHICS.
HONOURABLE and CROOKED lawyers
CROOKS are motivated by MONEY; therefore, they do not hesitate to
OBSTRUCT JUSTICE to the victims of CRIME and pervert the established
FACTS and the applicable LAW, for their own and clients’ benefits.
Nevertheless, we are not living in a
PERFECT society.
Therefore, besides the Honourable
Lawyers, there are a few crooked ones,
as well. Most of the time, they are
referred as “CROOKS”.
It is possible to make more MONEY
by exonerating CRIMINALS, than
protecting the VICTIMS.

Even though, it is absolutely NECESSARY to identify CROOKS
for the protection of the Honourable Lawyers and the PUBLIC,
making a WRONG determination may amount to “defamation”
and have serious legal consequences.
Therefore, we must follow the RULES of CONCLUSIVE
DECISION to avoid the possibility of making a MISTAKE.
CAUTION!
Identifying the CROOKS is NECESSARY
for the protection of the HONOUR of
legal profession and the Public.
“A BAD apple spoils the bunch.”

• First, it is a LAWYER’s DUTY to maintain the HONOUR OF LEGAL
PROFESSION; otherwise, no one can TRUST and seek
legal service from the lawyers.
• Second, if a lawyer is implicated with any dishonourable conduct, it is the
DUTY of the Law Society to protect the HONOUR of legal profession.
• Third, if the Law Society refuses to investigate any dishonourable conduct
performed by the members; then it is the DUTY of the VICTIMS to expose the
CROOKS to protect the PUBLIC and the Honour of Legal Profession.
• Since, CROOKS may become more dangerous OFFENDERS than the
ordinary CRIMINALS, the victims of the CROOKS must INFORM the PUBLIC.
DUTY TO PROTECT the HONOUR of LEGAL Profession

To make a FIRM and CONCLUSIVE DECISION
on a lawyer’s conduct, two things are
NECESSARY:
1. A RULE of LEGAL ETHICS.
2. A TRUTH about the lawyer’s conduct that
is inconsistent with the RULE.
The DECISION is made by comparing the
RULE with the TRUTH.
Finally, the DECISION must be VERIFIED for
the sake of prudence.
HOW TO DETERMINE IF A LAWYER IS A CROOK?
TRUTH
VERIFY
Firm and
conclusive
DECISION
RULE
DECISION
PROCEDURE

JUDGMENT is a firm and conclusive decision that is
necessary for SERVING NATURAL JUSTICE. There are three
ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENTS:
1. Firm and unequivocal RULE of LAW.
2. Established FACTS – about the violation of the LAW -
beyond any reasonable doubt.
3. A Judge who is independent, impartial bound with
judicial ETHICS to confirm the FACTS and apply the
LAW.
JUDGMENT
Established
FACTS
Verification
TRIAL
JUDGMENT
Rule of
LAW
Cause of
ACTION
In CIVIL COURTS, it is FREE to argue
applicable LAW, established FACTS and
dismiss any case against the interests of
influential persons.

The CANONS of LEGAL ETHICS, are the same as SOCIAL ETHICS,
but more SPECIFIC and more STRICT.
2.1 A lawyer’s DUTY is to serve the cause of JUSTICE and maintain the DIGNITY of the Courts.
2.1-2(c) A lawyer should not attempt to deceive a court or tribunal by offering false evidence or by
misstating facts or law ..
2.1-2(d) A lawyer should never seek privately to influence a court or tribunal, in the lawyer’s or a
client’s favour. (See the Code of Professional conduct for BC, at lawsociety.bc.ca)
2.1-3(a) A lawyer should obtain sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts and give adequate
consideration to the applicable law…
2.1-3(j) A lawyer should always bear in mind that the profession is branch of the administration of
justice and not a mere money-making business.
2.1-5(a,c) A lawyer should assist in maintaining the honour and integrity of the legal profession,….
make legal services available to the public …
Fundamentals of
LEGAL ETHICS
1
2
3
2,3
Legal ethics is NOT a different ETHICS than
what we learn in the first years of our lives.
1. Tell the truth.
2. Be responsible.
3. Do not HARM.
2
2

In the next pages, - I will introduce six members of the Law
Society and guide you to make conclusive DECISIONS
about their professional conduct.
If you happened to have any reasonable concerns about
this presentation please, let me know. ron@ethicsfirst.ca
EXAMPLES
Michael G. Armstrong
John D. Waddell
Anthony Leoni
Oliver Demuth
Jitesh Mistry
Thomas Yachnin
HOW TO DETERMINE IF A LAWYER IS A CROOK?
The OBJECTIVE of this
presentation is NOT to harm the
credibility of any person, but to
PROTECT the PUBLIC and the
Honour of Legal Profession.

CASE:
1. I am a victim of a potentially FATAL hit and run CRIME perpetrated under the liability of ICBC. Since ICBC
refused to pay my pain and suffering, I had a DUTY to bring ICBC to JUSTICE; otherwise, it is impossible to
prevent CRIME.
2. Furthermore, ICBC INSURES and protects hit and run CRIMINALS and CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT drivers who
kill 264 peoples each year and injure thousands. ICBC FORCES the responsible drivers to pay the criminal
damages of 4 billion dollars.
3. I was NOT able to file a legal action against ICBC; because, all the lawyers REFUSED to provide me with legal
service. I reported the issue to the Law Society. The Law Society CEO, Timothy E. McGee refused to
investigate the issue stating that “the lawyers do not have professional obligation to provide legal service to the
victims of CRIME”, despite it is a REQUIREMENT of the Canons of Legal Ethics. [2.1-5(c)] “A lawyer should
make legal services available to the public in an efficient and convenient manner ..”
(See “REPORT” at my websites.)
4. Since a person who denies the legal obligations of the lawyers cannot be TRUSTED with representing the
Law Society, I filed a legal action against Timothy E. McGee.
Is Michael G. Armstrong a CROOK
or an Honourable Lawyer?

1. A RULE of LEGAL ETHICS, (2.1).
“It is a lawyer’s duty to serve the cause of justice”.
2. A TRUTH about the lawyer’s conduct inconsistent with the RULE.
FACT: “Lawyer Michael G. Armstrong, aborted my legal action against
Timothy E. McGee, knowing that I was a victim of hit and run crime and it was
my DUTY to bring my offender to JUSTICE.”
PROOF: SCBC, S132382, Notice of Application, filed by Michael G. Armstrong,
to ABORT my case, on June 27, 2013, Justice Nathan Smith’s order filed
without signature, on December 6, 2013. (Next pages)
Is Michael G. Armstrong a CROOK

PROOF of the FACTS
Notice of Application filed by Michael G.
Armstrong to dismiss my claim against Timothy
E. McGee, knowing that I was a VICTIM OF
CRIME and “the lawyers had an obligation to
provide legal service to me”.
Plaintiff is a
victim of HIT
and RUN
CRIME as
stated clearly
in the CLAIM.

The REASON for DISMISSAL
Michael G. Armstrong’s REASON for getting my case DISMISSED.
An Honourable lawyer NEVER makes a solemn
DECLARATION before the Court to the effect that:
“Victims of crime ABUSE the Court process”,
because, it is a PURJURY. It is a CRIME.
Part 3: LEGAL BASIS
1. The Defendant asserts that the Notice of Civil Claim:
(a) discloses no reasonable claim;
(b) is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious;
(c) is otherwise an abuse of the process of this Court
and should be struck out pursuant to Rules 9-5(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the
Supreme Court Civil Rules.

Court order
filed
without
signature!
FILING a Court Order without
SIGNATURE is a perfect example
of LEGAL CHICANERY!
PROOF of the FACTS

DECISION is made by comparing the RULE with the TRUTH.
1. If aborting the legal action of a VICTIM OF CRIME, arguing that he
has no cause of ACTION, is “an act of SERVING JUSTICE”, then
Michael G. Armstrong is an Honourable Lawyer.
2. If it is “an act of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE”, then
Michael G. Armstrong is a CROOK.
VERIFICATION: Share your decision with your friends, if they have
no reason to REJECT your decision, then your decision is VALID.
Is Michael G. Armstrong a CROOK or an Honourable Lawyer?
ACTIONS NECESSARY, if Michael G. Armstrong is a CROOK:
• The members of the PUBLIC must INFORM and protect each other.
• The members of the Law Society must TAKE necessary ACTIONS
to protect the Honour of Legal profession, as well.

A CROOK who dares to ABORT the legal actions of
the VICTIMS OF CRIME is more DANGEROUS
OFFENDER than the actual CRIMINALS.
www.ilaw.site
CROOKS are the cancerous cells of a SICK SOCIETY.

1. RULE: “It is a lawyer’s duty to serve the cause of justice” (2.1).
2. FACT: Like Michael G. Armstrong, John D. Waddell filed an application dated May 30, 2014 to
abort my legal action S143080, knowing that I was a VICTIM of a potentially FATAL hit and run
CRIME and I was legally obliged to bring my offender to JUSTICE.
PROOF: Notice of Application entered by John D. Waddell on May 30, 2014, S143080. Order
Made After Application, filed without signature, on July 25, 2014. Those documents are
accessible for the Public at Vancouver court registry. The copies are available at my websites.
Is John D. Waddell a CROOK or an Honourable Lawyer?

Is John D. Waddell a CROOK or an Honourable Lawyer?
NO signature
DECISION:
1. If aborting the legal action of a VICTIM OF
CRIME, arguing that he has no cause of ACTION, is
“an act of SERVING JUSTICE”, then:
John D. Waddell is an Honourable Lawyer.
2. If it is “an act of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE”, then:
John D. Waddell is a CROOK.
VERIFICATION: Share your decision with your
friends, if they have no reason to REJECT your
decision, then your decision is VALID.
NECESSARY ACTIONS, if John D. Waddell is a CROOK:
1. If you are a lawyer, you must take action to protect the
Honour of Legal profession.
2. If you are member of the PUBLIC, you must SHARE and
report the issue to the MEDIA, to protect the PUBLIC.

1. RULE: “It is a lawyer’s duty to serve the
cause of justice” (2.1).
2. FACT: Like John D. Waddell, Anthony Leoni
filed an application to abort my legal action
S150231. He was aware of the FACT that I was a
victim of a potentially FATAL hit and run CRIME
and I was legally obliged to bring my offender to
JUSTICE.
PROOF: Notice of Application entered by
Anthony Leoni on, Feb. 2, 2015, S150231.
Order made after Application, filed without
proper signature, on April 16, 2015 . Those
documents are accessible for the Public at the Vancouver
court registry. Copies are available at my websites.
Is Anthony Leoni a CROOK or
an Honourable Lawyer?
This is the application
filed by Anthony Leoni

Is Anthony Leoni a CROOK or an Honourable Lawyer?
The order allegedly
made by Madam
Justice Dillon
declared me
“vexatious litigant”
knowing that I am
victim of CRIME and
I had legal
obligation to bring
my offender to
JUSTICE.
The name of the
person who
signed is missing.
DECISION:
1. If aborting the legal action of a VICTIM
OF CRIME, arguing that he has no cause of
ACTION, is “an act of SERVING JUSTICE”,
then:
Anthony Leoni is an Honourable Lawyer.
2. If it is “and act of OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE”, then:
Anthony Leoni is a CROOK.
VERIFICATION: Share your decision with your friends, if
they have no reason to REJECT your decision, then your
decision is VALID.
NECESSARY ACTIONS, if Anthony Leoni is a CROOK:
2. If you are member of the PUBLIC, you must SHARE this
information, to protect the PUBLIC.

Is Oliver Demuth a CROOK
CASE:
1. After ten years of service, Wayne Hand terminated my employment with BCIT, on the
pretext of DISOBEDIENCE; under the following circumstances:
a. He was NOT my supervisor; therefore, he had no reason or authority to accuse me of
“DISOBEDIENCE”. My supervisor was Ted Simmons.
b. He restricted my RIGHT and DUTY to inform my co-workers and refused to sign his
order.
c. Absolutely, there was NO ISSUE of work performance or any other misconduct on my
part, other than INFORMING my co-workers about the perils of
the corruption in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
2. Since, it was a WRONGFUL DISMISSAL, I filed a grievance with BCGEU. The union lawyer,
Oliver Demuth was in charge of resolving the labour conflict between Wayne Hand and me.
3. Oliver Demuth was my legal representative, his DUTY was to protect my employment
benefits/rights.
4. I specifically requested Oliver Demuth to communicate with Wayne Hand to find out the
actual reason for the termination of my employment.

Is Oliver Demuth a CROOK or an Honourable Lawyer?
1. RULES of LEGAL ETHICS.
a. A lawyer is a client’s advocate (2.1) .
b. A lawyer should endeavour by all fair and honourable means to obtain for a
client the benefit of any and every remedy and defence that is authorized by
law. [2.1-3(e)]
c. “A lawyer should obtain sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts and give
adequate consideration to the applicable law before advising a client… Hear
the other side is a safe rule to follow” [(2.1-3(a)].
2. FACT: Oliver Demuth refused to communicate with Wayne Hand and
dismissed my grievance based on the single sided FACTS.
PROOF: Oliver Demuth’s letter dated April 4, 2017and email dated April 19, 2017.
(Next page)

• This is the email he sent me on
Email, April 19, 2017, CONFIRMING
that Oliver Demuth did not
communicate with Wayne Hand.
The PROOF of Oliver Demuth
refused to communicate with Wayne
Hand. Signed letter, April 4, 2017.

Is Oliver Demuth a CROOK or an Honourable Lawyer?
DECISION:
1. If REFUSING a client’s request to find the FACTS from the adversary, is
consistent with the requirements of the LEGAL ETHICS then:
Oliver Demuth is an Honourable Lawyer.
2. If it is contradicting with the requirements of the LEGAL ETHICS then,
Oliver Demuth is a CROOK.
VERIFICATION: Share your decision with your friends, if they have
no reason to REJECT your decision, then your decision is VALID.
NECESSARY ACTIONS, if Oliver Demuth is a CROOK:
2. If you are member of the PUBLIC, you must SHARE and
report the issue to the MEDIA, to protect the PUBLIC.

Is Jitesh Mistry a CROOK or an Honourable Lawyer?
1. RULES:
a. A lawyer is a client’s advocate (2.1) .
b. A lawyer should endeavour by all fair and honourable means to
obtain for a client the benefit of any and every remedy and defence
that is authorized by law. [2.1-3(e)]
c. Criminal Code of Canada, PERJURY, S.131.
2. FACT:
Jitesh Mistry a lawyer employed by BCGEU. Therefore, his DUTY was
to protect my employment RIGHTS, since I was a member of the union.
He is supposed to advise Oliver Demuth that dismissing a grievance
based on the single sided FACTS was WRONG. Instead, he accused
me of HARASSMENT for requesting an authorized decision from
Stephanie Smith, President, and threatened me with police intervention.
PROOF: Jitesh Mistry’s letter dated October 16, 2017.

Is Jitesh Mistry a CROOK or
an Honourable Lawyer?
In legal proceedings, perverting the FACTS
is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE, called “perjury”.
For a reasonable person, a LAWYER who
perverts the FACTS against the interests of
his client, is a perfect example of a CROOK.
This letter is a
“solemn declaration”
signed by Jitesh Mistry.
Criminal Code of Canada

DECISION:
1. If accusing a client of “HARRASMENT” and threatening with
police intervention, - where the client is entitled to get an authorized
decision - is “an act of serving the interest of a client”, then,
Jitesh Mistry is an Honourable Lawyer.
2. If it is contradicting with the requirements of the LEGAL ETHICS,
then:
Jitesh Mistry is a CROOK.
Is Jitesh Mistry a CROOK or an Honourable Lawyer?
VERIFICATION: Share your decision with your friends, if they have no
reason to REJECT your decision, then your decision is VALID.
NECESSARY ACTIONS, if Jitesh Mistry is a CROOK:
1. If you are a lawyer, you must take action to protect the Honour of
Legal profession.
2. If you are member of the PUBLIC, you must SHARE and report the
issue to the MEDIA, to protect the PUBLIC.

Is Thomas Yachnin a CROOK or an Honourable Lawyer?
Thomas Yachnin is another lawyer employed by BCGEU. Therefore, from the
point of LAW, I am his client and he is my advocate.
Nevertheless, like Jitesh Mistry, instead o protecting my RIGHTS, he accused me
of HARASSMENT and called the police on me, for requesting an authorized
decision from Stephanie Smith, on Nov. 20, 2017 (recorded call).
I filed a complaint with the Law Society on Nov. 21, 2017.
The Law Society under the supervision of Donald Avison
refused to investigate. That is an indicative that LAW
SOCIETY is NOT CONCERNED with the HONOUR of
Legal Profession and the DIGNITY of the COURTS.

DUTIES OF THE LAW SOCIETY
The following are the statements publicized at
www.lawsociety.bc.ca to describe the DUTIES of the Law Society.
• The Law Society of British Columbia ensures the public is well
served by legal professionals who are honourable and competent.
Law Society of British Columbia
• We regulate the legal profession in BC, protecting the public interest in the
administration of justice by setting and enforcing standards of
professional conduct for lawyers. We also bring a voice to issues affecting
the justice system and the delivery of legal services.
MISLEADING THE PUBLIC IS A CRIME AGAINST THE PUBLIC.

Law Society of British Columbia
If the Law Society tolerates the LAWYERS who:
1. Refuse to provide legal service to the PUBLIC,
2. Abort the legal actions of the victims of CRIME,
3. Resolve conflicts based on single sided FACTS,
4. Call the police on clients who request an
authorized decision.
Obviously,
The LAW SOCIETY is NOT an association of
HONOURABLE LAWYERS.
CEO of the Law Society must be brought to JUSTICE
on the grounds of BREACH OF TRUST. S.122 CCC.
Test CASE

Legal ethics

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Legal ethics

Recently uploaded

Legal ethics