Skip to content

IOLTA is UNCONSTITUTIONAL ‘Forced Conversion,’ Conspiracy and Collusion

August 22, 2012

Work is done.

IOLTA

INTEREST ON LAWYERS TRUST ACCOUNTS-“IOLTA programs are unethical and unconstitutional. They are unethical because the unauthorized use of clients’ money for any purpose, no matter how noble, is wrong. IOLTA programs are unconstitutional because, when  the state asserts control over the equitable interest of client property without consent or just compensation, it violates the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The Supreme Court should vindicate the property rights of  legal clients by declaring IOLTA unconstitutional in the case of Thomas Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation.”               

Florida takes in the most IOLTA revenue of all the states?  NON – Disclosure is encouraged especially with those under duress such as myself, faced with the reality of the death and loss of my husband? I say, OH REALLY. Now, that I have ‘discovered’ this detail on my own, I will reveal this practice and make it part of the big three, “Do the Right Thing, ” FREEDOM USA Campaign 2012-2013

NDAA, Florida Wrongful Death Act and Caps and IOLTA- will not stand

N.O.I.- Florida Bar, State of Florida Legislators and Attorneys

I am taking a public stand against this illegal and unconstitutional setup and adding this little known and NOW disclosed “practice,” of colusion within the court system and legislative body,  to the list of illegal laws that need repeal immediately, especially in FLORIDA. I do not wish any funds or interest accrued, from any medical malpractice settlement that may result from the death of my husband’s case,  going to the Florida Bar Association, to do as they “will” with it!

“IOLTA programs have been challenged in the courts on constitutional grounds.”

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-291.html

The Mechanics of IOLTA

“A typical IOLTA program is a confusing network of committees and foundations that would give any casual        observer the impression that the entire apparatus is some amorphous body that is independent of a state’s highest        court.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Those entities are either arms of the court or agents of the  court for IOLTA matters. Except for legislatively created  programs, IOLTA was created by the court. IOLTA is run  out of the court. IOLTA is the court. Thus, to attack  IOLTA is to attack the court. That is the stark political  reality that any citizen desiring to work for IOLTA’s  abolition must come to realize. It is an arrangement that  is particularly precarious for the state’s practicing lawyers since their livelihood comes from working within the state court system.

In a typical IOLTA scheme, the highest court of a  state, by rule, will establish an IOLTA foundation or  committee to handle the day-to-day operations of the  program. That might be called the “operations  entity.” The operations entity will have the  appearance of independence, but it will actually be the   court’s arm for IOLTA administration and operations. The  court, by rule, will then appoint bar foundations or a  state legal services corporation, or both, to serve as  the court’s IOLTA income disbursing agents. Those  entities might be called “conduits.” The  conduit then makes “grants” of the IOLTA income  to a whole host of “grantee” organizations.        There are, to be sure, many variations on that model. In  the state of Washington, for example, the operations   entity and the conduit are one and the same. In  Massachusetts, they are separate, at least on paper.

In states where IOLTA is compulsory, the state supreme  court will also have promulgated a rule requiring that        each lawyer in the state open an IOLTA checking account  at a bank that is willing to participate in the IOLTA        program. Monthly, the lawyer’s bank will then transfer  the income that has accumulated to the court’s general        IOLTA account. The operations entity will then tap the   general account for its fees and expenses, which include        pro-IOLTA advertising, promotion, and propaganda, and  then remit the balance to the conduit for disbursement to  the grantees or, in the absence of a conduit, remit the  balance directly to the grantees.”

Helping the Poor or Helping  Political Causes?

Where do the millions of dollars in the IOLTA income  stream go?

The simple answer is that they go into the  pockets of any lawyer, lobbyist, or legal group that has        the right connections. The IOLTA community publicizes  isolated hard-luck cases as proof that all it is doing is        servicing the “civil legal needs of the poor.”   As a practical matter, however, it is very difficult to distinguish propaganda from fact. That is because there  is no legal or regulatory requirement that IOLTA  committees maintain any verifiable statistics or  information on what IOLTA grantees are actually doing.  There is, however, abundant empirical evidence from   public sources suggesting that IOLTA funds are commonly  used for political activity instead of ordinary legal   work on child custody, adoption, will preparation, and   divorce.

What are the “right connections” to benefit from IOLTA?

Is it the hidden hand of Masonic fellowship and aoth by degree? All things hidden in darkness come to light sooner or later and are  NOW, revealed. Lawless works that have been hidden, for so long in this broken system of justice in the USA, masquerading as a fair and balanced court system, and political machine that is supposed to work for benefit and protection of the RIGHT’S, of “We the People.”

Deborah Krekic PR of Herman Krekic

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: