In an ethical organization every level is ethical. In a corrupt organization, corruption increases with authority

Franklin V. Anderson, Attorney at Law lays it all out back in 2002

Over the past couple of years I have found OUTSTANDING writing buried in comments or answers on Quora and Reddit. That is where I discovered Franklin V. Anderson, an attorney in Mobile, Alabama who posted this for all the world to someday find. Well, maybe not the whole world, but I found it so now I’m sharing it.

https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s74502/fvanderson1.htm

Upon every citizen, the law imposes a duty to report ongoing criminal conduct to proper authority.⁴ The Supreme Court wrote in Quarles that the duty, and corresponding right, predate the Bill of Rights and arise from the very creation of government under the Constitution itself, without the necessity of any specific provision therein. Justice Cardozo traced that duty back to time immemorial.⁵

Question: How many Armstrong Steel employees and/or former employees KNOW that the company was ‘engaging in deceptive sales practices’ and kept quiet? At least a few posted about what they witnessed on Glassdoor and Indeed.com, but did they REPORT any of it to “authorities”? And how do we track down the authors of those “reviews”?

If the fundamental law of our society imposes upon every ordinary citizen such a duty, (see above to report wrongdoing) how could a grant of licensed professional status provide any justification or excuse to escape it?

Applying the logic of the AICPA example, emulated by the American Bar Association (ABA), Institute Management Accountants (IMA) and Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), murder, embezzlement, fraud, and obstruction of justice in the presence of its members are not crimes until someone is caught and convicted, so that a person with a professional license is free to aid killing, stealing, cheating and lying, and to refrain from reporting anyone, until someone is identified, arrested, tried, convicted, and the conviction unsuccessfully appealed to finality. By this reasoning, and possibly, in practical truth, "Nothing is illegal until a judge says so." But, how could the people charged with the state's authority to enforce its laws blithely claim to be authorized to directly or indirectly break them.

I still want to know why the Colorado State Attorney General’s CORA request came back with NO PUBLIC RECORDS. As far as I know every member of the over 200 members of the PRIVATE Facebook group wrote letters or sent emails to the Colorado State Attorney General asking them to do something about Armstrong Steel. Without actual letters in hand, that’s the best way I can summarize what people told me on the phone they wrote. But some said they sent everything to the AG with details of consumer fraud.

The oath taken by every professional when receiving a license, a statement of voucher for character, competence and fitness pursuant to governmental authority, is a commitment to "uphold" the law. That commitment necessarily involves not one, but two duties: To obey the law, and; To demand that clients obey the law when in the presence of the professional.⁶

And this is why I question how any of Armstrong Steel’s attorneys can justify their actions suing customers. I’m not the only one. I know of at least two if not three other customers.

The professional's presence can be either personal, or it can be constructive, such as when representations are made to others using the professional's imprimatur on behalf of the client. In either case, a client cannot involve a professional in the commission of criminal conduct without imposing upon the professional a risk of civil and criminal prosecution, and ethical discipline at the hands of licensing authorities.

In the hypothetical, if a professional accountant can't recognize these forms of wrongdoing, who can; If an ordinary citizen, who is aware of this criminal conduct, can be prosecuted for performing the slightest act in furtherance of its success, why should any professional be excused from legal responsibility when preparing, or concealing, financial statements which are, or should be, intended as sufficiently trustworthy to induce others to rely upon their accuracy, completeness, and independence in judgment. Those who claim that excuse pervert the rule of professional confidentiality to suit their personal interests over professional and societal interests.

Society is interested in promoting adherence to its legal and ethical rules, instead of finding ways to avoid or undermine them. Professional counsel is intended, under rules of confidentiality, to aid in that compliance and in the avoidance of violations.

I highly recommend reading the entire argument. Here is another excerpt.

The legal definition of conspiracy is an agreement involving two or more persons, whether successful or not, to act illegally, or to use legal means for an illegal purpose, and any overt act by any participant in furtherance thereof: A conspiracy charge is possible whenever an express agreement exists, or one that can be implied by separate actions directed to a common and known goal.¹² Under general rules a conspiracy cannot exist solely within a corporation. Yet, the pursuit of non-corporate purposes, such as personal enrichment, or the participation of an outsider, such as a professional, another corporation, or regulatory agents who are acting to further illegal rather than legal ends, adds the possibility of a conspiracy prosecution.¹³ Under federal law all participants in any part of a conspiracy to violate any federal law are equally guilty with all other participants and can be fined and imprisoned on the conspiracy charge, even when not convicted of any other charge.¹⁴ As a conspirator, the professional can be charged with any charge brought against any other conspirator for wrongs in the course of the conspiracy: The acts of one are the acts of all.

I need an attorney to unpack whether or not the fact that at least upper management,, sales, and project managers were well aware of the fraud they were perpetuating is a conspiracy that exists “solely within Armstrong Steel” or not since the lies told to customers and and customer’s contractors and supply chain providers goes beyond the walls of the company, yes?

I don’t know, but this is something I need to figure out if I ever get my day in court.