Asking... is always cheaper than spying.

"Together we can find a better balance, end mass surveillance and remind the government that if it really wants to know how we feel asking is always cheaper than spying." - Edward Snowden

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/alternative-christmas-message/4od

The missing part of the Edward Snowden story is WHY? Perhaps the necessity of preventing the American public from being informed of the problem with it's judicial branch necessitated the surveillance. It just went out of control because no one could be told the true purpose.

Each state judiciary, under their lawful authority to self-regulate, rendered themselves a nullity. The Rules of Professional Conduct once enacted into LAW rendered the state courts unconstitutional because they denied the people of their rights protected by the US Constitution. The state courts were void... a nullity...

The state courts did not have the authority and necessary jurisdiction YET terrorized honest law abiding people into poverty, homelessness and suicide. Nowhere is this more evident than the family courts... where the twisted mental perversions and hatred of judges like Rhonda Lee Daniele, Thomas DelRicci, Garrett Page and Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio attacked every effort of their victims to persevere and survive. In my case, because of my ability to persevere and my incapacity for suicide, eighteen judicial terrorists attacked and annihilated every aspect of my life and existence. NOT ANY ONE OF THEM DID ANYTHING TO ADDRESS OR RESTORE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Nested Trap for any Ethical Prosecutor

Rule 3.10 is similar to Model Rule 3.8(0, but its operative language is broken into two parts - the text of the rule itself, which contains the simple injunction that a prosecutor shall not subpoena an attorney to provide evidence about a current or former client without "prior judicial approval,"
- followed by a "Comment."

The unique feature of Rule 3.10 appears in the comment, which begins as follows:
It is intended that the required "prior judicial approval" will normally be withheld unless.., the court finds
(1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by Rule 1.6, the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine .... (Emphasis added.)

PENNSYLVANIA RULES Rule 3.10 cmt.

What makes this provision striking is the fact that Rule 1.6 defines an attorney's ethical obligation of non-disclosure of client information.

In short, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explicitly and unambiguously set out to convert an attorney's personal ethical obligation of non-disclosure into an evidentiary rule equal in stature to the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine
and enforceable against the government in the person of the prosecutor.

They deliberately made it illegal to prosecute crimes... or to address the failure of the system.

When the judiciary and the entire legal profession dismissed the basic rights of the people, they created a void, an imbalance, an irreparable violation of the public trust. You can't fix it when you have destroyed and killed so many people deliberately to conceal the sedition and treason.

America was so pre-occupied blaming everyone else for the failure, so preoccupied with protecting freedom by denying freedom... America never noticed the judiciary initiated an anarchy that has torn so many people's lives apart.

The Judiciary broke the Constitution.
The Legislative watched.
The Executive Branch prepares for martial law, because it's a likely outcome once the anarchy crosses a threshold.

Combine 1.6 - 3.3 - 3.8 - 4.2 for Injustice

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is a deliberate, intentional and pivotal part of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It is also a completely unnecessary element of any forum which sincerely seeks the truth.

Each entry in the Rules of Professional Conduct has a contrary nullifying entry. Rule 1.6, 3.3, 3.8, 4.2 are frequently cross-referenced and manipulated to propose a decision in any direction.

They are impediments, both in law or practice, that jeopardise the administration of justice and the rape every rule of law and human rights standard.

CONSIDERING MODEL RULES 3.3, 3.8 AND 4.2 IS A MOCKERY OF ANY LEGITIMATE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

The rules discussed above are contrary to existing federal law, the principal concern is not with whether the rules would be sensible in a legal system. It is necessary to question whether they are appropriate as ethical standards. You may remember that the Rules of Professional Conduct are a minimum ethical standard. The most Minimum ethics would be none. They hit their mark. They were going for none.

[Could this be why the legal profession is so caught up with conferring honorable titles upon each other.]

The three rules represent a new, troubling and ultimately illegitimate use of the process of professional self-regulation for lawyers. These rules are an abuse of the ethics regulation process, even if viewed only from within the confines of the bar.

An even more profound difficulty with these rules flows from the fact that their enforcement would markedly change the parameters of basic constitutional rights, principally the right to counsel, and would alter the character of a fundamental institution of the criminal justice system, the grand jury.

When combined with Rule 1.6 the confidentiality results in the complete denial of rights AND a litigant is left with no possible way to address it.

By design and intent the Rules of Professional Conduct - the LAW enacted by the Judiciary - has clear designs to ignore constitutionally protected rights and leave you without any recourse.

The denial of your constitutionally protected rights has been legalized.

While remaining unconstitutional, you are abandoned unrepresented to be further victimized by injustice with no possible escape because IT IS THE LAW.

IT IS ONLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO YOU. AND YOU MUST BE THE ONE TO DISCOVER AND PRESENT THAT TO THE FEDERAL COURT.

Todd Krautheim and Terance Healy found it... in civil, criminal and family courts... in every state... undermining the judiciary... and mandating injustice... filed the CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE of RULE 1.6 on August 8, 2013 in the US Federal District Court in Philadelphia.

Every lawyer, every prosecutor, every District Attorney, every Attorney General, every Judge knew of the ethical and moral black hole in the judicial system. BUT, when implemented the same combination of LAWS made it illegal and unlawful to do anything to correct the sin of the judicial branch of government.

Todd & Terance are not lawyers. They found it. LAWFULLY. They lawfully petitioned the federal courts to declare the the deliberately unethical and immoral Rules of Professional Conduct UNCONSTITUTIONAL. LAWFULLY.

At that point, the Constitution will be resurrected. Justice will be restored. And the injustice caused by the unconstitutional law can be addressed with those responsible.

---

The EVIL realization is that you can search on any internet search engine for Rule 1.6 in combination with any word describing ethics and morale and propriety... and you will find published law review documents and student writings and professional documentation which proves the entire legal profession was aware. Very aware. THEY FUCKING KNEW. THEY ALL FUCKING KNEW.

The judicial branch of the government let their system terrorize people to poverty, homelessness and suicide.

The entire judicial branch made themselves unconstitutional. A nullity. Which does not exist; that which is not properly in the nature of things. In a figurative sense, and in law, having no more effect than if it did not exist, and also the defect which prevents it from having such effect. That which is absolutely void. By design, and in accordance with the US Constitution they are void.

The judicial branch and everyone working within had no professional or personal sense of self-respect or morality or humanity to resolve the systemic crisis. For that violation of the public trust, the punishment should most definitely fit the crime.

The judicial branch can no longer be self-r trusted to be self regulating. They blew it.

LIBERTY AND SECURITY IN A CHANGING WORLD

Protecting Democracy, Civil Liberties, and the Rule of Law.

Free debate within the United States is essential to the long-term vitality of American democracy and helps bolster democracy globally. Excessive surveillance and unjustified secrecy can threaten civil liberties, public trust, and the core processes of democratic self-government.

All parts of the government, including those that protect our national security, must be subject to the rule of law.

PDF file

It's been so long.... Finally.

I have NEWS. After a long 4 days of research reviewing the "Analysis and Interpretation of the US Constitution" and the "Homeland Security Legal Division Handbook" and many other documents available online from the US Govt, I am able to confirm every aspect of the terror that I have been put through since 2007.

Every intrusion. Every Injustice. Every single thing. The docs corroborate every action and intrusion, every fear and threat that I have been writing on this web site for what feels like decades. I am still awaiting a copy of the US Attorney Civil Rights Manual.

America must stand firmly for the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the absolute power of the state; free speech; freedom of worship; equal justice; respect for people; religious and ethnic tolerance; and respect for private property.

Additionally, EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is proper and appropriate in the District Court. Third Circuit will have no trouble deciding.

An improper and unsubstantiated dismissal by a Federal District Court Judge demonstrates the collusion. The US Courts are truly corrupt. They made it impossible to fix it themselves. I'll fix it. Not so certain we can trust them with that self governing concept. The lawyers and judges have demonstrated their willful and deliberate intent to deny, prevent and obfuscate the US Justice system and undermined every state government. As a profession they violated a national trust without regard for people's dignity and lives.

I see no reason why that type of malicious corruption should be permitted to persist. What would ever cause judges to believe it was acceptable behavior to terrorize a man and deny him everything, isolate and attack and destroy him even denying his most basic Constitutional rights.

I have always believed that I was being prevented from finding documents... and prevented from information which would corroborate my experience. I finally found them.

Emotionally I don't know how I feel. I think I am disgusted at the Montgomery County Judiciary for what they deliberately did to annihilate my life. I asked in May 2013, and I'll ask them again now. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? Deliberately using injustice as a means of terror. The level of EVIL is incomprehensible.

I feel proud. I did the one positive thing I could do in the situation. I persevered. I survived. I WILL MAKE SURE THEY NEVER HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DESTROY ANYONE EVER AGAIN. Humiliated beyond belief. I have self respect. I have dignity.

TAKE YOUR ILLEGAL UNETHICAL AND IMMORAL SURVEILLANCE GEAR AND GET OUT OF THE WAY.
JUSTICE IS COMING!

"I find some of what you teach suspect
because I am used to relying on intellect
but I try to open up to what I don't know
because reason says I should have died three years ago"

I did not lose my dignity. Some people cared. I will wake tomorrow from this nightmare.
Terance

www.work2bdone.com/live

Sheriff Eileen Behr. Thank You.

I wonder if they will find an attorney to take her spot. They will need someone who is required to keep the secrets of judicial corruption which are pervasive in Montco.

A court so corrupt and unjust it has demonstrated the necessity of a Constitutional Challenge of the Law which cause the complete failure of law and justice under the nose of Risa Ferman and the watchful eye of 3 PA Attorneys general. A law in every state which requires confidentiality of lawyers, District attorneys, and attorney generals when it comes to Judicial corruption.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 will resurrect the Constitution.

Sheriff Eileen Behr Resigns To Take New Job

Google suggests the Challenge of Rule 1.6

Conspiracy Against Rights - A Federal Offense

Those who are acting to prevent or delay the restoration of Constitutionally protected rights are on notice. They could face federal prosecution. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed to restore rights and liberties which have been lawfully, but unconstitutionally, ignored.

It was served to each US Attorney General to address the unconstitutionality of a law. No other distractions. Nothing more.

There was no concurrent request to seek remuneration from any Attorney General.

"IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THE US ATTORNEYS GENERAL HAD AGREED TO DEFAULT ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE AND LAWFULLY RESTORE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS TO THE PEOPLE IN EVERY STATE."

BUT IF REQUIRED... This can be filed again and again and again.

Constitutionality will always have standing, injury and a cause for relief. Those who take an active part in preventing and obstructing the case before the federal court will likely be subject to criminal prosecution. Their actions will not be the deliberate lawful neglect which the issue has faced previously. Their actions will be documented and occur in full view of federal court.

---

In federal courts, cases against officials acting on behalf of states are permitted to proceed despite the State's Sovereign immunity where the State has acted unconstitutionally.

When a state official does something that is unconstitutional, the official cannot possibly be doing it in the name of the state. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that the Constitution overrides all the laws of the states, invalidating any contrary laws. Therefore, when a state official attempts to enforce an unconstitutional law, that individual is stripped of his official character. He becomes merely another citizen who can constitutionally be brought before a court by a party seeking injunctive relief.

The Court held that suits may be brought to enjoin state officials from enforcing unconstitutional laws in the United States District Courts, which have the power to enjoin those officials from enforcing such laws.

---

42 USC § 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

(1) Preventing officer from performing duties
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof;
or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;

(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror;
or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;

---

Conspiracy Against Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241.
Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute.

Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 242. This provision makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

The ONLY way to address this law which mandates INJUSTICE

What if you discovered there was a law which mandated injustice? preventing prosecution of those responsible? and that it was illegal to annul or strike the law? where the result was people lost their rights and the judiciary lost integrity.

No District Attorney could prosecute the injustice. No Attorney General could request an investigation by Federal authorities - the law made that unlawful.

The Supreme Court which enacted the law is precluded from removing it.

The only lawful way to remove the law is for a person to have been denied their rights by that law, suffered damages, had standing and a cause for relief and filed in federal court. No lawyer would be permitted to handle the case. THAT would not be lawful. The only lawful approach is by non-lawyers.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6. (Filed August 8, 2013)

Responsible Attorneys General, not lawfully permitted to take any action which would expose the corrupt law, would permit a default to occur and thus restore the constitutional rights of the people.

A Judge loses his integrity by issuing contradictory statements which do not support his decision.

A Judge refuses to reconsider his application of incorrect rules and procedures.

THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (Filed December 2, 2013)

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 ...

JUSTICE IS COMING.

Divorce Corp (Documentary)

In the Third Circuit Court of Appeals #13-4591

Notice of Appeal (PDF)

Civil Appeal Information Statement (PDF)

Concise Summary of the Case (PDF)

Certificate of Service (PDF)

THE CASE

Terance Healy and Todd M. Krautheim have filed a Constitutional Challenge with the Attorneys General of the United States regarding Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct as the rule causes the complete denial of constitutionally protected rights while subverting justice and corrupting the integrity of the judiciary.

Healy and Krautheim seek a determination that the state law is unconstitutional which will restore their rights in the state, and restore the integrity of the judiciary and the reputation of professionals involved in the process and enforcement of law.

A finding of 'unconstitutional' will permit the state to address litigants with their civil rights in full force and effect without a 'lawful' mandate which denies law, obstructs justice and negatively affects the integrity of the courts.

Their cases in the state courts are presented as evidence of the denial of rights. Healy and Krautheim do not seek this courts direct involvment or action regarding decisions in those matters.

Healy and Krautheim act 'in the name of the United States' to challenge the same law in place in every state.


STATEMENT

The Court neglected CERTIFICATION BY THE COURT of the Constitutional Challenge pursuant to Rule 5.1(b).

The Court neglected INTERVENTION of the Constitutional Challenge pursuant to Rule 5.1(c).

The Court neglected to update the docket upon proof of service to all Attorneys General by the Plaintiffs.

The Court failed to acknowledge any intentional default by the Attorneys General, or to permit any indication of that intent.

The Court delayed ruling on Plaintiff's ECF filing request for over 6 weeks.

The Court neglected to address errors and misrepresentations on the docket when presented.

The Court memorandum did not support or substantiate any element for dismissal, yet was provided to justify the illogical conclusion to dismiss the complaint and the improper finding of futility.

The Court further denied reconsideration of the dismissal of the matter by referencing the wrong rule.


QUESTIONS ON APPEAL

Did the Court fail to act pursuant to FRCP Rule 5.1(b) CERTIFICATION BY THE COURT of a Constitutional Challenge?

Did the Court fail to act pursuant to Rule 5.1(c) INTERVENTION of a Constitutional Challenge?

Did the Court ignore, deny, prevent and obstruct the Attorneys General from intentional default in the matter?

Did the Court incorrectly dismiss the matter without basis in law while failing to substantiate any justification for dismissal in law, doctrine or caselaw?

Did the Court fail to reconsider the matter based on an incorrect application of FRCP 7.1(g) where FRCP Rule 52(b) applies to an action which concludes the matter before the court?

---

The Caption for the Appeal

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Terance Healy	:
Todd M. Krautheim	:
In the name of THE UNITED STATES	: Case Number: 13-4591
	:
v.	:
	:
Kathleen Kane	:
Pennsylvania Attorney General;	:
And	:
The Attorneys General of the United States	:
	:
v.	:
	:
Eric Holder	:
United States Attorney General	:
	:

What is this Constitutional Challenge?

Terance Healy and Todd M. Krautheim have filed a Constitutional Challenge with the Attorneys General of the United States regarding Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct as the rule causes the complete denial of constitutionally protected rights while subverting justice and corrupting the integrity of the judiciary.

Healy and Krautheim seek a determination that the state law is unconstitutional which will restore their rights in the state, and restore the integrity of the judiciary and the reputation of professionals involved in the process and enforcement of law.

A finding of 'unconstitutional' will permit the state to address litigants with their civil rights in full force and effect without a 'lawful' mandate which denies law, obstructs justice and negatively affects the integrity of the courts.

Their cases in the state courts are presented as evidence of the denial of rights. Healy and Krautheim do not seek this courts direct involvment or action regarding decisions in those matters.

Healy and Krautheim act 'in the name of the United States' to challenge the same law in place in every state.

The Motivation and the Deliberate Intent of Rule 1.6

Inspiration to Persevere

"A man who took history in his hands, and bent the arc of the moral universe toward justice."

Attorneys General of the United States Disappear

Todd and I filed a Constitutional Challenge with fifty six Attorneys General of the United States.

We sent copies of the Challenge and the summons to 56 Attorneys General.

Deadlines were missed by many. It was expected that a default would be a likely end to the matter.

Then, they disappeared.

The court sent them NOTHING.

The court failed to send them a CERTIFICATION.

The Court failed to send address the INTERVENTION.

The Notice of Appeal.

The Court failed to send the Notice of Appeal to fifty six Attorneys General.

The Court failed to send the Record to fifty six Attorneys General.

The Appeals Court failed to send the Notice of Appeal to fifty six Attorneys General.

One person sandbagged fifty six Attorneys General in a constitutional matter.

You would think that with the top law enforcement officer in every state served on the case that misconduct would not occur. Apparently, that's just not so.

When we go to ask where the Attorneys General went and WHY the Court negelected to send them any paperwork... we will encounter my favorite clerk response. The "today is my first day on this job" person who knows nothing even though they have been working there forever.

This will be followed up with a litany of excuses suggesting the outcome justifies their sandbagging the proceedings. The outcome was wrong, unsupported and unsubstantiated and to call it a logical fallacy would suggest there was any logic to it. The stupidity represented in the rulings demonstrates the validity of the Constitutional Challenge. We are right and will succeed. They have confirmed it.

If this is the best they have to counter a Constitutional Challenge of a Law which causes injustice and robs people of their civil rights and liberties.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

---

AMBER ALERT? If anyone sees any of the following Attorneys General, please ask them to inquire how they were removed from a case which has now gone on to Appeal... and I am guessing the Third Circuit is going to be very interested how this case got sandbagged with 56 state attorney generals watching.

AMERICAN SAMOA ATTORNEY GENERAL
AMERICAN SOMOA GOV'T
EXEC. OFC. BLDG.
UTULEI, TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA
PAGO PAGO, AS 96799

ALAN WILSON
REMBERT C. DENNIS OFFICE BLDG.
POST OFFICE BOX 11549
COLUMBIA, SC 29211-1549

BILL SCHUETTE
POST OFFICE BOX 30212
525 W. OTTAWA ST.
LANSING, MI 48909-0212

BOB FERGUSON
1125 WASHINGTON ST. SE
POST OFFICE BOX 40100
OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0100

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
OLD SUPREME CT. BLDG.
100 N. CARSON ST.
CARSON CITY, NV 89701

CHRIS KOSTER
SUPREME CT. BLDG.
207 W. HIGH ST.
JEFFERSON CITY, MO 65101

DAVID LOUIE
425 QUEEN ST.
HONOULU, HI 96813

DEREK SCHMIDT
120 S.W. 10TH AVENUE
2ND FLOOR
TOPEKA, KS 6612-1597

DOUGLAS F. GANSLER
200 ST. PAUL PLACE
BALTIMORE, MD 21202-2202

DUSTIN MCDANIEL
323 CENTER ST.
SUITE 200
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201-2610

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM
JUSTICE BLDG.
1162 COURT ST., NE
SALEM, OR 97301

ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN
THE CAPITOL
2ND FLOOR
ALBANY, NY 12224

GARY KING
POST OFFICE BOX 1508
SANTA FE, NM 87504-1508

GEORGE JEPSEN
55 ELM ST.
HARTFORD, CT 06106

GREG ABBOTT
CAPITOL STATION
POST OFFICE BOS 12548
AUSTIN, TX 78711-2548

GREG ZOELLER
INDIANA GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH
302 WEST WASHINGTON STREET
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204

IRVIN NATHAN
441 4TH STREET, NW
SUITE 1100S
WASHINGTON, DC 20001

J.B. VAN HOLLEN
STATE CAPITOL
ROOM 114
POST OFFICE BOX 7857
MADISON, WI 53707-7857

JACK CONWAY
700 CAPITOL AVENUE
CAPITOL BUILDING
SUITE 118
FRANKFORT, KY 40601

JAMES D. BUDDY CALDWELL
POST OFFICE BOX 94095
BATON ROUGE, LA 70804-4095

JANET T. MILLS
STATE HOUSE STATION 6
AUGUSTA, ME 04333

JIM HOOD
POST OFFICE BOX 220
JACKSON, MS 39205

JOEY PATRICK SAN NICOLAS
POST OFFICE BOX 10007
SAIPAN, MP 96950-8907

JOHN SUTHERS
RALPH L. CARR COLORADO JUDICIAL CENTER
1300 BROADWAY
10TH FLOOR
DENVER, CO 95814

JOHN SWALLOW
STATE CAPITOL
RM. 236
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-0810

JOHN JAY HOFFMAN
RICHARD J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX
25 MARKET STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 080
TRENTON, NJ 08625

JON BRUNING
STATE CAPITOL
POST OFFICE BOX 98920
LINCOLN, NE 68509-8920

JOSEPH A. FOSTER
33 CAPITOL ST.
CONCORD, NH 03301

JOSEPH R. BEAU BIDEN, III
CARVEL STATE OFFICE BLDG.
820 N. FRENCH ST.
WILMINGTON, DE 19801

KAMALA HARRIS
1300 I ST.
STE. 1740
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

KEN CUCCINELLI
900 EAST MAIN STREET
RICHMOND, VA 23219

LAWRENCE WASDEN
STATEHOUSE
BOISE, ID 83720-100

LENNY RAPADAS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ITC BUILDING
590 S. MARINE CORPS DR.
STE. 706
TAMUNING, GUAM, 96913

LISA MADIGAN
JAMES R. THOMPSON CTR.
100 W. RANDOLPH ST.
CHICAGO, IL 60601

LORI SWANSON
STATE CAPITOL
STE. 102
ST. PAUL, MN 55155

LUIS SANCHEZ BETANCES
POST OFFICE BOX 902192
SAN JUAN, PR 00902-0192

LUTHER STRANGE
501 WASHINGTON AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 300152
MONTGOMERY, AL 36130-0152

MARTHA COAKLEY
1 ASHBURTON PLACE
BOSTON, MA 02102-1698

MARTY J. JACKLEY
1302 EAST HIGHWAY 14
SUITE 1
PIERRE, SD 57501-8501

MICHAEL GERAGHT
POST OFFICE BOX 110300
JUNEAU, AK 99811-0300

MIKE DEWINE
STATE OFFICE TOWER
30 E. BROAD ST.
COLUMBUS, OH 43266-0410

PAM BONDI
THE CAPITOL
PL 01
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-1050

PATRICK MORRISEY
STATE CAPITOL
1900 KANAWHA BLVD., E.
CHARLESTON, WV 25305

PETER KILMARTIN
150 S. MAIN ST.
PROVIDENCE, RI 02903

PETER K. MICHAEL
STATE CAPITOL BLD.
CHEYENNE, WY 82002

ROBERT E. COOPER, JR
425 5TH AVENUE NORTH
NASHVILLE, TN 37243

ROY COOPER
POST OFFICE BOX 629
RALEIGH, NC 27602-0629

SAM OLENS
40 CAPITOL SQUARE, SW
ATLANTA, GA 30334-1300

SCOTT PRUITT
313 NE 21ST STREET
OKAHOMA CITY, OK 73105

TIM FOX
JUSTICE BLDG.
215 N. SANDERS
HELENA, MT 59620-1401

TOM HORNE
1275 W. WASHINGTON ST.
PHOENIX, AZ 85007

TOM MILLER
HOOVER STATE OFFICE BLDG.
1305 E. WALNUT
DES MOINES, IA 50319

VINCENT FRAZER
DEPT. OF JUSTICE, G.E.R.S. COMPLEX
488-50C KRONPRINSDENS GADE
ST. THOMAS, VI 00802

WAYNE STENEHJEM
STATE CAPITOL
600 E. BOULEVARD AVE.
BISMARCK, ND 58505-0040

WILLIAM H. SORRELL
109 STATE ST.
MONTPELIER, VT 05609-1001

Appeal to Third Circuit Court

Notice Of Appeal
A Notice of Appeal was timely filed December 2, 2013 regarding the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

There was no choice but to appeal the matter. We were Rule 1.6'd. It was anticipated that the matter would likely need to be decided at a higher level of Federal Court which handles more broader issues and nationally visible cases.

It was quickly very clear that the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was not immune from Rule 1.6 misconduct and the the injustice once the act of misconduct which involves the judge.

Did those behind it realize? Were they taking one last stab at Rule 1.6-ing before it would become unconstitutuional and justice would be restored to the people. Judicial integrity would no longer be compromised. Last Call.

Did they realize that they were using it against people who understood it?

Did they realize they would be acting in Federal Court, with a nationwide audience of 56 Attorneys General particpating. Yes. As such, they would require assist from the Clerk of Courts.

Did those behind it realize that we had anticipated interference and not only were we paying attention, we had also called in resources to safeguard the process, and were getting feedback from every person involved.

---

Backing into the Docket... The way to see where Rule 1.6 was triggered. Where did things go 'wrong'? Where did procedure and law no longer matter.

---

Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Reconsider. A Strange necessity.

Motion to Reconsider - Judge applies Wrong Rule.

Dismissal - Unsupported, unsubstantiated and incorrect. Wrong Conclusion.

Intention to Default - Suppressed. Illogical that the court does not want any participation of the Defendants.

Corrections to Docket - Denied. Illogical that the Court is not interested in an accurate court record.

ECF Filing - Delayed. Delayed. Granted.

Kane's Request for Extension - untimely, unsubstantiated, not authorized. Granted. Further Prevents Defendants Involvement - but never authorized. (Docket Modification - without a Court Order that's not done.)

SERVICE - Answers due dates not entered.

Constitutional Challenge filed.

Defendant Attorneys General - Why are you not getting ANY information about this matter? Why have they all been TERMINATED from the case? Why after you had defaulted, without any entry of appearance, without any responsive pleading, were you removed from notices in the matter? Why does the Clerk of Courts have Randall Henzes as representing all 56 Attorneys General? Resulting in him being the ONLY one to get any notices in this matter?

When the Request for Extension is filed on September 6, 2013, Rule 1.6 is triggered. In play causing incorrect rulings. In play failing to resolve issues. In play on the docket. In play removing the Attorneys General from information notices or any involvment.

The Rule 1.6 monkeywrench is Randall Henzes.

He waited until Attorney General Kathleen Kane defaults, and begins to ACT NOT ONLY FOR HER BUT somehow OBTAINS "LEAD ATTORNEY" status which permits the EXCLUSION of All other AGs. By the time anyone notices the judge has been tricked into error, Kathleen Kane cannot reveal his actions, and the emails are not sent out by the Clerk of Courts.

Randall does not understand that his expectation of dismissal is not realistic. The double sided 1983 dismissal tools are the best he's got. They worked for decades. They don't apply. They don't support dismissal. So, he uses all of them. But, they don't quite fit.

The judge is floundering at the DISMISSAL. The judge's integrity is at stake. When asked to reconsider, he loses more integrity when he DENIES applying the wrong rule. ( I opened the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in July for the first time. The judge has been using it for decades.) The judge is not stupid. The judge is sacrificing his integrity.

No Attorney General responds. Once Rule 1.6 has been invoked, the only way to preserve your integrity is to do nothing.

The one thing they still have not recognized. THEY KNOW NOTHING. Short-sighted bullies robbing an 85 year old judge of his integrity.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 petition can be filed everyday for all eternity... they failed to recognize that whole the injustice of Rule 1.6 could end now, or tomorrow, or net week, next month, or next year.

DISMISSAL by judicial logical fallacy indicates JUSTICE WINS.

JUSTICE IS COMING. It will allow integrity of the judiciary, not sacrifice it.

Clues to Motive and Deliberate Intent

Rule 1.6 started to be made into LAW after the FBI's Operation Graylord corruption prosecution which exposed extreme corruption in the Cook County Courts of Chicago. A total of 92 people were indicted, including 17 judges, 48 lawyers, ten deputy sheriffs, eight policemen, eight court officials, and a state legislator.

The corruption had initially been reported to the FBI by a Cook County prosecutor.

Prior to this time there had been "codes" for legal professionals which they were professionally encouraged to follow. Turning a blind eye on judicial corruption would have been viewed as simply covering for each other. The ethical or moral decision was with the individual. The report to federal authorities was proper, lawful, appropriate and brave.

To make certain something like Operation Graylord never happened again, the Code of Professional Conduct was made LAW.

Rule 1.6 became LAW. Rule 1.6 was implemented gradually across the US executed by a subtle change most people wouldn't notice. This was done through a lawful process of the Supreme Court. However, the LAW would result in the denial of constitutionally protected rights in violation of the US Constitution, it was not constitutional BUT ONLY WHEN VIEWED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE VICTIM OF INJUSTICE. A Pro Se litigant, underestimated and ignored, and served repeated injustice with no recourse, no releif, no possibility for escape.

When both parties are represented, the lawyers can negotiate away the indiscretion which ignored the litigants rights. Both must follow Rule 1.6 - CONFIDENTIALITY. But, there was no way for lawyers to negotiate around the rights of a pro se litigant without exposing their position or leverage. Pro se litigants just lost everything and were ignored and offered platitudes of you should have had a lawyer type remarks. Having a lawyer could never restore their rights, because their lawyer would not be permitted to discuss what happened with them.

NOW, Rule 1.6 MANDATED CONFIDENTIALITY regarding the actions of corrupt judges and lawyers. Rule 1.6 MANDATED that no action be taken outside any confidential disciplinary proceeding. Penalties for violating Rule 1.6 were quick, disbarment, discredited, prevention from practicing law. [Rule 1.6 is called Confidentiality of Information, that is no subtle mistake.]

PROBLEM: In the 'correction', THEY MADE IT ILLEGAL TO REPORT / PROSECUTE CORRUPTION BY THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO COULD DO SO. In the corrective actions, the crimes committed by the judiciary and court staff was not addressed. The crimes were more than covered up. Those who would dare to accuse a judge would be dealt extreme discipline. It became IMPOSSIBLE to prosecute a judge for deliberate crimes and injustices committed in the court. It was illegal for a District Attorney or an Attorney General to prosecute judicial crimes and corruption.

The Intent demonstrates a twisted and perverted lack of ethics and morality, undeniably corrupt. The American Bar Association was concerned they would lose their 'right of self governance'. RIGHT? [breath] THEIR RIGHT. Their RIGHT of self governance. The integrity of the judiciary was of little consequence. Denial of people's Constitutional Rights of absolutely no concern. Selfishly motivated to protect their concept of self governance. The ABA has an imaginary government. Their own little play government and congress and hierarchy which manages the ABA sedition in each state governments.

One person remained who could lawfully act to expose judicial crimes. One person could lawfully expose the sedition. There is little information to indicate where 'sheriffs' lost their power. As Chief Law Enforcement Officers in the County, the Sheriff could lawfully prosecute and expose judicial corruption. The Sheriffs began to be convinced that they were NOT the Chief Law Enforcement Officer. It was the judges, lawyers and District Attorney who convinced, manipulated, litigated and diminished the power of the Sheriff. Judges wrote decisions which indicated the sheriff never had any constitutional power. The Sheriffs accepted their diminished responsibilities, without valid explanation, or necessary constitutional action, as the District Attorneys and the judges usurped the power of the Sheriff. There was no entity in law enforcement who could prosecute the sedition.

LOGIC SO FLAWED AS TO EXPOSE ITS MOTIVE INTENT AND NATURE.

After Rule 1.6 was enacted... An Operation like 'Graylord' would have only prosecuted ONLY one person. The man who reported the corruption to the FBI.

UNDER Rule 1.6, the prosecutor who reported the corruption would face charges of treason, fraud, and prosecution to the fullest extent of the LAW. It was against the law for the District Attorney or Attorney General to prosecute corruption in their county or state.

"But, judges DO get caught in corruption and prosecuted."

Yes, there have been some cases where judicial corruption has been prosecuted. When that has happened it has been at a Federal level, outside of the state jurisdiction.

Additionally, Federal authorities will NOT normally enter a state jurisdiction unless invited by the Attorney General or District Attorney to investigate. (BUT, the law made illegal for the DA or the AG to contact federal authorities.)

On those very rare occasions where a member of the judiciary is prosecuted for crime or corruption another activity occurs which clearly demonstrates the true motive and intent of the LAW. Rule 1.6 is modified.

A review of the dates that Rule 1.6 has been modified in each of the states shows a direct correlation between a judge being exposed and prosecuted and the subsequent modification to the Rules of Professional Conduct which prevents any judge from 'getting caught like that' again. The loopholes get closed. It becomes more and more difficult to address judicial corruption. It is logical that the 'license for corruption' would be edited ONLY when it failed. Other Pennsylvania edits point towards the Cash For Kids scandal. A judge was prosecuted, the loophole was addressed.

INTEGRITY. HONOR. JUSTICE.

The integrity of the judiciary is important and essential. TRUE.

EPIC FAILURE. The integrity of the judiciary is protected by making it illegal to prosecute the judges for crimes. It further prosecutes anyone who would make the attempt. MANDATING judicial corruption where it violates morality, ethics, law, and the CONSTITUTION. A victim is further victimized in each attempt at presenting the matter to any court in the state. The individual is further prevented from the assistance of federal authorities who will not enter a jurisdiction without the invitation of a District Attorney or Attorney General.

SO FLAWED A THOUGHT PROCESS, IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN. People would rise up in indignation if something like that ever happened in the USA. It would be reported by the media. 1) The Legislatures would never permit that to occur. 2) A Governor would never sign THAT law. 3) The state courts would overturn it.

BUT, 1) The legislature had no choice.
BUT, 2) The governor never signed anything.
AND 3) The state courts DID IT and cannot lawfully UNDO it.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania enacted the Law. They have the authority to do so. The Court may enact law to govern the judiciary and the practice of law within the state. RULE 1.6 is concealed in plain sight in the Rules of Professional Conduct. The State Constitution does give the Court the power to enact law... ONLY where the laws did not affect other state constitutional rights and liberties. Within the state, no greater weight is given to distinct sections of the state constitution over the other. The state court's constitutional empowerment is used to override any contradiction within the state.

The general perception would be The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is certainly going to favor their own law even when it fails the litigant. The court can back it up constitutionally. CITE THE STATE CONSTITUTION. The court can cite their LAW. CITE THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. They had little choice in their own decision, RULE 1.6 MANDATES a decision which conceals judicial misconduct regardless of the merits of the case they are considering. Regardless of the morality of the injustice they are delivering. They are acting lawfully. They must act lawfully. The merits of the matter are meaningless Rule 1.6 is law.

Within the state, it is unlawful to correct Rule 1.6.

Should the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recognize and face the problem created with Rule 1.6, they do not have the power to act. As correction could expose members of the judiciary to prosecution and would not be lawful under Rule 1.6. A correction could expose the deliberate intent, malfeasance and misdirection of purpose of the law, the Supreme Court is legally prevented from correcting their own act of misconduct. Judges and lawyers are precluded from taking any lawful action.

The state made it illegal to correct themselves.

While the impact of Rule 1.6 has undermined the courts at every level within the state; and prevents state government and law enforcement authorities from acting OR involving the Federal Government; the Federal Courts have jurisdiction to act when a state infringes on the rights protected by the US Constitution.

Rule 1.6 makes it illegal for lawyers to file the federal action because they must follow Rule 1.6. The only party who COULD act to address this issue is a pro se litigant who is not obligated to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. One who survived with experience and evidence and standing and perseverance above all other things.

Once the Federal Court recognizes this case as a reality and a necessity, they will stop following the scripts provided by the ABA. It would seem that the judges and the lawyers have been crippled by the scripts to the point where they fail to consider the law. The ABA tools can cite cases (and mis-cite cases) faster than I ever could. Their resources are vast. The ABA has the resources and the technology to filter my information and hinder my communication. I have the law, and a constantly hacked and filtered computer which I cannot totally trust or rely on. I must reconfirm ALL information at an outside source. I have to know the law because I have no other fallback. So I learn more and more.

I imagine the ABA never thought they could be caught. The whole country noticed the undertones of the failures of the Constitution. Everyone could see the unconstitutional actions but an explanation was never available. The world watches as the US Government implodes on the people's ennui while American ego is massaged to distortion and denial.

When it all comes down, JUSTICE IS COMING.

The non-sequitur. It was intentional. It didn't fit the flow of this post. A REAL ISSUE AND CONCERN. It warrants a re-statement.

It would be reported by the media.

It defies logic that EVERY available media outlet and resource has ignored this national constitutional issue. I have been in contact with hundred of television, radio, internet, and print media people. Nothing. The news reports on the injustices which occur. The news reports on constitutional discrepancies and failures. Those items appearing in the news offer no resolution or remedy for the situations. I believe this tends to cause a mindset where expectations for justice are lowered for everyone. Where injustice is ignored and accepted and anyone who discusses the topic is branded a 'radical' or 'theorist'. have encountered the Facebook teams which promote this despair and hopelessness. Their rhetoric is very obvious. Their tactics apparent when you see the holes in their approach. There is no law which mandates that the media ignore the story. So why has the media ignored the story? without explanation? So who does control the media? When did the press lose it's freedom?

MOTION TO STRIKE A DEFECTIVE AND VOID ORDER

MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NORRISTOWN, PA

TERANCE HEALY	NO. 2013-29976
v.
DAVID R. MILLER AND JENNIFER K. MILLER

MOTION TO STRIKE A DEFECTIVE AND VOID ORDER

1. Defendants have presented on October 22, 2013, as part of their Preliminary Objections in this matter, a defective and void order dated May 9, 2011. [#2013-29976-10 Defendants Exhibit 2]

2. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court strike the defective and void order which has been used to defraud, misrepresent and misinform individuals, organizations, law enforcement and county departments.

3. To be valid and enforceable, a judgment must be supported by three elements:
(1) the court must have jurisdiction of the parties;
(2) the court must have jurisdiction of the subject matter; and
(3) the court or tribunal must have the power of authority to render the particular judgment.
If the requirements for validity are not met, a judgment may be subject to avoidance.

4. Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court.

5. Such a judgment is void from its inception, incapable of confirmation or ratification, and can never have any legal effect.

6. A void judgment must be dismissed, regardless of timeliness if jurisdiction is deficient.

7. When providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary.

8. The passage of time, however great, does not affect the validity of a judgment and cannot render a void judgment valid.

9. The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process of law extend to judicial, as well as political, branches of the government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guaranties.

10. A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.

DEFECTIVE AND VOID DIVORCE DECREE

11. In the matter of Healy v Healy #2007-12477, the docket for the matter demonstrates and supports that neither Sonya Healy, nor Terance Healy filed a Request for a Divorce Decree under 3301(c) or 3301(d) of the Divorce Code. [ Docket attached as Exhibit A ]

12. The parties in Healy v Healy #2007-12477 have never indicated by documentation or action any intention to request a divorce decree. As such there can be no divorce decree.

13. Additionally, in July 2009, Sonya Healy's attorney, Robert Angst, filed a document with the court indicating the intention to NOT request a divorce decree until hearings had been held on unresolved claims.

14. In the matter of Healy v Healy #2007-12477, the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue a divorce decree where the parties have not consented to or made any such request.

DEFECTIVE AND VOID EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION

15. “The Court has made it clear that 'unless and until a valid decree in divorce has been entered, then there can be no equitable distribution of marital property.'” Reese v. Reese, 351 Pa.Super,521,506 A.2d 471, 473-474(1986)

16. The courts of common pleas are only empowered to make equitable distribution contemporaneously with or subsequent to a decree in divorce. Campbell v. Campbell, 357 Pa.Super, 483, 516 A.2d 363, 366 (1986)

17. This is because the settlement of economic and property claims is merely a part of the trial court's broader power to terminate the marriage. Campbell, 516 A.2d at 366

18. Equitable distribution is an incident of divorce, not marriage.

19. As there is no valid divorce decree, there can be no equitable distribution order.

20. On June 6, 2011, the procedural defect of the void divorce decree was brought to the attention of the Court and ignored.

21. The issue of the defect has been raised in every subsequent court proceeding and ignored.

22. Sonya Healy, and her attorneys Robert Angst and Valerie Angst, have failed to take any action to address, correct or resolve the defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT

23. This issue is properly before this court as the defective and void order has been presented by the Defendants in defense of the Action in Ejectment filed on October 3, 2013.

24. The defective and void order of May 9, 2011 issued where the court lacked jurisdiction and authority is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court.

Whereas, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to adjudge, decree and strike the defective and void order of May 9, 2011 and prevent it from any future use to misrepresent and defraud.

Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Pro Se

BACKGROUND – THE NECESSITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALENGE

( relating to Healy v Healy )

1. Since 2007, after years of seeking assistance from local, state and federal law enforcement and being summarily disregarded; and after years of requests seeking local, state and federal government involvement were completely ignored; and after years of filing documents exposing the deliberate injustice which were summarily dismissed without review or explanation. The failure of everyone in a position to address or resolve any legal issue was absolute and the failure to provide any explanation was unacceptable.

2. Those who were ignoring the clear and well-documented reports of the injustice were concealing the matter and enabling and causing further injustice.

3. Those who were deliberately failing to follow state law and documented court procedure excused their own misconduct without consequence and never explained, justified or addressed their actions.

4. The state court absolved without penalty the failure of others to follow court orders; to follow state law; and to follow court procedures. This 'courtesy' was not granted to plaintiff, Terance Healy. Never. Ever. EVERY false allegation against plaintiff, Terance Healy, was scheduled with the state court for immediate review and was required to be disproved. Plaintiff, Terance Healy, followed every state court order issued in the matter whether the order was valid, invalid, unjust, void, voidable, within or outside the jurisdiction of the court. Even where the order was unconstitutional. Even where the court order caused irreparable harm.

5. Plaintiff, Terance Healy, petitioned the state court to address and correct their improper, unlawful and unjust actions. The state court ignored and dismissed those pleadings. As a result of diligence and perseverance, the injustice is well-documented on the state court record.

6. Everyone acting, or not acting, in any regard failed to remedy or resolve any issue and each believed their actions were lawful.

7. Since 2007, a lack of jurisdiction was the most frequent reason given for inaction by law enforcement even where the law clearly indicated their proper jurisdiction for the situation.

8. Since 2007, no explanation was provided for the injustice of the state court. Eighteen judges have been assigned to the divorce matter. None have explained the injustice. Each subsequent judge sacrifices their integrity to deny, conceal and endorse the lack of integrity of the prior judges in the matter.

9. The injustice was inescapable. Any order could be raised in any court at any time by any party to cause an additional injustice which the court would not explain or justify. Appeals filed timely and served properly were prevented from being transmitted to the appellate court. The law, the truth, court procedures and jurisdiction were not a necessity or a concern to the state court.

10. It was necessary to determine the cause of the complete breakdown of the legal system and the state judiciary, and why each level of law enforcement and the judiciary believed their actions were lawful.

11. It was necessary to find, define, document and address a law that made deliberate injustice 'lawful'.

12. Rule 1.6 is the unconstitutional law which mandates deliberate injustice.

13. Rule 1.6 must be followed by legal professionals, lawyers, law professors, district attorneys, attorneys general, the judiciary, a majority of each state legislature, a majority of the United States Congress, employees of the United States Department of Justice, the legal counsel consulted by law enforcement agencies, the legal counsel who advise the media, and many others.

14. Since 2007, every person and court to whom plaintiff, Terance Healy, pleaded for assistance and relief was mandated to follow Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information. Non-legal professionals were advised to ignore the injustice by their legal counsel who is mandated to follow Rule 1.6. The mandated 'confidentiality' extends to any explanation for actions or inaction.

Motion for Reconsideration

Filed November 26, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Terance Healy	)
Todd M. Krautheim	)
in the name of the United States	) Civil Action No# 13-4614
	)
v.	)
Kathleen Kane	)
Pennsylvania Attorney General;	)
and	)
The Attorneys General of the United States	)

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1. Plaintiffs respectfully request the Reconsideration of this Honorable Court regarding the Order of 29th day of October 2013.

2. The Court has written that the decision was based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which does not subject this matter to dismissal, and the Younger abstention which is not relevant to the constitutional matter before this Court, and Article III which grants judicial power to the District Court for cases which arise under the US Constitution.

3. Plaintiffs respectfully address the issues presented by the Court's Memorandum dated October 29, 2013.

LAWFUL APPROACH

4. Plaintiffs have filed this Constitutional Challenge to address the denial of their civil rights and liberties which are guaranteed by the US Constitution.

5. The denial of their rights and liberties has been caused by an improperly and unlawfully enacted state law – Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

ARTICLE V SECTION 10(c)

6. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968, Article V, Section 10(c), “... the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure, and conduct of all courts... if such rules are consistent with Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive right of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of peace, nor suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose. All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions.” As Rule 1.6 causes the denial of substantive rights of a litigant, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court lacks the authority required to properly and lawfully enact Rule 1.6 into law.

NECESSITY

7. The Plaintiffs have been directly harmed by the denial of their constitutionally protected rights. The harm suffered will continue until the law which mandates that the state courts ignore their rights is nullified and their rights and liberties are restored.

8. The Constitutional Challenge before this court is a NECESSITY. The Challenge presents the loss of constitutionally protected rights and liberties and the irreparable harm and inescapable injustice which occurs when basic rights and liberties are irretrievably denied and prevented.

ROOKER – FELDMAN DOCTRINE

9. While the plaintiffs have clearly stated their singular intention to present the constitutional challenge to this Honorable Court for review, the Court has inappropriately and incorrectly written “that plaintiffs seek review and rejection of decisions previously made by the Pennsylvania state courts.” The state court records are evidentiary for the purpose of demonstrating the unconstitutionality of actions mandated by the law being challenged.

10. The Court incorrectly writes that “it is clear that plaintiffs are, at bottom, asking the Court to consider and reverse determinations made in the state court divorce and mortgage foreclosure proceedings.”

11. The referenced footnote on page eight correctly indicates “To the extent that plaintiffs do “not, [in their complaint,] complain of injuries caused by a state court decision,” and instead raise “a direct challenge to the constitutionality” of Rule 1.6, their complaint is “not subject to dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.” Gray v Yavil, 513 F. App'x 210,212(3d Cir. 2013)

12. Plaintiffs have not petitioned this Honorable Court to affirm or reject any decision or opinion of the state court. Plaintiffs concur with the Court that the constitutional challenge is “not subject to dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.”

VENUE

13. This matter is properly placed in the US District Court as the proper court of first instance for a Constitutional Challenge. The underlying state court cases are not the subject of review. The state court actions and decisions are the evidence which demonstrates the constitutional issue and the necessity for this challenge.

YOUNGER ABSTENTION

14. The state court lacks jurisdiction to address a Constitutional Challenge where the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution have been denied as a consequence of a state law. Additionally, the state court is prevented from a proper review of the matter as the law being challenged mandates and prevents any proceeding or remedy at the state level. The constitutionality of the law must be addressed at a federal level.

15. The state supreme court's direct responsibility for authoring, enacting and enforcing the law in question represents an undeniable conflict of interest which would preclude the state supreme court from proper jurisdiction. The state supreme court is prevented by Rule 1.6 from acting sua sponte to address the unconstitutional law. Rule 1.6 resists lawful resolution of the constitutional issue further demonstrating the necessity of this matter before this Honorable Court.

16. The Younger Abstention does not apply to this constitutional issue as there can be no state proceeding which affords any opportunity to raise this federal/constitutional claim.

ATTORNEYS GENERAL

17. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5.1(a)(2) Constitutional Challenge to a Statute – Notice, Certification, and Intervention, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane and the Attorneys General of the United States have been served with the Constitutional Challenge as “a party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned – or on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned.”

18. There has been no record on the Court docket regarding Certification by the Court with the Attorneys General that a statute has been questioned pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5.1(b).

19. Attorney General Kathleen Kane and this Court have improperly understated and paraphrased the law being challenged in this matter with the implication that the plaintiffs are challenging 'attorney-client privilege'. Plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 in it's entirety.

20. Analysis of Rule 1.6 indicates it is not a necessity for justice. It was only after Rule 1.6 was enacted into law that the denial of Constitutional Rights became lawful and injustice was ignored.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES

21. Once this Court has ruled on the constitutionality of the law, the litigants rights will be restored and state court will be lawfully permitted to hear, address and resolve the injustices experienced in the state courts. The Judiciary will have the ability and opportunity to correct injustices and restore their integrity through each judges own actions and rulings. The judiciary should never have been mandated to suffer the loss of integrity required to conceal injustice.

22. The evidence in support of the facts in the complaint demonstrate the denial of constitutionally protected rights by the state courts. Those civil rights and liberties have been denied and ignored as a mandate of the law being challenged.

23. The Plaintiffs have yet to present this Court with their experience in the state courts which clearly demonstrates the denial of their rights, the injustices experienced in their respective cases, and the inability of the courts and the government to permit due process and procedure to petition the government for redress of grievances.

24. The relief requested will not usurp state jurisdiction or authority, or overturn any state decision(s) or opinion(s). The remedy will permit the state court to address parties in an unbiased, unaffected and fully informed equal forum.

25. It is not appropriate or lawful for this Honorable Court to dismiss this Constitutional Challenge and further deny, delay and prevent the plaintiffs from their civil rights and liberties under the United States Constitution.

STANDING

26. Plaintiffs have presented their 'injury in fact” and the causal connection between the injury and the law being challenged. A determination that Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional would permit the injury to be addressed by restoring their constitutional rights in the state courts.

27. The injury is defined, documented and evident upon review of the state court record.

28. The chance of future injury occurring is likely and demonstrated by the matter already indicated for inclusion in this matter. In Healy v Healy where a defective and void series of court orders has been used as the basis for a penalty in excess of $300,000 ordered in March 2013.

29. The chance of future injury occuring is actual and demonstrated in the matter of Healy v Miller, where a defective and void order from Healy v Healy has been improperly presented by Miller in November 2013 as a valid order of the court with statement that the validity of the order cannot be collaterally challenged in an Action for Ejectment.

RECONSIDERATION

30. The Court's review of the pleadings indicates proper subject matter jurisdiction, a valid statement of a claim for which relief can be granted, proper authority and jurisdiction for this Court to proceed with the matter, and a concise statement of the case being presented to the Court.

31. As the Court is not required to dismiss the matter under Rooker-Feldman doctrine, or Younger abstention.

32. Article III of the US Constitution provides jurisdiction and authority to the Court for all cases which arise under the constitution.

Plaintiffs respectfully request the review and Reconsideration of this Honorable Court to address the improper and unsubstantiated dismissal of this matter in the Court's Order of 29th day of October 2013.

Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

Healy v Miller ( Desperation and complicitness is showing. )

PDF Version

[ The Millers raised a defective and void divorce decree/court order as their evidence of ownership. NOW, they act like I brought it up. AND they ignore EVERYTHING I did bring up. The court lacked jurisdiction to issue the divorce order. The court cannot obtain jurisdiction retroactively. Their order is void and a nullity. It will always be void and a nullity. The deliberate malice of Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio will continue to destroy lives, and fill the pockets of the lawyers whom she served as President of the Montgomery County Bar Association. ]

ZARWIN BAUM DEVIT0 KAPLAN SCHAER TODDY P.C.
GARY A. DEVITO
PHILIP A. MAGEN
ATTORNEY ID Nos. 36421/202181
1818 Market Street
13th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215-569-2800
FAX: 215-569-1606

Attorneys for David R. Miller & Jennifer K. Miller

MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CIVIL ACTION

	NO. 2013-29976
TERANCE HEALY
v.
DAVID R. MILLER AND JENNIFER K. MILLER

DEFENDANTS DAVID R. MILLER & JENNIFER K. MILLER'S
REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT

Defendants David R. Miller and Jennifer K. Miller ("Defendants"), by and through their attorneys, file the following Reply Brief in Support of Defendants'Preliminary Objections to the Complaint of Plaintiff Terance Healy ("Plaintiff'):

In response to Defendants' preliminary objections, Plaintiff primarily argues two points. First, that the Honorable Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio lacked the authority to grant Plaintiff's ex-wife, Sonya Healy ("Sonya"), a power of attorney to dispose of the residence located at 110 Banbury Avenue, North Wales, Pennsylvania, 19454, Montgomery County Parcel No. 46-0000467-11-7 (the "Property't). Second, that Plaintiff's appeal of the May 9,2011 divorce decree (the "Decree") should have acted as a stay. For the reasons set forth below, neither of Plaintiffs arguments has merit and his Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.

[ Plaintiff presented over a dozen points. 1. No Power of Attorney 2. Invalid Power of Attorney 3. Defective Divorce Decree 4. Void Divorce Decree 5. Pending Appeal 6. Efforts to Avoid Fraudulent Conveyance 7. Obstruction 8. Denial of Rights 9. Failure to Demonstrate Ownership 10. Fraud 11. Forgery 12. Bad Power of Attorney 13. Misrepresentation of Marital Status Oddly, they address NONE of those issues. ]

The May 9th Divorce Decree is Valid and Binding

[ Definitely selected the wrong argument for this one. They should ask and not assume... or read this web site.]

Though Plaintiff attempts to ground his argument regarding the power of attorney in the statutory requirements set forth in 20 Pa.C.S. § § 5601-5611, Plaintiff falls to address that these statutes only govern statutory powers of attorney concerning the appointment of a fiduciary. The court has both'inherent and statutory to grant a power of attorney to a spouse in the context of a divorce. The Divorce Code specifically provides:

A decree granting a divorce or an annulment shall include, after a full hearing, where these matters are raised in any pleadings, an order determining and disposing of existing property rights and interests between the parties, custody, partial custody and visitation rights, child support, alimony, reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses and any other related matters, including the enforcement of agreements voluntarily entered into between the parties. In the enforcement of the rights of any party to any of these matters, the court shall have all necessary powers, including, but not limited to, the power of contempt and the power to attach wages. 23 Pa. C.S.§ 3323(b) (emphasis added).

Under § 3323(b), Judge Carluccio had the power to take all necessary actions and order all necessary remedies to ensure the swift disposition of the Property, including granting Sonya a power of attorney to transfer the Plaintiffs interest in the Property.

[ ONLY WHEN THE JUDGE HAS JURISDICTION. The Divorce Decree is a nullity. It cannot be presented in any court as valid. It doesn't exist. ]

Moreover, Plaintiff is barred from attacking the validity of the Decree in this action. The Divorce Code further provides:
The validity of a divorce or annulment decree granted by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter may not be questioned by a party who was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court except by direct appeal provided or prescribed by law. A party who sought and obtained a decree, financed er agreed to its procurement, er accepted a. property settlement alimony pendente lite or alimony pursuant to the terms of the decree, or who remarries after the decree, or is guilty of laches, is barred from making a collateral
attack upon the validity of the decree unless, by clear and convincing evidence, it is established that fraud by the other party prevented the making of a timely appeal from the divorce er annulment decree. 23 Pa. C.S. § 3333.

[ They present void orders as evidence and suggest I cannot attack. Well, the order is void, there is nothing to attack. It is a nullity. ]

Now, more than two years after the date of the Decree, Plaintiff attempts to collaterally attack the validity of the Decree in this action. Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 3333, Plaintiff is clearly prohibited from questioning the validity in this forum. Plaintiffs efforts to declare the Decree invalid fail and the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Attempted Appeal Did Not Stay the Effect of the Decree

[ What about those Petitions to Stay the Order while under Appeal? ]

Plaintiff implies that his appeal should function as a stay of the Decree. Plaintiff is mistaken. Regardless of the current status of the appeal, an appeal is not an automatic stay. See Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n v. Process Gas Consumers Grp., 502 Pa. 545, 553, 467 A.2d 805, 809 (1983) (noting that an application for stay pending an appeal should only be granted when the applicant makes a strong showing in support of the stay). An application for a stay pending appeal always involves a situation in which the merits of the dispute have been fully considered in an adversary setting and a final decree rendered.

In cases involving more than a judgment for a payment of money, an appeal will "operate as a supersedeas only upon the filing with the clerk of the court below of appropriate security as prescribed in this ru1e.' Pa.R,A,P. 1733(a). In such cases, an application for stay pending appeal must first be filed, See Pa.R.A.P. 1732. Since Plaintiff did not follow the procedures for obtaining a stay, the Decree remained in effect throughout the course of the sale of the Property.

[ A void nullity cannot be in effect. It was never effective. It never could be effective. It never can be effective. ]

For the foregoing reasons, together with the reasons Set forth in Defendants' Preliminary Objections, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court sustain Defendants' Preliminary Objections and issue an order dismissing Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice.

By Philip A. Magen

[ The issues here aren't in the usual scripts offered by the ABA. It's important to read the law. To understand the law. To follow the law. It is important for lawyers to be concerned with their clients liability and the effect these actions and statements may have when they go to prosecute the crime committed against them. ]

Gary Kline, Do your job, or resign.

November 22, 2013
Gary Kline
Domestic Relations Office
P.O. Box 311
Norristown, PA 19404-0311

By facsimile (610) 239-9637.

Healy v Healy 2007-12477
PACSES 853111584

Dear Gary,

Arm of the Court? Seriously? If so, would you care to address the deliberately defective and void order as invalid? Or valid? Things which supercede the Court’s authority include the Law, Due Process, Procedure, etc… A Judge is required to have jurisdiction to issue an Order of the Court.

Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio did not have jurisdiction, therefore she was NOT acting as a judge when she knowingly issued her deliberately defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

The Domestic Relations Office has a responsibility to execute a Court Order when it is valid. When given an invalid and defective order the Domestic Relations Office has a responsibility to respond accordingly to address the defects in the order.

Your department can address the defect in the void order of May 9, 2011. Your department can schedule a hearing to address the defect. The defect is not a judgment, it is procedural. The judge lacked jurisdiction. There is no way to retroactively obtain jurisdiction. The void order is never going to be valid. Never. Ever.

You continue to evade the defect while you perpetrate the invalid order and are complicit in the deliberate corruption ordered and where the County is feigning an obligation to follow a void order while it continues to harass my life.

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia has additionally been served the void and defective order. The deliberate void and defective order continues to attack every aspect of my life.

If you wish to do the right honorable and lawful action, simply recognize the defective and void order and resume APL until the a proper and lawful order can be issued.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 exposes the inability of a litigant to get a hearing when an act of judicial misconduct or corruption is involved in a matter. This will explain why Court Administration has been so directly involved in denying access to the court to address the matter.

If you are an attorney who may not lawfully take any action to expose the criminal misconduct and corruption of the judiciary, you are welcome to respond that ‘Pursuant to Rule 1.6, I am unable to take the lawful actions required by my office.’

Another matter, Healy v Miller #2013-29976, also awaits scheduling by Court Administration. In that matter, the Millers are attempting to assert the same void order as a power of attorney instrument. They were the victims of fraud in an amount in excess of $400,000.00.

My personal property and possessions were disposed of as a result of the same defective and void order.

According to the information returned in Healy v Miller, there is support owed which has not been collected by the Domestic Relations Office.

You have not explained why my file is marked CONFIDENTIAL? I am aware that the file has been altered and electronic records have been deleted.

I asked for a meeting, conference or proceeding. None has been scheduled.

I asked for a review of the void and defective order. No review has been scheduled.

I asked for an explanation of the rudeness and false allegations of your staff. It has been ignored.

I am spending another Thanksgiving destitute and homeless because of the complicity of Montgomery County in concealing the corruption and defective order of May 9, 2011. I have persevered through this injustice and terror since the initial concealed act of misconduct in August 2007. The facts are clear. The law is clear. The corruption is clear.

I presume you wanted to be the Director of Domestic Relations, SO DO THE JOB… or resign.

Sincerely,
Terance Healy

cc: Montgomery County Commissioners
Josh Shapiro, Chair
Leslie S. Richards, Vice Chair
Bruce L Castor Jr, Commissioner

Gary Kline, Arm of the Court?

November 19, 2013

Dear Mr Healy,

I noted in my previous letter that the information you attempted to deliver was received. I looked through the case and the docket with the Courts. I want to assist you but I cannot find anything that would supersede the Courts's Order. I did see that appeals have been filed.

My office is merely an arm of the Court charged with enforcing the Court's Order. At such time as your appeals have been decided upon and an order is entered please let me know and I'll immediately update our records if I haven't already received the new order.

Sincerely,

Gary Kline
Director

---

Arm of the Court? Seriously? If so, you would address the defective and void order as a part of the judiciary.

Things which supercede the Court's authority include THE LAW, DUE PROCESS and PROCEDURE. A Judge is required to have jurisdiction to issue an Order of the Court. Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio did not have jurisdiction, therefore she was NOT acting as a judge when she issued her deliberately defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

The Domestic Relations Office has a responsibility to execute a Court Order when it is valid. WHEN IT IS GIVEN AN INVALID AND DEFECTIVE COURT ORDER there is a responsibility to respond accordingly to address the defects in the order.

Your department can address the defect in the void order of May 9, 2011. Do your job, or resign and give it to someone who will do the job lawfully.

If you are an attorney who may not take any action to expose the criminal misconduct and corruption of the judiciary, or you have been advised by legal counsel, you are welcome to respond that 'Pursuant to Rule 1.6, I am unable to take the lawful actions required by my office."

Then write your resignation letter, before the County Commissioners must ask for it.

I asked for a meeting. None has been scheduled.

I asked for a review of the void and defective order. No review of the defects has happened.

I presume you wanted to be the Director of Domestic Relations, SO DO THE JOB.

Montgomery County Commissioners

November 21, 2013

Montgomery County Commissioners
Norristown, PA


Josh Shapiro
Leslie Richards
Bruce Castor


Commissioners.

I am writing to ask your intervention in expediting the actions documented in the following documents.

I have been surviving against tremendous injustice since 2007.

Litigation to obtain the home I was illegally removed from has been stalled without explanation and remains unscheduled. All evidence indicates the fraud involved and the lack of jurisdiction regarding the defective and void court order dated May 9, 2011.

Nancy Becker personally assisted in moving the criminal prosecution forward by introducing me to Det. Greg Henry who was already aware of the issues involved in the fraudulent conveyance of my home and property.

Additionally, Gary Kline has failed to respond to questions about the mistreatment by his staff. The Domestic Relations Office is violating my rights, the law and the responsibility of Domestic Relations by following a defective and void order while refusing to address the issues which demonstrate the defects of the order.

I has been destitute and homeless since 2011 and somehow find the ability to persevere awaiting justice. I ask your assistance to address the issues currently before the County.

I beg your intervention and action.

Sincerely,
Terance Healy

included:
Letter November 7, 2013 DRO
Letter November 7, 2013, Gary Kline
Letter November 8, 2013, Sheriff Behr
Response November 13, 2013, Gary Kline
Letter November 19, 2013, Gary Kline
Letter November 19, 2013, Sheriff Behr

Gary Kline - Domestic Relation Office

November 19, 2013

Gary Kline, Director
Domestic Relations Section
P.O. Box 311
Norristown, PA 19404-0311

Dear Mr. Kline,

In response to your letter of November 13, 2013, the Order of the Court to which you refer is a void order issued where the court lacked jurisdiction. The order is a nullity.

The evidence of the defect and lack of jurisdiction is on the court record and listed in the court docket for the matter. Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio lacked jurisdiction and authority to issue the Order of May 9, 2011.

Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is “without authority, it’s judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no jurisdiction; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers.”
[Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)]

The Domestic Relations Office by executing and continuing to execute a void order where informed that you are acting on a void order while refusing and denying the opportunity to address the defective order issued without jurisdiction is a violation of your responsibility, a violation of the law, and a violation of my rights.

Your reply also failed to address the behavior of your staff which demonstrates a complicity to deny justice and deliberately deny access and communication with the Domestic Relations Office. It was clearly not the first time a false allegation was used to remove a litigant from the office without recourse. I remind you I was attempting to simply deliver a letter to your office which your clerk refused.

Tampering with the administration of justice in the manner indisputably shown here involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society.

The public welfare demands that the agencies of public justice not be so impotent that they must always be the mute and helpless victims of deception and fraud. Surely it cannot be that preservation of the integrity of the judicial process must always wait on the diligence of litigants and demand excessive perseverance.

Take immediate action to review my letter of November 7, 2013. Review the data presented, the court record and issue a decision, or arrange a conference where the information may be presented formally to your office to arrive at a decision.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. The corrupt actions have left me homeless and destitute since 2011. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Sincerely,


Terance Healy
c/o 871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976

Gettysburg Address - More relevant today than in 1863

READ IT. The Gettysburg Address is only three paragraphs. It takes less than a few minutes to read. Give it a read.

---

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863

KIDS FOR CASH (in Theaters February 2014)

KIDS FOR CASH is a riveting look behind the notorious judicial scandal that rocked the nation. Beyond the millions paid and high stakes corruption, KIDS FOR CASH exposes a shocking American secret. In the wake of the shootings at Columbine, a small town celebrates a charismatic judge who is hell-bent on keeping kids in line... until one parent dares to question the motives behind his brand of justice.

---

Kids for cash scandal (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Luzerne County Courthouse in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania

The "kids for cash" scandal unfolded in 2008 over judicial kickbacks at the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Two judges, President Judge Mark Ciavarella and Senior Judge Michael Conahan, were accused of accepting money from Robert Mericle, builder of two private, for-profit juvenile facilities, in return for contracting with the facilities and imposing harsh sentences on juveniles brought before their courts to increase the number of inmates in the detention centers.

For example, Ciavarella sentenced children to extended stays in juvenile detention for offenses as minimal as mocking a principal on Myspace, trespassing in a vacant building, and shoplifting DVDs from Wal-mart. Ciavarella and Conahan pled guilty on February 13, 2009, pursuant to a plea agreement, to federal charges of honest services fraud and conspiracy to defraud the United States (failing to report income to the Internal Revenue Service, known as tax evasion) in connection with receiving $2.6 million in payments from managers at PA Child Care in Pittston Township and its sister company Western PA Child Care in Butler County. The plea agreement was later voided by a federal judge, who was dissatisfied with the post-plea conduct of the defendants, and the two judges charged subsequently withdrew their guilty pleas, raising the possibility of a criminal trial.

A federal grand jury in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania returned a 48 count indictment against Ciavarella and Conahan including racketeering, fraud, money laundering, extortion, bribery and federal tax violations on September 9, 2009. Conahan entered a revised guilty plea to one count of racketeering conspiracy in July 2010. In a verdict reached at the conclusion of a jury trial, Ciavarella was convicted February 18, 2011 on 12 of the 39 counts he faced.

Following the original plea agreement, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered an investigation of the cases handled by the judges and following its outcome overturned several hundred convictions of youths in Luzerne County. The Juvenile Law Center filed a class action lawsuit against the judges and numerous other parties, and the state legislature created a commission to investigate the wide-ranging juvenile justice problems in the county.

---

So the question which is never asked is WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG FOR SOMEONE TO REACT TO THE VOLUMINOUS REPORTS ABOUT THE CORRUPT JUDGES? The Judicial Conduct Board ignored EVERY complaint and usurped all responsibility to address the judicial crimes. THEY THEN DID NOTHING while the people were terrorized..

THE ANSWER: The law indicates it is not lawful to prosecute a corrupt judge. Not by a lawyer, prosecutor, district attorney or attorney general. Those who must follow Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The same rule exists in every state. Same name. Same number. Same dead end for the victims of injustice.

---

DELIBERATE OBSTRUCTION OF REMEDIES FOR THE INJUSTICE

The bigger question is WHY DID THE SHERIFFs who are by constitution and law the Chief Law Enforcement Officers in each County lose their power? It seems that judges and lawyers somehow reduced the Sheriffs responsibilities to prisoner taxi service, foreclosure sales and protection of the judges. Protecting the corrupt as well as the lawful.

The County Sheriff is not required to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Sheriffs could have acted. The Sheriffs could act. The Sheriffs have a responsibility to act. Yet, somehow the Sheriffs have been convinced by the County District Attorneys that the Sheriff has no power.

The Constitutional Challenge, and the sedition it exposed, demonstrates why all of the law enforcement power was not placed under the one branch of government.

In order for the American Bar Association to conceal their sedition of every state government, and their continued protection of corrupt and criminal judges, it was necessary to disenfranchise the Sheriffs from law enforcement. AND THEY DID.

---

This is not an issue of judicial immunity which can be viewed as occasionally unfair. The issue is deliberate unlawful actions by judges who refuse to address their errors, and the judges who are bound by law to ignore their corruption. Judges who must sacrifice their integrity to conceal the lack of integrity of the corrupt.

Judicial immunity protects judges from prosecution from unintentional errors in judgment. Immunity is a necessity for the courts to function. Judges are permitted to make bad decisions - as long as a judge follows the process and the law, the judge has jurisdiction to act.

When a judge fails to follow the process, the judge does not have jurisdiction to act as The Court. When a judge acts without jurisdiction, they are acting without the protection of judicial immunity. This is why they get multiple opportunities to fix their errors. Reconsideration, appeals, etc... Judge's maintain their immunity even when they just don't want to believe the testimony. So, if the judge doesn't like you, YES THE JUDGE CAN RULE AGAINST YOU... as long as the proper process was followed for a hearing. A HUGE part of the job of being a judge is making certain that the judge has jurisdiction in the matter, otherwise the judge has no authority to order anyone to do anything.

When the court lacks jurisdiction... their actions, when documented and presented to the court, present the case for criminal prosecution against the judge. Any deliberate actions to destroy a litigant in the court subsequent to reports of judicial misconduct and crime are retaliatory and bring disgrace upon the entire judiciary. All the judge must do is follow the process, and then they have immunity for their malice.

For example:
1. When Judge Rhonda Daniele concealed her order in my family court matter for 3 years while it was used to leverage every proceeding against me.
No Hearing. No Jurisdiction. Not Valid.

2. When Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio issued a deliberately defective and void order as a divorce decree. When raised to her immediate attention that she lacked jurisdiction to issue the order, she ignored it and issued another order compounding the error. When presented to the court, she again ignored the defect. When appealed to the Superior Court, she acknowledged the Appeal ordering a list of the errors involved in her order. She then prevented the appeal from being transmitted to the Superior Court.
No process. No Jurisdiction. Not valid.

3. When Judge Richard Haas was asked to conduct a penalty for a contempt that did not occur, he was set up to not have jurisdiction in that, AS WELL AS the penalty being part of a void order based on a void order based on a void order based on a defective order. Judge Haas never scheduled the hearing.
The only way to save the judge's integrity was to do nothing.

4. When Judge Garrett Page conducted that hearing with the knowledge that jurisdication for the matter was with the Superior Court which was awaiting the Appeal paperwork, Judge Page ignored the pending Appeal. Judge Page ignored the nested void orders. Judge Page ignored the defective orders and the evidence on the court record and documented in testimony in his courtroom. Judge Page issued a contempt penalty without a finding of contempt. That penalty was over $300,000.00. This was done with deliberate intent. When a person fails to pay a contempt fine, they can be incarcerated until the amount is satisfied. Contempt penalties are unlike other monetary judgements.
No law. No process. No Jurisdication. Not valid.

5. When the Superior Court of Pennsylvania went to hear the appeal on Judge Page's absurd order, Montgomery County did not send the exhibits or the documents for the matter.
No law. No process. No power to compel the Lower Court. Not valid.

6. Judge Garrett Page contacts Court Reporters to prevent transcripts from being produced and delivered. Judge Page cancelled the permission granted to proceed In FORMA PAUPERIS. All done without hearings, without explanations, without any regard for justice. All done to conceal the criminal actions of the 17 judges before him on the matter.. as the clear criminal actions by Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio effectively voided all judicial immunity.
No Law. No process. Not valid.

7. When Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio sent the sheriff to execute her void and defective order, the judge was expanding the liability for her criminal action to include the Sheriff's department.
Actions by other parties based on void orders are subject to prosecution.

Those following a judge's orders are responsible for making certain the orders are proper. THAT SIMPLY DOESN'T HAPPEN. No on ever confirms the jurisdiction or authority of a judge. Even when presented with the errors and defects, they ignore and act. It's not a courtesy to ignore a judge's corruption. It's becomes a conspiracy.

There is a considerable amount of intimidation involved when it comes to concealing judicial corruption. Even the Montgomery County Employee Ethics rules immorally and unethically require silence. It is unlawful to be a whistleblower in Montgomery County.

For these reasons many counties have begun electing and appointing lawyers to the row officer and county management positions. Clerk of Courts, Controller, Coroner, District Attorney, Jury Commissioners, Prothonotary, Recorder of Deeds, Register of Wills, Sheriff, Treasurer, Court Administration, Domestic Relations. Where a Row officer is a lawyer, they must follow Rule 1.6 and must take no action to expose the corruption and crimes of the court.

---

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct demonstrate the loss of civil rights and liberties. That was the primary issue. It was the information from Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane which exposed the law improperly enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Their own act of judicial misconduct was immediately impossible to lawfully address - as they would expose their misconduct if they took action.

The conspiracy involved to get away with denying peoples rights has been very elaborate. Right in front of a distracted American Public, the American Bar Association - the lawyers and the judges - executed a plan which resulted in the loss of rights for American Citizens. They wrote themselves into a corner they could not lawfully escape.

1. Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional.

2. A Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the County, NOT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. The reason for that is very clear. The reason everyone was convinced otherwise shows the extent of the conspiracy to avoid prosecution.

After Operation Graylord, the best way to protect the judiciary from losing their integrity was to have a judiciary with integrity... NOT to make it impossible to prosecute the corrupt judges. That is plain stupid and wrong on every level.

When you remove Rule 1.6 all of the other laws and aspects of immunities work. It's how the system was designed.

Judges who commit crimes by not following due process, court procedures and the Law, are deliberately acting without jurisdiction and MUST be prosecuted.

The American Bar Association is the biggest and most corrupt racketeering organization ever to exist in the US. Their sedition and treason must be addressed. They deliberately destroyed the integrity of the judiciary nationwide. There is no excusing their crime.

The law is for the protection of the people...