"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.
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
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.
- 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.
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.
Monday, December 23, 2013
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
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
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
Sunday, December 22, 2013
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
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Friday, December 20, 2013
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Monday, December 9, 2013
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
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
| 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 | : |
| : |
Sunday, December 8, 2013
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
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
Thursday, December 5, 2013
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
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
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
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 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? |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)