| The Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandate confidentiality of information where the information - would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary, - would reveal misconduct of their own office, - would expose individual liability, - would adversely affect their client. |
Rule 1.6 collaterally denies and prevents rights and privileges protected by the United States Constitution; prevents equal protection of the law; and obstructs justice and any resolution of the matters where the mandated confidentiality prevents an independent review of facts.
The victim is NOT MANDATED to silence by the Rules of Professional Conduct; however, the 'system' personnel - judges, lawyers, district attorneys, attorneys general, prosecutors, public defenders, etc - are MANDATED by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information and face aggressive disciplinary action (including sanctions, suspension, and disbarrment) where confidentiality is breached.
| Best demonstrated by the disciplinary actions against Judge Ann Lokuta after she requested the FBI investigation. Ann Lokuta was removed from the bench and may never hold any judicial office again. The Commission neglected to interview her for their report. |
A Commission of judges and legal professionals failed to recognize that their MANDATED confidentiality was the reason for the silence and the cause of the breakdown of justice.
Statements by the Commission chairman in October and November of 2009 include the following... annotated in the boxes below the each statement to include and reinforce information which the Commission failed to report.
October 14, 2009
It is our intention to shine light onto some very dark days of the Pennsylvania judiciary – days that have disrupted the lives of children and their families; brought shame to an entire community; and sewn seeds of distrust throughout the legal system.
| The deliberate failure of the commission to assign responsibility for the failure of the justice system to the one 'law' which enabled it and prevented any justice or actions to address the judicial corruption and injustice fertilizes the "seeds of distrust" and strikes at the sincerity and integrity of the commission. |
Our concern, however, is not only the action of two Luzerne County judges. Our concern is also the inaction of others. Inaction by judges, prosecutors, public defenders, the defense bar, public officials and private citizens -- those who knew but failed to speak; those who saw but failed to act.
| The commission fails to see themselves among "those who knew but failed to speak; those who saw but failed to act." The commission fails to address their silence, while misdirecting blame to include public officials and private citizens who did speak and were ignored; who did act and were dismissed. |
[ Inaction includes the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania who ignored and dismissed Kings Bench Petitions regarding the corruption and injustice without consideration or review. ]
All of those involved -- whether by action, inaction or silence -- whether by willful choice or benign ignorance -- engaged in an assault on the fairness and impartiality of our legal system. It was an assault on the very rule of law.
| Only those persons mandated by the Rules of Professional Conduct were denied any willful choice or benign ignorance while forced to participate in the conspiracy which undermined justice, the law and the US Constitution. |
This is a serious matter indeed, because an attack on the rule of law is an attack on
democracy itself. The sense of community that underlies democratic government is sustained by the sure faith that law will be applied uniformly and fairly, without fear or favor, or corruption.
| A very dramatic statement. Judicial theater which suggests high moral values yet performed to conceal the cause of malicious injustice and judicial corruption demonstrates a profound lack of sincerity and integrity. |
Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys serve as officers of the court, servants of the high calling of the pursuit of justice. When that noble service is diverted to improper ends, however, we all suffer the consequences.
| Those who accept the HIGH CALLING OF THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE have a mandate which shamefully requires them to ignore corruption, injustice, equal protection of the law, and the US Constitution, EVERYONE SUFFERS THE CONSEQUENCES of their participation in the crimes. |
But, we must remember it is not only members of the Bar who are called to pursue justice. Every citizen bears that burden, every citizen shares that responsibility, because in a democracy the pursuit of justice is the essence of civic obligation.
| The members of the Bar have undermined and usurped the authority of the judiciary in every level of the courts, concealed it in a mandate of confidentiality, and prevent, obstruct and deny the citizens any opportunity to present or resolve the loss of their constitutional rights. The commission is again assigning blame to the citizens who did act, only to have their efforts suppressed, ignored and dismissed. |
[ The arrogant failure of the commission and the courts to address the citizens reports of injustice and corruption absolves the public of any blame or responsibility where those reports were subsequently ignored by the broken judicial system. ]
November 9, 2009
Our focus is on what happened in the juvenile justice system – what went wrong and what can be done about it.
| The SILENCE was wrong. The mandated confidentiality can be removed. |
The practical reality is that those who may be motivated by greed and the drive for power are not likely to be deterred by any laws, rules or regulations that we recommend or which may ultimately be adopted. That is the nature of criminality.
| The Judiciary acting criminally in defiance of law, and ignoring the constitutional rights of the people ENACTED THE MANDATE OF CONFIDENTIALITY WHICH CONCEALED THEIR CORRUPTION AND INJUSTICE. Any new law or reform will be moot while the mandated Rule 1.6 confidentiality remains. |
None of us should hold any illusions that the recommendations of one more commission, or the creation of one more regulatory agency, or the enactment of one more law, or the adoption of one more rule of court will prevent this from ever happening again. The fact is that there were laws, and rules of juvenile procedure, and administrative regulations already in
place that could have stopped or prevented these abuses.
| The United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution are the laws which discourage the judiciary from corruption, injustice and abuses of power. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court does not have the authority to enact any 'law' which causes substantive rights protected by the US Constitution or Pennsylvania Constitution to be abridged, modified or denied. In October 1987, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court enacted the Rules of Professional Conduct into 'law'. Rule 1.6 - Confidentiality of Information can subject a person to a collateral denial of substantive rights and privileges protected by the US Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution with the resultant injustice not permitted to be addressed and resolved by any court. Any effort or actions to remove Rule 1.6 would expose the error by the Supreme Court adversely affecting the integrity of the judiciary and is not lawful when mandated by the Rules of Professional Conduct. |
| THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 was filed on August 8, 2013 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and served on fifty six state attorneys general.. The federal courts have improperly denied jurisdiction. The matter is being prepared for submission to the Supreme Court of the United States and concurrently to the United States Congress seeking a constitutional amendment. |
How do we create a system in which those who see corruption call the police?
| Direct police to accept criminal reports against judges by removing the RULE 1.6 mandate for the District Attorney to ignore the crime. |
How do we create a system in which prosecutors who see a judge flagrantly disregard the law make a report to the Judicial Conduct Board?
| Remove the Rule 1.6 mandate requiring confidentiality where the information will adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. Judicial corruption and injustice will ALWAYS adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. A conspiracy which conceals the judge's crime will ALWAYS adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. JUSTICE NEVER ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY. |
How do we create a system in which the Judicial Conduct Board can respond quickly and effectively to allegations of misconduct?
| Direct the Judicial Conduct Board to review every allegation of misconduct. The policy of dismissing ANY report of misconduct while purporting a necessity of judicial integrity demonstrates flawed logic. The judiciary has demonstrated a complete and absolute lack of integrity, ethics or morals with regard to their deliberate abuse of power under color of law. Judicial integrity cannot be repaired by concealing that it may not even exist. |
How can we develop a system in which we select and educate our juvenile court judges so that glib sloganeering -- and using phrases like “zero tolerance” -- is not mistaken for thoughtful judicial reflection?
| Remove Rule 1.6. Then, review matters independently and deliver Justice in accordance with the law. |
How do we create a system in which lawyers, whose unique role it is to advance justice and protect liberty, actually uphold the great traditions of an honored profession?
| Remove Rule 1.6. A mandatory participation in a conspiracy which denies and obstructs justice in the furtherance of judicial corruption IS NOT AN GREAT TRADITION. It does NOT advance justice. It does NOT protect liberty. |
We have asked ourselves whether it is possible that people can persuade themselves there is nothing they can do to correct what they know to be wrong.
| When the court enacts the law which leaves a person with nothing they can do to correct what they know to be wrong, the courts actions could reasonably be interpreted as persuasive. Seriously??? The commission insults the thousands of victims of the judicial corruption and injustice ignored by the courts and every level of law enforcement CAUSED BY AND CONCEALED BY an improperly enacted state law which mandates that legal professionals take no action which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary under threat of aggressive disciplinary action. Is it possible that judges can persuade themselves that there is nothing they can do to correct what they know to be wrong? Any judge, attorney general, district attorney or lawyer could have acted to expose the unconstitutional injustice and corruption of the judiciary. Protected by the full might of the US Constitution, Rule 1.6 - repugnant to the US Constitution is a nullity. There can be no law which requires anyone to violate the rights and privileges of the People which are secured and protected by the US Constitution. EVERY Judge knows this. EVERY Lawyer knows this. The justice system IS broken. The judiciary has shown an insecurity to accept responsibility and resolve matters where the integrity of a judge would be adversely affected. The judiciary neglects consideration or recognition of responsibility for the harm and irreparable damage to the litigant caused by a denial of constitutional rights, a failure to follow the rule of law, and the resultant injustice. The judiciary shirks their responsibility with the knowledge that on appeal, their ruling will be affirmed and affect the integrity of the appeals court and continue the injustice. The judiciary fails to recognize that injustice does not end injustice. It extends it. Once the matter has been perverted by injustice, the rule of law, procedure, case law or precedent can be manipulated and misrepresented to substantiate any decision by the higher court while masking if any review of the issues presented on appeal had occurred. Rule 1.6 has been unconstitutionally enacted by the state supreme courts without any review of the impact on constitutional rights of litigants. Rule 1.6 shows that judicial independence once undermined continues to be undermined without any lawful ability for a litigant to address the bias of the court. The American Bar Association has undermined the authority of state and federal courts and has demonstrated the ability to control courts and judges so insecure about their lack of integrity that they will sadistically continue to perpetuate an injustice upon a litigant whom they have wronged and treated unfairly. When the American Bar Association provided the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to each state judiciary to carelessly promulgate and enact without review, the mechanism by which they gained control of each insecure state judiciary was a mandate of confidentiality to protect the integrity of the undermined judiciary. Simultaneously concealing the ABA conspiracy to undermine and usurp the authority of the judiciary in every court in the nation and to aggressively enforce every breach of confidentiality thus concealing their sedition of the judiciary at every state and federal level. |
| IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT TERANCE HEALY PERSUADED HIMSELF THAT THERE IS NOTHING HE CAN TO TO CORRECT WHAT HE KNOWS TO BE WRONG. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 demonstrates the deliberate judicial corruption and injustice which terrorized ONE LITIGANT for over 8 years appearing before 20 judges of the Montgomery County Pennsylvania Judiciary where the integrity of each subsequent judge was sacrificed to conceal the corruption and injustice of the prior judges... - where an order issued by a judge, the head of the family court division, who had never been assigned to the matter and had never conducted any proceeding in the matter, was prevented from the defendant and kept in a confidential file apart from the actual case file... - where the existence of the order was not known to the defendant and was prevented from him, the 'secret'order was used to further leverage favorable rulings with subsequent judges while avoiding compliance with every court order without fear of sanction or any negative affect for the plaintiff's failure and the continued failure to follow every court, which the court neglected to enforce at any time. This was in strong contradiction and contrast to the aggressive and meticulously detailed enforcement of every court order which required action by the defendant even where the court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order and neglected to address the lack of jurisdiction when challenged... - where that order had been fraudulently misrepresented to the police during the commission of a burglary of the residence, in violation of exclusive use and occupancy clause of an Agreed Order signed by the Court, where police permitted the theft to continue after being summoned to the residence by neighbors suspicious of the 20 people and 12 trucks and SUVs who descended upon the residence when the defendant had left for the evening... - where that order had been presented to the Court during a short list conference where the Defendant was denied the opportunity to read, review or obtain a copy of the document, and where the judge failed to correct the issue when brought to his immediate attention... - where the existence of the document had been denied when requested in discovery requests, discovery motions, hearings regarding motions to compel production of documents... - where in August 2010, a clerk in the Prothonotary, upon request by the defendant for the file for the matter, inadvertently offered a folder never previously provided which included among other documents, an 'original' court order signed by Judge Rhonda Daniele where the document lacked any markings indicating proper recording on the docket and filing with the Prothonotary, and where the document lacked any markings indicating proper distribution to the parties, and where the document accurately matched the description by the police of the document presented during the burglary of the residence years before, and further presented to police to mislead, misinform and slander the defendant's effort to enforce custody orders. - where defendant had been denied and prevented from any proceeding to address custody and visitation, based on the deliberate actions of court personnel who were aware of the 'secret' order and maintained confidentiality to protect the integrity of the judiciary while denying a father from any contact with his sons and any ability to arrange for custody and/or visitation... Defendant was prevented from any relationship with his sons based on a 'secret' order issued without a hearing which slandered his character and reputation and was issued without the proper jurisdiction of the court. - where, when the conspiracy, corruption and leveraged extortion were documented and presented, the court acted in furtherance of the injustice towards the defendant to the court. - where the court acted to further deny any lawful process or procedure by cancelling hearings on outstanding petitions to enforce plaintiff's compliance with prior court orders; and acting with malicious forethought and intent by issuing a deliberately void order which demonstrated an extreme bias and tremendous disdain towards the defendant for persevering, documenting and surviving the unjustified and unexplained annihilation of every aspect of his life - personally professionally and financially. - where Judge Carolyn Carluccio had deliberately issued a void order with the knowledge that any appeal could be made problematic through misinformation; with the knowledge that a judge would not strike her void order adversely affecting the integrity of the judiciary; knowing that irreparable harm and destruction of property would occur while the defendant would be denied any opportunity to address the court or prevent the damage; knowing that all county personnel would enforce the void order as if it was valid and ignore the lack of jurisdiction to issue the order; knowing that her prior employment with the United States Attorneys office would undermine and/or prevent any federal investigation into her deliberate corrupt actions; knowing that as President of the Montgomery County Bar Association the defendant's continued lack of legal representation was assured; - where with arrogant neglect and deliberate haste the court has failed to adhere to Pennsylvania law and the Divorce Code which causes a procedural defect which denies the court of the lawful authority and jurisdiction to issue the order, the order is void ab initio; and every subsequent order based on or derived derived from the procedurally defective and void is similarly without lawful authority and jurisdiction, and void ab initio, serving only to demonstrate the deliberate aggressive malice of a biased and corrupt judiciary retaliating against a litigant for surviving injustice and judicial corruption from which there could be no escape while rights and privileges protected by the US CONSTITUTION and the Pennsyolvania Constitution were being collaterally denied and prevented by an aggressively MANDATED confidentiality of information pursuant to an improperly enacted unconstitutional 'law' - Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct. WHERE three concurrent appeals now exist in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania - and two of those appeals address actions by the court without jurisdiction while the appeal remained before the Superior Court... - where the appeal of a procedurally defective and void order which ignored Pennsylvania law and was deliberately and intentionally written with the intent to deny any opportunity for appeal of the order while continuing the injustice and creating a liability for all those who would act without assessing the courts lack of jurisdiction and to perpetuate the injustice and corruption. The continued threat to the life liberty and freedom of Terance Healy necessitated finding the explanation which could apply to the years of inaction, misinformation and the failure of EVERYONE in law enforcement and every level of government to HELP. |
We have asked ourselves whether it is possible that people can get so used to a culture of corruption that corruption loses its meaning.
| Rule 1.6 mandated inaction and silence. |
What we don’t know, and what we hope to find out today and in future hearings, is what it would have taken to encourage people to act.
| Rule 1.6 mandated inaction. |
We know people in this community did not consciously choose to stand on the side of injustice at the expense of children. But what was it that made it so hard to do the right thing?
| Rule 1.6 mandated inaction and confidentiality of information which is aggressively enforced. |
Were people afraid? And, if so, afraid of what? What repercussions? What retributions? Where they intimidated? By whom? And how?
| Rule 1.6 mandated inaction and confidentiality of information which is aggressively enforced with sanctions, suspensions and disbarrment... |
What protections would they have wanted? Where would they have wanted to take the information they had?
| Rule 1.6 mandated confidentiality causes a failure as those to whom information must be provided were additionally mandated to silence. |
Did they have confidence that their supervisors, or county officials, or law enforcement, or the Judicial Conduct Board or the attorney Disciplinary Board would have acted professionally?
| It could be suggested that following the Rules of Professional Conduct assured that people were acting professionally but mandated by Rule 1.6 to participate in the corruption of the court. |
In the end, it is the collective responsibility of all of us to uphold the rule of law that binds us together in a democracy.
| Rule 1.6 caused the failure of the rule of law and trumped rights and privileges protected by the US Constitution. |
The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice
CONTACT:
Darren Breslin, Esq
Commission Counsel
Special Projects Advisor
1515 Market Street
Suite 1414
Philadelphia, PA 19102
p. 215-560-6300
Support:
Nicholene DiPasquale
Stuart Ditzen
Thomas B. Darr
REPRESENTATION:
Arthur H. Stroyd, Esq.
William S. Stickmanm IV, Esq.
Investigative Services:
William Fisher, Esq
Honorable John M. Cleland, Chair
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Kane, Pa.
Tod C. Allen
former Police Officer
Director of Court Advocacy
Crime Victim Center of Erie County
Erie, Pa.
Valerie Bender
Senior Research Associate
National Center for Juvenile Justice
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Honorable James A. Gibbons
former Assistant United States Attorney
Magisterial District Court
Lackawanna County
Chinchilla, Pa.
Kenneth J. Horoho, Jr., Esq.
a Pittsburgh attorney and former President of the Pennsylvania Bar Association;
member of the HOUSE OF DELEGATES for 20 years;
Adjunct Law Professor;
Goldberg, Gruener, Gentile, Horoho & Avalli, P.C.
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Jason J. Legg, Esq.
District Attorney
Susquehanna County District Attorney's Office
Montrose, Pa.
Robert L. Listenbee, Esq.
Chief, Juvenile Unit
Defender Association of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, Pa.
George D. Mosee, Jr., Esq.
Deputy District Attorney, Juvenile Division
Philadelphia District Attorney's Office
Philadelphia, Pa.
Honorable John C. Uhler
Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of York County, and former President Judge of the Court;
former Assistant United States Attorney;
former District Attorney of York County
Court of Common Pleas of York County
York, Pa.
Ronald P. Williams
Regional Director, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
Lake Winola, Pa.
Honorable Dwayne D. Woodruff
Juvenile court judge from Allegheny County;
Pittsburgh Steelers SuperBowl XIV.
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Pittsburgh, Pa.
No comments:
Post a Comment