Bill O'Reilly finds that American media is corrupt and biased because it has not provided what he considers enough time to certain issues. I'll agree.
In a passionate lecture, he showed clear and undeniable evidence of the media’s bias towards Christie’s “Bridgegate” scandal and its virtual silence on the IRS and VA scandals. All Americans need to be exposed to ALL the news.
What O'Reilly fails to see how HIS divisive accusations - which fault liberals and President Obama - only serve to misdirect from the very story he wishes to bring to our attention?
Still O'Reilly doesn't offer the realization that he is a part of an American media which is FULLY CONTROLLED and MANAGED.
Truthful and accurate information without an exaggerated bias is not currently available in the American media. Every news story contains an indicator of a political, religious or other target demographic which causes people to either embrace or ignore the information. I've been wondering if anyone really cares about the truth without the demographic. This harms the country. It harms Americans. The divisiveness subverts our democracy.
The American Media has become ridiculously lazy. Most stories fail to include the basics - who, what , where, when, why and how. Omissions which my children would never have gotten away with when turning in a report for grade school... yet, they are missing from the major networks and national news media outlets.
When the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed in August 2013 in Philadelphia. Copies of the document filed and an overview explanation was hand delivered to 3 (CBS), 6 (ABC), 10 (NBC), 12 (Public), & 29 (FOX) - with contact information. There was no coverage.
Every newspaper in the Philadelphia area was also contacted and provided the same documents. There was no coverage of the litigation. All of the national television programs were contacted and provided copies. There was no coverage. ONLY ONE had the courtesy of contacting us to indicate they were instructed to ignore the story.
On a trip to New York, I attempted to deliver copies to each major television network and national newspaper. I was redirected by each to deliver the documents to another address. I learned that ALL NEWS producers in New York City were gathered together in two buildings and were NOT in their respective network offices. NBC was the exception.
Suddenly, it became very apparent how easily the news media is controlled and managed in America. The reception people in these buildings were not permitted to take any documents, and were not permitted to allow me access to the offices. Where the network folks had instructed me to leave the documents with reception for their producers attention, I was called a liar by the receptionist who refused to accept any package. It was ridiculous.
As the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 proceeded thru the federal district court and on to the third circuit appeals court, the news media continued their unanimous disinterest in the case.
The newsworthiness of two individuals challenging constitutionality of a law in every state. A law with the same name, the same number and the same title. The challenge documents filed and served upon fifty-six state attorneys general to address a national problem caused by this unconstitutional state law.
The 'Law' had NOT been written by any legislature, NOR signed by any Governor. The 'Law' had been enacted by each state supreme court without any constitutional review.
Each state supreme court was further not lawfully permitted to repeal the law because it would adversely affect the judiciary.
The state Attorney General was not lawfully permitted to reveal the state supreme courts' mistake.
Every lawyer in the state was not lawfully permitted to reveal the state supreme courts' mistake.
The challenged 'Law' is contained within the Rules Of Professional Conduct which lawyers, judges and law enforcement officials must follow.
The challenged 'Law' is Rule 1.6 - Confidentiality of Information.
| 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. |
The very law which MANDATES the confidentiality of the legal community has undermined the constitutional rights of Americans.
The victims who lose their rights know they were being mistreated, misdirected and denied justice... while denied any explanation. Unfortunately, no one will listen. Their issues are ignored. They are dismissed as 'sore losers'. No one helps.
Pursuant to Rule 1.6, Judges and lawyers are not permitted to address it, explain it or correct the injustice caused by the 'law'. EVEN WHERE A PERSONS BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE DENIED LEAVING THEM WITHOUT THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW.
Pursuant to Rule 1.6, another court or another judge, is not permitted to address the injustice, or to explain it or to correct it. Most higher courts and Appeals courts ignore the injustice and all evidence relating to the injustice entirely by writing deliberately flawed and misleading opinions which only continue the injustice.
As the courts must safeguard the integrity of the judiciary, there is no court within each state which can address the deliberate injustice. Perseverance through each level of the state courts is necessary and futile. Rule 1.6 affects every level of the state judiciary. The integrity of every court is sacrificed to conceal the lack of integrity of the prior judge(s) in the matter.
The state Attorney General ignores all complaints citing a lack of jurisdiction. THIS IS A LIE. The state Attorney General has jurisdiction to address the injustice, BUT lacks a lawful ability to do so pursuant to Rule 1.6.
Only when viewed from the perspective of the public does the unconstitutional affect become very clear and visible.
Federal Investigators refuse complaints unless submitted by a lawyer or judge, or requested by a District Attorney or Attorney General - all of whom are prevented by Rule 1.6 from making the request.
Any violation of Rule 1.6 is addressed by swift disciplinary action to the violator.
Where the law fails, the loophole is promptly addressed by the state's Supreme Court. The modification of the Rules of Professional Conduct by the state supreme court leaves a trail of activity which can be used to evaluate and demonstrate the intent of the 'law'.
The Federal Courts do not address the 'abuse of power' demonstrated by the state judiciary and will not review an order/opinion decided in the state courts citing dismissal by Rooker-Feldman and Younger doctrines. Where the doctrines do not warrant dismissal, the federal court will ignore facts and law, and misapply the doctrine and dismiss the matter anyway.
The victim is left with no ability to address the deliberate error and the resulting injustice. Frustration grows with each deliberate improper action by the judiciary without regard for facts, or proper procedure or the rule of law. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandates the courts sacrifice their credibility and integrity to conceal the injustice.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6
When the Constitutional Challenge was filed on August 8, 2013, the litigants acted with the forethought to avoid the standard dismissal routines in federal court. The challenge was filed requesting a preemptive review of the constitutionality of the law based on their experience in the state courts.
The challenge was NOT seeking to reverse a state decision.
The challenge was NOT seeking a decision on a matter currently before the state court.
The challenge was NOT filed as an abuse of power under color of law complaint against the state judiciary.
Their litigation in the state courts is the evidentiary support which demonstrates how Rule 1.6 causes and results in the denial of constitutional rights.
Plaintiffs requested that the federal court find the state 'law' unconstitutional and return them to their matters in the state courts where the state judiciary would no longer have a Rule 1.6 mandate for injustice which ignores rights and privileges protected by the US Constitution.
Though the fifty six state Attorneys General all failed to file any document, appearance or answer before their assigned deadlines, the district court ignored their deliberate default and subsequently dismissed the challenge without any basis in facts or substantiation of any doctrine which would support dismissal.
Clearly, the district court was not yet ready to address the constitutional crisis caused by Rule 1.6.
On Appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court decision by issuing an unsigned per curiam order and opinion which neglects to review the facts, and fails to address the issues raised on appeal.
A Petition for Rehearing /Rehearing en Banc was denied. Unsigned Order and Opinion providing 'plausible deniability' for a judiciary which has acted to deny the US Constitution.
The Third Circuit Court was not yet ready to address the constitutional crisis - and were further denying the litigants of any venue to address the constitutional challenge.
The Constitutional Challenge will next be submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States with a concurrent submission to the United States Congress.
Prompt action by the US Congress would permit the Supreme Court Judiciary to maintain some integrity in a matter which has now demonstrated a failure of integrity at every level of the state and federal courts.
It has been noticed that the media frequently fails to completely report issues in politics or government. In cases of injustice and judicial corruption, Rule 1.6 can affect the media's presentation of the facts, and conceal the cause of the situation while preventing any explanation.
The confidentiality mandated by Rule 1.6 was further concealing that Rule 1.6 was the problem.
The corruption known as KIDS FOR CASH went on for years in the Luzerne County Courthouse, Rule 1.6 kept it CONFIDENTIAL. Lawyers, Judges, District Attorneys, Prosecutors, and Public Defenders all mandated to silence while people were victimized.
The conspiracy of silence by the judiciary, law enforcement and legal professionals of Luzerne County prevented the injustice and judicial corruption from being exposed, addressed and corrected and further allowed the crime to continue.
When one judge broke the silence and contacted federal authorities, she was disciplined and removed from the bench for adversely affecting the integrity of the judiciary in violation of Rule 1.6.
The disciplinary actions towards Judge Ann Lokuta by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the Court of Judicial Discipline demonstrate the aggressive methods used to attack and silence those who act in a moral and ethical manner for the greater good.
When the INTERBRANCH COMMISSION ON JUVENILE JUSTICE produced their report on the scandal, they concluded accurately 'What good would [reporting] it do."
The lawyers and judges on the Commission neglected to disclose that Rule 1.6 mandates they not reveal even where Rule 1.6 had caused the breakdown in the justice system.
| As stated by Act 32, the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was to determine how the Luzerne County juvenile justice system failed, to restore public confidence in the administration of justice and to prevent similar events from occurring in Luzerne County or elsewhere in the Commonwealth. |
The Commission's failure to identify Rule 1.6 as the cause demonstrates a conspiracy of silence which undermined the assigned purpose of the commission.
Reporting the injustice and judicial corruption involved in the scandal was futile because the courts, the disciplinary boards, the judicial conduct board were also obligated under Rule 1.6 Confidentiality and would take no action.
By deliberately concealing how and why the system failed, the Commission ignored their instructions pursuant to Act 32 in defiance of the Governor, the unanimous Legislature and a clear violation of the public trust. The Commission report is a deliberate fraud which attempts to conceal the truth.
Neglecting to address the failure caused by Rule 1.6 undermines each of the recommendations which the commission proposes. Each recommendation can have no true affect or impact where Rule 1.6 Confidentiality remains to continue to conceal the failure of the system.
The failure of the Commission concealed by the ineffective recommendations and their conspiracy of silence further serves as an endorsement of the corruption enabling and encouraging the repetition, or continuation, of judicial corruption and injustice which places the entire public in jeopardy.
When delivering "The Sandusky Report", Attorney General Kathleen Kane neglected to inform the public that Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information.
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, the Attorney General’s office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers.
The Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandate confidentiality of client information where the information
- would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary,
- would reveal the misconduct of their own office,
- would expose individual liability,
- would adversely affect their client.
During the campaign for Attorney General, Attorney General Kathleen Kane indicated she would investigate to determine if Attorney General Tom Corbett had delayed or stalled the Sandusky investigation during his run for Governor.
Currently, Governor Tom Corbett is a client of Attorney General Kathleen Kane.
Rule 1.6 prevents the Attorney General from revealing information which would adversely affect the Governor, or that would reveal the misconduct of the Attorney General's office.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court enacted multiple modifications to the Rules of Professional Conduct with attention to the proper legal handling of email by lawyers and admissibility as evidence in a proceeding.
- on April 3, 2009
- on May 2, 2009
- on April 9, 2012
- on April 18, 2012
- on June 16, 2012
- on July 4, 2012
- on November 21, 2013
While the Sandusky report indicates the loss of email correspondence, efforts to retrieve the data, and the subsequent successful restoration of some emails relating to the progress of the investigation by the Office of the Attorney General.
Rule 1.6 requires that the Attorney General maintain any information as confidential where activity of the Supreme Court modifying the Rules of Professional Conduct presented concurrently with email issues encountered during the Sandusky investigation might adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.
Attorney General Kane contracted with an attorney to prepare the Sandusky report. Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information to protect his client from any liability.
A Possible Disclaimer relating to Rule 1.6 and the Sandusky Report is available to review here.
The Rules of Professional Conduct were enacted into law by the state supreme court with the clear and deliberate intent to conceal and prevent judges from being prosecuted for judicial corruption and injustice.
Where judicial corruption and injustice has occurred, the integrity of the judiciary is neither preserved nor protected by mandating the participation of judges and lawyers in a conspiracy of silence which ignores the crime and causes further injustice upon the victim.
The largest abuse which can be attributed to Rule 1.6 is the Foreclosure Crisis Nationwide.
Foreclosures affected millions of individuals and families nationwide and represent the most pervasive, malicious and destructively deliberate abuse of judicial authority in reckless violation of the US Constitution, federal and state laws, with an arrogant and shameful assault against the public trust of the entire nation.
The Foreclosure Crisis would not have occurred had the judiciary not been undermined by Rule 1.6.
A Lack of proper lawful standing caused by a fraudulent deed, a robo-signed document, an unidentified or non-existent plaintiff, false or non-existent paperwork, etc... Once initiated and accepted by the court the failure to follow law and procedure results in an injustice which the court then refuses to address, correct or resolve in accordance with the law.
The Rule 1.6 mandate of confidentiality then further prevents the courts and the lawyers from addressing the injustice. These actions include denial of elements of due process and procedure, the negligence of the court to address the rights of the litigant where property is concerned, and denial of equal protection of the law.
The injustice overwhelms the litigant personally, professionally and financially requiring an excessive effort to continually provide the facts to the court.
Millions of people lost their homes based on false allegations, bad information, and facts which the court neglected to consider during the course of overwhelming chaotic litigation.
The courts failed to address the loss of the litigants civil, constitutional and human rights caused by Rule 1.6 confidentiality and the foreclosure crisis swept across the entire nation.
Where Rule 1.6 prevented a lawyer from lawfully petitioning the court to address the injustice caused by Rule 1.6, the injustice, corruption and the destruction of judicial integrity has persisted for years awaiting the realization that the loss of constitutional rights was caused to non-lawyers collaterally by a law concealed within the Rules of Professional Conduct.
INSURRECTION
The litigant, acting in good faith, is unaware that the court is no longer acting with necessary judicial independence neutrally deciding a case by interpreting the law and applying it to the facts and then rendering a final and binding judgment.
Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just. Due process is violated if a practice or rule “offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.”
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality undermines judicial independence and further undermines due process for the litigant with the result being a lack of jurisdiction for the court to render a final and binding judgment.
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 brings the case within the statute where a right or
immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States is an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff ’s cause of action. . . . The First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.
The right or immunity must be such that it will be supported if the Constitution or laws of the United States are given one construction or effect, and defeated if they receive another.
"It is entirely unimportant, what may be the subject of controversy. Be it what it may, these parties have a constitutional right to come into the Courts of the Union.”
- 19 U.S. at 378. See Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 368 U.S. 71, 79–80 (1961); Texas v. New Jersey, 379 U.S. 674, 677 (1965); Pennsylvania v. New York, 407 U.S. 206 (1972).
A genuine and present controversy, not merely a possible or conjectural one, must exist with reference thereto. The Challenge presents denial of rights and privileges protected by the Constitution of the United States which are collaterally denied as a result of an improperly enacted state law.
First Amendment to the Constitution
The Judiciary by failing to conduct the proper review petitioned in the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is denying the litigants of their right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Fifth Amendment to the Constitution
The Judiciary by failing to conduct the proper review petitioned in the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is depriving the litigants of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
The Judiciary by failing to conduct a proper review petitioned in the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is ignoring where the State has made and enforced a law which abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; and further the State is depriving persons of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and further the State id denying persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Judiciary having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and having deliberately acted to deny and abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States are engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution and further abusing the authority of their office under color of law in violation of the public trust.
The Good Behavior Clause reminds the other branches that the judiciary is truly independent, it also reminds judges that life tenure is not a license for the wanton or the corrupt. It is in this sense both a shield and a sword—an affirmation of judicial independence and a reservation for judicial removal.
The courts are assured independence through good-behavior tenure and security of compensation, and the judges through judicial review will check the other two branches. The impeachment power gives to Congress the authority to root out corruption and abuse of power in
the other two branches.
THIS INFORMATION IS LEADING DOWN A PATH WHERE I WOULD PREFER NOT TO VENTURE
Having undermined their judicial independence, a fundamental element of the jurisdiction by which they are empowered, the insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution by the judiciary requires the United States Congress to commence impeachment proceedings regarding the seditious activities which have usurped and undermined the government of the United States.
The conspiracy to conceal and continue their corrupt and unconstitutional actions in furtherance of their denial of constitutional rights and obstruction of justice demonstrates the courts unwillingness to take responsibility or demonstrate any sense of remorse for their abuse of power in an arrogant violation of the public trust.
Clearly, the judiciary was aware of the United States Constitution and the law while continuing unconstitutional and abusive actions in violation of the public trust.
Rule 1.6 injustice and corruption exists in civil, family and criminal courts.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information was not always a law.
The state Supreme Courts began enacting the Rules of Professional Conduct into law in the mid-80's. Prior to being enacted into LAW, the Rules were discretionary.
Once enacted into law, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information became a mandate which caused an unresolvable injustice which was inescapable.
The victim was required to petition the court to address the injustice;
while the court was mandated to ignore the injustice;
to sacrifice the integrity of the judge;
to dismiss the rights of the litigant;
and to ignore proper procedure and the law;
all in the interest of protecting the integrity of the judiciary.
You cannot protect the integrity of the judiciary by sacrificing the integrity of the judiciary.
Insurrection and Sedition to Undermine the Judiciary by the American Bar Association
The impetus for the state Supreme Courts to enact the Rules of Professional Conduct into law was the response of the American Bar Association to the FBI's decimation of the Cook County Courthouse in Operation Greylord.
To address the corruption of the judiciary, the American Bar Association sought to make it illegal to prosecute a judge within a state by making it unlawful for an Attorney General or a District Attorney to take any action to prosecute judicial corruption and injustice as it would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.
This was a deliberate action by the American Bar Association which successfully undermined the judicial branch at every level of the judiciary in every state. It further extends into the federal courts.
The Judicial branch has abused it's power at the behest of the American Bar Association.
The Judicial branch has conspired to conceal the sedition by the American Bar Association.
The Judicial branch has had their authority usurped by the American Bar Association.
When South Africa wrote their Constitution in the 90's, they recognized that the judiciary was the power behind apartheid. The critics of the apartheid system were victimized and incarcerated through the courts. South Africa recognized the opportunity for abuse and witnessed the abuse of power occurring in the United States judiciary. They acted to prevent the abuse of judicial power.
It is necessary that the US Congress take constitutional action with regard to sedition and usurpation by the American Bar Association.
The American Bar Association has a full organization structure similar to a government with a hierarchy of elected governors and elected delegates.
The American Bar Association's secret usurpation of the authority of the judicial branch denied the people from the protections of the United States Constitution .
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality demonstrates the relationship between the membership and concealing the truth from the American People even where the rights and privileges provided by the US Constitution have been denied to a large segment of the population.
The American Bar Association of and by its organization and actions to usurp the authority of the judiciary and undermine the United States Government represents a government within the government which has demonstrated successful attempts to control the legitimate government.
The American Bar Association is hereby requested to cease and desist their existence as an organization; to take immediate actions to cease operations and close every office and building belonging to the organization and any associated and related organizations in states, cities, towns and counties nationwide; shut down their internet presence; hold no further meetings of its membership; conduct no further training of its members; cease publication and dissemination of any documents; sell all assets belonging to the organization with proceeds to be secured to permit compensation to victims who have suffered harm and damages resulting from the American Bar Associations actions to undermine and usurp the authority of the Judicial Branch.
A CALL FOR VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION OF ABA MEMBERS IN GOVERNMENT
Senators and Representatives in Congress, holders of office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States have participated in insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution and the People of the United States abusing the authority of their office in violation of the public trust.
A Call For Elections to replace the membership of the American Bar Association currently holding positions of authority within the United States Government.
REBOOT THE US CONSTITUTION
Time to REBOOT the US Constitution - with one change. It is not logical to permit the judiciary to manage the laws under which it operates as they have demonstrated their failure in that regard.
No comments:
Post a Comment