June 6, 2014
Kathleen Kane
Attorney General of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General
16th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Superior Court of Pennsylvania #1330 EDA 2013
Healy v. Healy
NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE
Pursuant to Rule 521 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellant hereby notifies the Attorney General that the above referenced matter before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania raises the issue of the constitutionality of a statute.
The Brief filed with the Superior Court demonstrates the loss of constitutional rights of the appellant in the matter. (Attached)
All prior reports of the injustice and unlawful actions of the Montgomery County Judiciary, including those which are documented in the brief filed on June 4, 2014, have been submitted to the Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and ignored and dismissed based on a purported lack of jurisdiction.
The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who must follow the US Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Rules of Professional Conduct which were enacted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's authority to enact law is limited to situations where 'such rules are consistent with this Constitution [Pennsylvania] and neither abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of any litigant.'
The Rules of Professional Conduct enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have substantially affected the 'jurisdiction' of the Attorney General to act to address injustice and corruption within the courts. The Rule 1.6 mandate of 'confidentiality of information' with regard to client information undermines 'everything' where an attorney general's clients include (1) the public, (2) the Pennsylvania government, (3) the Office of the Attorney General, (4) government agencies and departments statewide, (5) personnel within those agencies and departments, (6) and themselves.
The attorney general is prevented and obstructed from law enforcement responsibilities by a mandate to maintain 'confidentiality' of 'client' information where it adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary, the reputation of legal professionals, self-incriminates, or negatively affects their client.
The Supreme Court, by the same mandate, has caused a 'lawful' requirement to ignore injustice and judicial corruption within every court in the commonwealth.
Previous Codes of Professional Responsibility (among other titles) have included similar guidelines, BUT once enacted into 'law' ignoring injustice and judicial corruption ceased being discretionary and was MANDATED BY LAW.
As evidenced by the associated brief filed with the Superior Court, I have clearly been denied constitutionally protected rights and privileges, justice has been obstructed, laws and procedures have been ignored, judicial misconduct and malicious abuse of power has occurred without recourse.
Why would every level of law enforcement ignore complaints and believe their actions appropriate and lawful? The Office of Attorney General offers the 'lack of jurisdiction' explanation. The Attorney General as Chief Law Enforcement Officer has jurisdiction in the matter BUT is prevented from action by the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Attorney General has jurisdiction but lacks 'lawful' ability to act.
The result, the Rules of Professional Conduct collaterally affect and negate 'the substantive rights of the litigant'. Specifically, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information causes a mandatory conspiracy of silence within the courts which ignores the damage and harm caused to litigants and prevents resolution.
The Supreme Court lacked authority to enact Rule 1.6 into law as the substantive rights of this litigant, and others, have been 'abridged', 'modified', denied and ignored.
I am not the only litigant who has experienced collateral loss of substantive rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The substantive rights of the children and families of Luzerne County were similarly ignored.
The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was made up of lawyers (9 of 12) who heard information from county judges, district attorneys, public defenders and the Judicial Conduct Board. Attributing the blame to “silence, inaction, inexperience, ignorance, fear of retaliation, greed, ambition, carelessness.”, the lawyers on the commission maintained 'confidentiality of information' as required by law. Their realization - “What good would [reporting] it do?”
The Commission failed to interview Ann Lokuta, who was removed from the Luzerne County bench and disciplined for violating Rule 1.6. Federal intervention only occurred after Judge Lokuta reported the judicial corruption.
The Commission Report and Reform Recommendations amount to fraud - a deliberate effort to conceal the root cause of the failure of the justice system to address judicial misconduct, corruption and injustice.
The role of the Sheriff as Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the county has been negated and minimized by judicial decisions. Constitutionally, the Sheriff has the lawful authority and resources to enforce the law within the county. Failing to act because the judiciary has convinced them of a greatly diminished role, the non-lawyer Sheriffs (reluctantly) defer authority to the county District Attorney who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. District Attorneys take no action to investigate and prosecute the injustice and judicial corruption. Related crimes against the victims of injustice are ignored leaving the litigant with no protection under the law.
On August 8, 2013, The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed in the US District Court and served upon the Attorneys General of the United States. The matter is currently before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals awaiting a decision regarding a rehearing en banc. The subject appeal is part of the evidentiary support demonstrating the unconstitutional impact of a 'law' enacted in every state.
“What is right is not always the same as what is legal.” was offered by Edward Snowden as an explanation for his actions revealing unconstitutional activity. This statement may also apply to the failure of attorneys general, judges, district attorneys and lawyers to address the unconstitutional actions made 'legal' which have undermined justice over the last 25 years. The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct were rolled out to the states and enacted into law nationwide without the involvement of the state legislatures, the signature of the governors or any constitutional review.
The unconstitutional situation has now been raised in a lawful manner by litigants who are not prevented by law from exposing the matter and have filed with the government to address the issue.
As such, it is the responsibility of the Attorney General to represent the People, to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution and the state Constitution, and to recognize that collaterally Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional to the People.
The act of sedition which enacted Rule 1.6 and mandated the silent participation of all legal professionals, perverted the judiciary, sacrificed the personal integrity of every judge, and undermined justice can no longer be ignored and excused because of the intimidation and threats of disciplinary action by the corrupt who have deliberately violated the public trust.
Unconstitutional Rule 1.6 is repugnant and a nullity which can pose no threat of disciplinary action. Any threat of disciplinary action for revealing the injustice, corruption and sedition by the judiciary is a false threat.
Kathleen Kane, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania is the ONLY attorney general served with the Constitutional Challenge who has acted to deny, dismiss and continue to prevent constitutional rights of a litigant. Her actions negated the default actions by fifty-five state attorneys general and prevents, denies and diminishes the constitutional rights of every citizen of the United States. WHY?
Injustice does not end injustice. It extends it.
Respectfully,
Terance Healy
cc: Internet – Work2bDone.com/live
Superior Court of Pennsylvania #900 EDA 2014 Healy v Miller
Montgomery County #2007-12477 Healy v Healy
Montgomery County #2013-29976 Healy v Miller
Third Circuit Court of Appeals # 13-4591 Healy, Krautheim v The Attorneys General
Eastern District of Pennsylvania #13-4614 Healy, Krautheim v The Attorneys General
There are only two lawful ways to resolve the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6.
1. By the deliberate default by the Attorneys General in federal court, resulting in Rule 1.6 being declared unconstitutional without the court's interaction.
2. An Act of Congress.
The Federal Judiciary has a mandate which does not permit them to adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. If the decision goes to the federal judges, they are required to sacrifice their integrity and write orders which have no basis in fact, law or legal doctrine.
Examples are documented in EVERY order from a federal judge.
The state Supreme Courts are under the same mandate. As such, they too are legally prevented from repealing their law, or finding it unconstitutional. The Federal Court did not certify the constitutional challenge with each state court because it would have required a false answer.
The state Legislatures are similarly prevented from action. The non-lawyer governors may have legal authority, however the attorney general or private counsel are not permitted to advise them of such.
No comments:
Post a Comment