Two lawful ways to resolve the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6

There are only two lawful ways to resolve the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6

1. Default by state attorneys general within the Federal Court.
2. An Act of Congress.

The state and federal courts have all mandated that they may take no action to adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. A mandated bias and prejudice which prevents an independent review by the courts at every level.

The attorneys general can lawfully default in the challenge and the result is the requirement of the court to accept the default and find Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional. 55 of 56 attorneys general defaulted in the challenge.

Default was the gentle quiet resolution in the best interest of the entire country to avoid alarm and civil unrest.

The unexplained late filing of a future intention to dismiss on behalf of AG Kane required the response of the court. That 'Monkeywrench' thrown by Randall Henzes, purportedly on behalf of Attorney General Kane, sacrificed the integrity of the judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals who are mandated to conceal and suppress the matter. The improper doctrine and imaginary references presented are an embarrassment.

Default would have allowed the judges to maintain their individual dignity in this instance.

The United States Supreme Court additionally has the bias and prejudice of "protecting the integrity of the judiciary" from the exposure of the sedition of every state court in actions which denied the constitutional rights of the people of every state.

An Act of Congress will be required to address the situation. Constitutionally, the Congress must address the failure of the judiciary. Following the example of South Africa's Constitution, Congress must act to address the violation of the public trust by the judicial branch and prevent any future jeopardy to the liberty and rights of the People.

YOU DO NOT PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY BY SEDITION
OR
BY DENYING THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS IN CIVIL, FAMILY and CRIMINAL COURTS,
OR
BY DENYING THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN LUZERNE COUNTY,
OR
BY DENYING THE RIGHTS OF MILLIONS OF HOMEOWNERS IN FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE ACTIONS.

Every US Senator has been notified of the Constitutional Challenge.

Senator Toomey and Senator Casey of Pennsylvania have avoided meetings on the topic.

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 require 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.