Fact: Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane is required to follow the US Constitution, the PA Constitution and the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Fact: An unconstitutional law is a nullity. No Law. It has no effect. (Judicial Branch has claimed exclusive rights to deciding constitutionality.)
Fact: Kathleen Kane did not defend a law which she believed to be unconstitutional. Similar laws had already been recognized as unconstitutional in many other states. Her actions were in accordance with the law. The Pennsylvania law was eventually recognized as unconstitutional.
Fact: Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct is unconstitutional as it collaterally affects the substantive rights of litigants.
Fact: The Rules of Professional Conduct has a self-defense built in where non-disclosure is mandated where information would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. All non-disclosure and confidentiality is accomplished in the "rules" by direct reference to Rule 1.6.
Fact: The Rules of Professional Conduct are not enforced by the Attorney General. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court enforces the 'rules' through internal organizations within the judicial branch.
Fact: As a legal professional, the Attorney General must FOLLOW the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Fact: The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Fact: The Pennsylvania Constitution may not infringe on the protections provided by the US Constitution.
Fact: Pennsylvania law must be constitutional - A REQUIREMENT of the PA Constitution and the US Constitution.
Fact: The Attorney General has the responsibility and obligation to address unconstitutional laws which affect every Pennsylvanian.
ISSUE: How do you approach the constitutionality of a law which requires silence/confidentiality/non-disclosure by all legal professional/lawyers/judges.
ISSUE: How do you approach the constitutionality of a law which permits (mandates) fraud for the purpose of concealing a prior fraud?
ISSUE: How do you approach the constitutionality of a law which permits (mandates) fraud which prevents the prior fraud from being rectified?
PROBLEM: Challenging an unconstitutional state law (which has been enacted in every state 1984-2009)
- without any assistance from lawyers/legal professionals
- where lawyers/legal professionals are permitted (mandated) to commit fraud to prevent your effort
- where lawyers/legal professionals are mandated to confidentiality and non-disclosure
- where the court staff are lawyers/legal professionals permitted (mandated) to commit fraud to prevent and conceal the issue
- where the unconstitutional law has been improperly enacted by the state supreme court
- the state supreme court cannot strike the law without violating the law
- where all federal lawyers (government) are prevented from intervention (McDade-Murtha Amendment)
- where the federal court staff are lawyers/legal professionals permitted (mandated) to commit fraud to prevent and conceal the issue (Local Rules)
SOLUTION: A pre-emptive Constitutional Challenge in Federal Court which would return the litigants to the state court with their constitutional rights 'restored' and with protection of the Rule of Law.
Success would require the attorney general to default in the matter.
- by doing nothing and remaining silent, the attorney general/lawyer does not violate the law
- by removing the discretionary decision from the judiciary, a judge does not violate the law in granting the 'default'
- after the fact, the argument that the 'mandate' is discretionary could made and upheld in any disciplinary proceedings
The integrity of a judiciary permitted (mandated) to commit fraud to prevent and conceal the issue would be adversely affected by any and every discretionary decision. DEFAULT is the best, most effective lawful and constitutional approach.
| District Court | DEFAULT by 56 state attorneys general. A late-filed, electronically submitted, improperly titled document attributed to PA AG Kane which required a discretionary judicial response action resulted in dismissal. There is no evidence of any judicial involvement. |
| Reconsideration? | Denied. |
| Third Circuit Court | Decision of the District Court was affirmed. There is no evidence of any judicial involvement. |
| Reconsideration? | Denied. |
BACK TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA... with Rule 1.6 still preventing the rule of law and my constitutional rights. This would demonstrate the issue, build evidence and adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. No alternative.
| In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania multiple appeals which referred to the issue of the Constitutional Challenge were reported to the Pennsylvania Attorney General as required by law and procedures. After the notices were sent, a document was filed with the Superior Court. The Superior Court responded to the document. Requests for those documents were refused. The clerks removed the entry. Motions for the Production of the documents were denied without explanation. There is no evidence of any judicial involvement. |
FACT: Two secret orders were issued by unidentified courts to Attorney General Kathleen Kane which prevented her from the responsibilities of her office and mandated her silence regarding the issue.
Evidence was reported to law enforcement that the appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania were intercepted and prevented from any judicial review.
The Superior Court staff (lawyers/legal professionals) are permitted (mandated) to commit fraud to prevent and conceal the issue according to Rule 1.6. HOWEVER, were they to claim Rule 1.6 Confidentiality when faced with the violations of state and federal law and evidence of denial of access to the courts and other constitutionally protected rights, THEY WOULD PROVE THE LAW WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
As the actions of the lower court were done in clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction, the protection of absolute judicial immunity is not available. This may be hindering the Superior Court judiciary from covering for the court staff.
After the report to Law Enforcement, a Montgomery County Grand Jury called Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane for questioning. Violations of Grand Jury secrecy were purported reasons for the interview, however AG Kane was not permitted to speak about the grand jury investigation.
Two secret court orders from two unidentified courts.
An alleged violation of a prior Grand Jury secrecy.
Grand Jury secrecy imposed regarding their investigation.
A great clandestine effort has been put forth to silence and prevent the Attorney General from investigation and performing the responsibilities of her office.
These pre-emptive efforts of the unidentified judiciary appear to violate the separation of powers and the PA Constitution. The Judicial branch is ordering the Executive branch to neglect the laws of the Legislative branch.
An apparent overthrow of the Pennsylvania government by a judiciary which has demonstrated a lack of judicial independence to review cases before the courts, and the acceptance of the fraudulent, illegal and unconstitutional actions of the court staff. ALL CAUSED AND CONCEALED BY RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION which the Supreme Court did NOT have the authority to enact where not "consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant." Pa Constitution Article 5 Section 10 (c)
Rule 1.6 has undermined the authority and independence of a judiciary held hostage which overreaches and usurps the authority of the state and federal government. One Law. Every State. Affects every judiciary at state and federal levels. Silently and Confidentially ignoring the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States.
The American Bar Association. The organization responsible for the 'Rules' presented as an ethical standard - but lacking ethics, morals and legalizing fraud for lawyers - has affiliated organizations and members in every state and federal court. Their 1983 exclusion of the 'fraud provisions' was deliberate. The resulting injustice clear. The effort to execute and conceal the sedition of the American government accomplished pursuant to the same law. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.
LOGIC: If Attorney General Kathleen Kane recognizes the unconstitutional aspects of Rule 1.6, non-disclosure would not be obligated defend the law. WHAT WOULD KATHLEEN KANE DO?
She's Kathleen Kane. Kathleen Kane does not do 'unconstitutional'. Kathleen Kane would not be silenced by an unconstitutional law which mandates her silence and participation in a conspiracy.
Kathleen Kane is going to 'DO SOMETHING" and the constitutions and the law support her actions.
How do you silence a "Rule 1.6 liberated Kathleen Kane"?
Issue court orders which silence her and prevent her action and investigation. Threaten sanctions and contempt of court for breaching those improper orders... Broadcast false information about her being 'above the law'... with a history of violating 'secrecy and confidentiality'... based on leaked reports from a grand jury... regarding the purported purpose of their investigation which was also leaked. Find a homophobe state representative to propose her impeachment because SHE WAS RIGHT about marriage laws... but he's still a homophobe.
Did I mention I was from Montgomery County? Two of those Appeals related to the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. My divorce has been before 20 members of the Montgomery County Judiciary. In 2011, Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio, wife of Grand Jury Special Prosecutor Thomas Carluccio and then-President of the Montgomery County Bar Association, issued a deliberately defective and void order in clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction causing absolute judicial immunity to be unavailable for the entire bench. She did it to conceal another defective and void order in the matter from 2007 which undermined every proceeding, denied the rule of law, constitutional rights and subjected me to a level of injustice, surveillance and harassment that should have lead to suicide. Apparently, no court will address the defective and void order. And certainly not when it will 'clear the bench' and subject each judge to liability for damages.
The scandal of Rule 1.6 is big. Very big. Huge. It has been referred to as 'the worst kept secret in Pennsylvania" but is a national crisis. HUGE.
On CNN in November, Kane indicated:
“I knew that I was walking into public corruption. Which again is why I ran.”
“But I will tell you this. Even I am shocked at the level of public corruption.”
“I am shocked at how deep it goes.
I am shocked at how powerful it is.
I have never seen anything like this. It’s breathtaking.
It has been described by the people familiar with what is happening as shameful.”
“But, if this can be done to me as Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of the 5th largest state in the country, I am sickened to think what can and may be done to regular, good people who don’t have the resources that I have to challenge it.”
If you are thinking that this whackjob just doesn't want to be divorced. WRONG. When you have no protection of the law and no constitutional rights, you have no life. Every crime committed against you is ignored and excused. Every fraud and false allegation is prosecuted to the fullest extent by a 'corrupted' judiciary. Any success can be taken from you by false litigation. I have been unemployed since March 2007. Homeless since 2011. Destitute since 2007. Involved in constant litigation since 2007. When you have no rights, you face 3 possible destinations... 1) Homeless/Destitute 2) Incarcerated 3) Suicide.
UnConstitutional Law ? SILENCE ... (Secret Orders + Secret Courts)*Appeals + Grand Jury = SILENCE.
While it is clear why Attorney General Kathleen Kane is being SILENT, why has the news media neglected to present the story?
No comments:
Post a Comment