STATEMENT BY PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KATHLEEN KANE
Monday, November 17, 2014
Norristown, Pennsylvania
=========================================
As many of you know, I initiated an independent inquiry into the way the Sandusky investigation was conducted -- a central concern raised during my campaign for Attorney General. During that investigation, thousands of emails were discovered sent and received by Pennsylvania public officials that contained pornographic materials. As a result of multiple requests to the Office of Attorney General under Pennsylvania's broad Right to Know Law, I released most of these emails to the media and the public.
The Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a recently published opinion, described the attachments to these emails as "clearly pornographic" and possibly criminal. As a result, many senior public officials involved in these emails resigned. But others remain on the public payrolls, as the Chief Justice pointed out.
Today I am due to testify before a Pennsylvania Grand Jury, as has been publicly reported. However, due to continuous, even overlapping court orders since last March, I am not allowed to explain why I am testifying or what my testimony has to do with the release of the pornographic emails under the Right to Know law. These court orders also expose me to legal risk if I do my job as Attorney General that I was elected and trusted by the people of
Pennsylvania to do. I am not allowed at this time to explain why.
The Office of Attorney General has cooperated from the beginning of this process and I will do the same. I will tell the Special Prosecutor the truth and the facts surrounding the disclosure of information to the public that was done in a way that did not violate statutory or case law regarding Grand Jury secrecy.
Despite my present situation that restricts my ability to answer your questions, I remain committed to the central theme of my campaign -- transparency in government. The public has a right to know what public officials are doing or not doing with taxpayer dollars and whether they are doing their jobs properly or attempting to investigate or prosecute possible criminal conduct.
I promised I would expose corruption and abuse of the legal system. I understand that there are those on the public payroll who stand to lose their jobs and who may feel threatened by our commitment to expose them. I will not be deterred. The winds of change can only blow through open windows. My administration is being prevented from prying open the windows that corruption has nailed shut. But that change is coming.
The right of the public and media to know what public officials are doing is vital and should be protected by public officials, the media, and the people of Pennsylvania. I am fighting for the right of the Attorney General to do my job without interference.
But more importantly, I am fighting for an end to abuse of the criminal justice system, for transparency, and for better government. That doesn't come without cost to us. 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.
In conclusion, I wish I could say more and answer all your questions but I cannot. But I can promise you this: The truth and the law will prevail.
Showing posts with label GENERAL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GENERAL. Show all posts
Monday, November 17, 2014
Monday, June 2, 2014
"What is right is not always the same as what is legal."
Edward Snowden makes a very valid point... He is not condoning that everyone break the law.DID YOU KNOW... there was a constitutional challenge to Rule 1.6 of the rules of professional conduct filed on August 8, 2013 and served upon every state attorney general.
Every state Attorney General has failed to address the loss of the constitutional rights of people in the state courts because a 'law' makes it illegal to prosecute judicial corruption.
Every District Attorney also does nothing. Every lawyer also fails to act.
How's that for an example to a 'legal' state law which should not be followed BECAUSE OF IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESULT.
The good news is that Rule 1.6 does not have to be followed by THE PEOPLE unless you are mandated to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct which applies to lawyers and legal professionals.
The bad news is that the LAW which MANDATES the failure to prosecute judicial corruption and injustice is concealed in the rules which only affect lawyers conduct.
The bad news is that the LAW which MANDATES that legal professionals not take any action which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary EVEN WHEN IT CAUSES THE DENIAL OF RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES PROTECTED BY THE US CONSTITUTION was enacted by the judiciary.
The bad news is that the LAW results in disciplinary actions against any legal professional who breaches the confidentiality of information.
The bad news is that the LAW is unconstitutional AND a nullity BUT that determination must be made by a court which by LAW may not take any action which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary.
The bad news is that the lower court actions/decision on appeal presents the issue to an appeals court which by LAW may not take any action which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary.
The bad news is that escalation for review to a state supreme court which by LAW may not take any action which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary.
The bad news is that state supreme court enacted THAT LAW. The state supreme court is not obligated to act where their decision would incriminate the state supreme court.
The bad news is upon presentation of the constitutional issue to the us district court, the judiciary improperly dismisses the matter.
The bad news is upon appeal to the Third Circuit, the appeals court improperly affirms the lower court decision without substantiation.
The bad news is upon raising the issue to the US Supreme Court, the court may choose to ignore the matter entirely. Realistically, the US Supreme Court is not likely to expose the sedition of the judiciary in every state. In the national interest of preventing civil unrest, they permit the state to continue to deny the constitutional rights of people.
THE US CONSTITUTION grants authority and jurisdiction to the US Supreme Court through the US Congress.
The bad news is that when you contact your US Senators and Representatives, you discover they are lawyers - mandated to obey THAT law and take no action.
"WHAT IS RIGHT IS NOT ALWAYS THE SAME AS WHAT IS LEGAL." - Edward Snowden
The Judicial Branch made judicial corruption and injustice legal, and in doing so they undermined the US Constitution.
Edward Snowden is speaking DIRECTLY to the US ATTORNEY GENERAL...
Edward Snowden is speaking DIRECTLY to the ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES...
Edward Snowden is speaking to the US Congress...
The Constitutional Crisis in the US can only lawfully be addressed by Eric Holder, the US Attorney General, the Attorneys General of the United States, or the US Congress.
According to the law, the petition for action cannot be from a legal professional.
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed on August 8. 2013 and served on the Attorneys General of the United States by Terance Healy and Todd M. Krautheim. Pro Se litigants. Non-lawyers. Lawfully acting to address an unconstitutional law.
When a law mandates that lawyers ignore corruption and injustice, WHAT IS RIGHT IS NOT ALWAYS THE SAME AS WHAT IS LEGAL.
Friday, May 23, 2014
The Constitutional Crisis in the US
There have been many groups attempting to address the constitutional crisis in the United States. Their approaches include the following:
Civil Disobediance
Constitutional Conventions
Court Reforms
Revolution
Enacting New Laws
Grand Juries
Unfortunately, the same problem which is causing the crisis prevents those approaches from being successful.
Where a national approach is necessary, Americans are very apathetic when it comes to their rights. Those who are unaware that they have lost their rights are content to ignore the people who have lost their rights.
Once you experience a loss of rights, you will be forced to turn to the very courts which deny your rights for a resolution. A court where no one will acknowledge your loss of rights. A Court where the issue is ignored with a deliberate silence that overwhelms the matter.
The best definition I have found for the victim of this type of inescapable loss of rights is...
Those in govt did not expect proactive attempts at a resolution. This may be why the government is trying to get guns off the streets while seemingly preparing for a sort of martial law in every community.
The government never expected anyone to find the needle in the haystack of injustice.
It was a necessity in my case. I needed to find out why the courts and every level of law enforcement failed to address the denial of my constitutional rights while annihilating every aspect of my life in the process. The injustice continually delivered by the 20 judges over the course of my court appearances since 2007.
Nationally, 30 years of denial of constitutional rights could come to an end.
Once I knew the problem, everyone's failure to take action on my behalf was clear. I had an explanation. FINALLY.
ONE LAW. Enacted by the Supreme Courts in each state. IS THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM. Same 'law' in every state. Same number. Same Name. Rule 1.6 - Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rule 1.6 makes it illegal for a lawyer to address the problem. I am not a lawyer.
Rule 1.6 makes it illegal for a state Attorney General to address the problem. They are lawyers mandated to follow the rule or face disciplinary action... disciplinary action is swift to occur and deliberately intended to prevent exposure of the unconstitutional 'law'. Disciplinary proceedings are kept CONFIDENTIAL.
The 'law' in place makes it illegal for the state Supreme Courts to fix the problem the state Supreme courts caused when they enacted the 'law'.
The 'law' in place makes it illegal for lawyers within the legislature to fix the problem caused when the state Supreme Courts enacted the 'law'.
Truth be told, Most lawyers just accept it and had no idea what caused the constitutional crisis.
Lawyers who knew the effect were the same lawyers who foreclosed on millions of Americans and threw people out of their homes. An act of judicial misconduct or fraud upon the court was all that was required to cause the loss of rights. Fraudulent robo-signed documents served to the court.
The DOJ and the Courts (every level of the Courts) were all aware of the Constitutional Crisis. The 'law' makes it illegal for them to take any action to fix the problem.
Only one person in government would be able to lawfully address the problem. BUT, doing so would expose the active participation of every member of the judiciary and the membership of American Bar Association in the matter. Every judge and lawyer in the country.
Rule 1.6 was enacted into law starting in 1984 in New Jersey. Quietly and gradually it was enacted in every state.
When Rule 1.6 was a trade code, it was a guideline for legal professionals. HOWEVER, when enacted into law, CONFIDENTIALITY became a MANDATE for all lawyers, district attorneys and attorneys general.
When it became a mandate people experienced the denial of constitutionally protected rights and liberties. This denial was committed by the courts and the entire judiciary. Those responsible to make sure a persons rights were available to them in a courtroom were the very ones ignoring people's rights. The denial was done without mercy by those who knew their actions were unconstitutional, but the 'law' mandated the denial of those rights and liberties. An Appeal to a higher court would only cause the same results, because the courts are mandated to keep the injustice CONFIDENTIAL. Opinions from higher courts became documents of misinformation which ignored the lower courts injustice.
Any law which denies rights and privileges guaranteed by the US Constitution is a nullity. And while the judges and lawyers know this, they allowed Rule 1.6 to undermine the courts, the law and the constitution in every state.
The failure of lawyers and judges to stop the deliberate injustice demonstrates the intimidating and threatening disciplinary power of the courts conspiracy of confidentiality. The courts self-regulation disciplinary processes used to conceal the court's injustice.
THE US ATTORNEY GENERAL
The US Attorney General may not be prevented from addressing issues regarding ANY LAW in the country. Rule 1.6 does not prevent the US Attorney General from action. I think the mess is considered so massive, that the US Attorney General have opted to permit the continued injustice to occur instead of having civil unrest throughout the nation..
The only other person in the country who could lawfully address the matter is a pro se litigant (non-lawyer) who has experienced the injustice, survived the injustice, found the cause of the injustice, documented the injustice, and would have standing to address the matter in the Federal Courts. THEY NEVER ANTICIPATED THIS POSSIBILITY. It was the last place I looked. Only when it was realized that everyone who was failing to act had to directly or indirectly follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. They were lawyers or were guided by lawyers.
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed on August 8 2013 and served upon every state Attorney General.
No news media has carried the story. We tried.
The Federal Courts have deliberately acted improperly to attempt to dismiss the matter. This causes more courts to become involved in the actions to continue
The State Attorneys General failed to respond to the Summons & Challenge. Rule 1.6 mandates their silence. They defaulted.
Currently in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals with the anticipation it must go on to the US Supreme Court, the recommendation of certiori by the Third Circuit judiciary would be beneficial.
Since August 2013, you may have noticed changes in the justice system. The quick end to some injustice which has caused people to be released from jail. The government seems to be preparing to restore justice. But simply put they know that people are going to be angry. Justifiably angry.
I never imagined I'd find the fix. But like I said, I had no choice. The victims are relegated to homelessness, prison or suicide... and that was just not an option for me.
Once Rule 1.6 is out of the way, justice and the constitution and the law will be restored.
The US Judiciary has been permitted to self regulate their courts. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 exposes that the courts betrayed the trust of the People and were unable to handle that responsibility.
Civil Disobediance
Constitutional Conventions
Court Reforms
Revolution
Enacting New Laws
Grand Juries
Unfortunately, the same problem which is causing the crisis prevents those approaches from being successful.
Where a national approach is necessary, Americans are very apathetic when it comes to their rights. Those who are unaware that they have lost their rights are content to ignore the people who have lost their rights.
Once you experience a loss of rights, you will be forced to turn to the very courts which deny your rights for a resolution. A court where no one will acknowledge your loss of rights. A Court where the issue is ignored with a deliberate silence that overwhelms the matter.
The best definition I have found for the victim of this type of inescapable loss of rights is...
| "I am a sane man dealing with an absolutely insane situation. Every person in a position to help has acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter… they each make the situation worse… NO ONE HELPS" |
Those in govt did not expect proactive attempts at a resolution. This may be why the government is trying to get guns off the streets while seemingly preparing for a sort of martial law in every community.
The government never expected anyone to find the needle in the haystack of injustice.
It was a necessity in my case. I needed to find out why the courts and every level of law enforcement failed to address the denial of my constitutional rights while annihilating every aspect of my life in the process. The injustice continually delivered by the 20 judges over the course of my court appearances since 2007.
Nationally, 30 years of denial of constitutional rights could come to an end.
Once I knew the problem, everyone's failure to take action on my behalf was clear. I had an explanation. FINALLY.
ONE LAW. Enacted by the Supreme Courts in each state. IS THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM. Same 'law' in every state. Same number. Same Name. Rule 1.6 - Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rule 1.6 makes it illegal for a lawyer to address the problem. I am not a lawyer.
Rule 1.6 makes it illegal for a state Attorney General to address the problem. They are lawyers mandated to follow the rule or face disciplinary action... disciplinary action is swift to occur and deliberately intended to prevent exposure of the unconstitutional 'law'. Disciplinary proceedings are kept CONFIDENTIAL.
The 'law' in place makes it illegal for the state Supreme Courts to fix the problem the state Supreme courts caused when they enacted the 'law'.
The 'law' in place makes it illegal for lawyers within the legislature to fix the problem caused when the state Supreme Courts enacted the 'law'.
Truth be told, Most lawyers just accept it and had no idea what caused the constitutional crisis.
Lawyers who knew the effect were the same lawyers who foreclosed on millions of Americans and threw people out of their homes. An act of judicial misconduct or fraud upon the court was all that was required to cause the loss of rights. Fraudulent robo-signed documents served to the court.
The DOJ and the Courts (every level of the Courts) were all aware of the Constitutional Crisis. The 'law' makes it illegal for them to take any action to fix the problem.
Only one person in government would be able to lawfully address the problem. BUT, doing so would expose the active participation of every member of the judiciary and the membership of American Bar Association in the matter. Every judge and lawyer in the country.
Rule 1.6 was enacted into law starting in 1984 in New Jersey. Quietly and gradually it was enacted in every state.
When Rule 1.6 was a trade code, it was a guideline for legal professionals. HOWEVER, when enacted into law, CONFIDENTIALITY became a MANDATE for all lawyers, district attorneys and attorneys general.
When it became a mandate people experienced the denial of constitutionally protected rights and liberties. This denial was committed by the courts and the entire judiciary. Those responsible to make sure a persons rights were available to them in a courtroom were the very ones ignoring people's rights. The denial was done without mercy by those who knew their actions were unconstitutional, but the 'law' mandated the denial of those rights and liberties. An Appeal to a higher court would only cause the same results, because the courts are mandated to keep the injustice CONFIDENTIAL. Opinions from higher courts became documents of misinformation which ignored the lower courts injustice.
Any law which denies rights and privileges guaranteed by the US Constitution is a nullity. And while the judges and lawyers know this, they allowed Rule 1.6 to undermine the courts, the law and the constitution in every state.
The failure of lawyers and judges to stop the deliberate injustice demonstrates the intimidating and threatening disciplinary power of the courts conspiracy of confidentiality. The courts self-regulation disciplinary processes used to conceal the court's injustice.
THE US ATTORNEY GENERAL
The US Attorney General may not be prevented from addressing issues regarding ANY LAW in the country. Rule 1.6 does not prevent the US Attorney General from action. I think the mess is considered so massive, that the US Attorney General have opted to permit the continued injustice to occur instead of having civil unrest throughout the nation..
The only other person in the country who could lawfully address the matter is a pro se litigant (non-lawyer) who has experienced the injustice, survived the injustice, found the cause of the injustice, documented the injustice, and would have standing to address the matter in the Federal Courts. THEY NEVER ANTICIPATED THIS POSSIBILITY. It was the last place I looked. Only when it was realized that everyone who was failing to act had to directly or indirectly follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. They were lawyers or were guided by lawyers.
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed on August 8 2013 and served upon every state Attorney General.
No news media has carried the story. We tried.
The Federal Courts have deliberately acted improperly to attempt to dismiss the matter. This causes more courts to become involved in the actions to continue
The State Attorneys General failed to respond to the Summons & Challenge. Rule 1.6 mandates their silence. They defaulted.
Currently in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals with the anticipation it must go on to the US Supreme Court, the recommendation of certiori by the Third Circuit judiciary would be beneficial.
Since August 2013, you may have noticed changes in the justice system. The quick end to some injustice which has caused people to be released from jail. The government seems to be preparing to restore justice. But simply put they know that people are going to be angry. Justifiably angry.
I never imagined I'd find the fix. But like I said, I had no choice. The victims are relegated to homelessness, prison or suicide... and that was just not an option for me.
Once Rule 1.6 is out of the way, justice and the constitution and the law will be restored.
| When South Africa was writing their Constitution they recognized that the apartheid in South Africa was extended by the courts who falsely imprisoned civil rights activists. The courts were used to intimidate and threaten the people. The Courts were the enforcers of apartheid. South Africa's Constitution makes sure that their judiciary is the weakest and most vulnerable branch of their government. |
The US Judiciary has been permitted to self regulate their courts. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 exposes that the courts betrayed the trust of the People and were unable to handle that responsibility.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Preemptive Claim - The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
Those of you who have read the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 may have noticed that IT IS NOT A 1983 Claim. That was deliberate. 1983 Claims get dismissed almost immediately.
The Constitutional Challenge is called a Preemptive Claim/Constitutional Challenge.
As the matter is proceeding to the United States Supreme Court, the documents will be marked specifically as a Preemptive Claim.
Here's why.....
The Bivens remedy has never been considered the proper vehicle for altering an entity's policies, injunctive relief has long been recognized as the proper means for preventing entities from acting unconstitutionally.
Damages and attorney fees are NOT available in preemptive claims.
The Preemption cause of action's weakness – lack of damages – is also its strength.
The Supreme Court is comfortable with injunctive relief against states when sovereign immunity bars damages, so recognizing preemptive claims for injunctive relief does not send up the same alarms as Section 1983 suits do.
With respect to injunctive relief, the typical relief in a preemption case is invalidation of the preempted state or local law, regulation, or agency order and an injunction against enforcing it.
The preemption cause of action arises from the Constitution's Supremacy clause, not from a statute, and thus congressional intent is irrelevant to the existence of the cause of action: “In this type of action, it is the interests protected by the Supremacy Clause, not by the preempting statute, that are at issue."
Preemption under the Supremacy Clause “concerns the federal structure of the Nation rather that the securing of rights, privileges, and immunities to individuals.”
Remedies designed to end a continuing violation of federal law are necessary to vindicate the federal interest in assuring the supremacy of that law.
The option to sue for injunctive relief under the Supremacy Clause... is almost always available.
The core principle is a state or local law, regulation official written policy, or agency order that is invalid because it conflicts with a federal statute or frustrates Congress' objectives. Relief then revolves around invalidating the state or local action to the extent that it conflicts with federal law and enjoining the state or local government from implementing it.
The preemptive cause of action originates in the Constitution. The Supreme Court's implicit recognition of the preemption cause of action is well entrenched and would be difficult to reverse.
The Court must pay attention to the broader purposes and may not rest the decision on the phrasing of a particular subsection.
Jurisdiction and standing requirements, including causation and redressability, must be met.
Preemption is intended for use in situations which challenge a state or local law, regulation, written policy, or administrative order.
Preemption claims may generally be brought only against government officials.
The Supreme Court's decisions construing the scope of Section 1983 and related jurisdictional statutes are irrelevant to the scope of supremacy clause preemption claims that are not based on Section 1983.
WHAT IS THEIR MOTIVATION? Why does the court wish to continue to sacrifice the integrity of every judge in the US and mandate continued injustice and corruption.
The Constitutional Challenge is called a Preemptive Claim/Constitutional Challenge.
As the matter is proceeding to the United States Supreme Court, the documents will be marked specifically as a Preemptive Claim.
Here's why.....
The Bivens remedy has never been considered the proper vehicle for altering an entity's policies, injunctive relief has long been recognized as the proper means for preventing entities from acting unconstitutionally.
Damages and attorney fees are NOT available in preemptive claims.
| WE DIDN'T ASK FOR DAMAGES. WE ASKED FOR OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO BE RESTORED. |
The Preemption cause of action's weakness – lack of damages – is also its strength.
The Supreme Court is comfortable with injunctive relief against states when sovereign immunity bars damages, so recognizing preemptive claims for injunctive relief does not send up the same alarms as Section 1983 suits do.
With respect to injunctive relief, the typical relief in a preemption case is invalidation of the preempted state or local law, regulation, or agency order and an injunction against enforcing it.
The preemption cause of action arises from the Constitution's Supremacy clause, not from a statute, and thus congressional intent is irrelevant to the existence of the cause of action: “In this type of action, it is the interests protected by the Supremacy Clause, not by the preempting statute, that are at issue."
| YOUR EVIDENCE IS THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. THEIR DEFENSE MUST PROVE THAT RULE 1.6 IS NOT THE CAUSE. THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL WILL BE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY DO NOT PROSECUTE CORRUPTION AND INJUSTICE... and RULE 1.6 WILL MANDATE THEY SAY NOTHING. |
Preemption under the Supremacy Clause “concerns the federal structure of the Nation rather that the securing of rights, privileges, and immunities to individuals.”
| A NATIONAL ISSUE, WE SERVED THE CHALLENGE ON EVERY STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL. |
Remedies designed to end a continuing violation of federal law are necessary to vindicate the federal interest in assuring the supremacy of that law.
The option to sue for injunctive relief under the Supremacy Clause... is almost always available.
The core principle is a state or local law, regulation official written policy, or agency order that is invalid because it conflicts with a federal statute or frustrates Congress' objectives. Relief then revolves around invalidating the state or local action to the extent that it conflicts with federal law and enjoining the state or local government from implementing it.
| DECLARING RULE 1.6 UNCONSTITUTIONAL. |
The preemptive cause of action originates in the Constitution. The Supreme Court's implicit recognition of the preemption cause of action is well entrenched and would be difficult to reverse.
The Court must pay attention to the broader purposes and may not rest the decision on the phrasing of a particular subsection.
Jurisdiction and standing requirements, including causation and redressability, must be met.
| THIS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED REPEATEDLY FOR THE COURT IN EVERY FILING. |
Preemption is intended for use in situations which challenge a state or local law, regulation, written policy, or administrative order.
Preemption claims may generally be brought only against government officials.
| SERVED TO 56 STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL. |
The Supreme Court's decisions construing the scope of Section 1983 and related jurisdictional statutes are irrelevant to the scope of supremacy clause preemption claims that are not based on Section 1983.
| THOSE MISGUIDED SUGGESTIONS THAT OUR CASE IS A 1983 CASE ARE DELIBERATE. THE JUDGES PRETEND IT IS A 1983 CASE AND DISMISS IMPROPERLY. MISGUIDE, MISINFORM, MISDIRECT... |
WHAT IS THEIR MOTIVATION? Why does the court wish to continue to sacrifice the integrity of every judge in the US and mandate continued injustice and corruption.
Monday, March 17, 2014
ARTICLE V – THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Jurisdiction was improperly removed from the Attorney General to the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court per Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
When acting per Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court may not deny constitutionally protected rights and privileges.
Attorney General Kathleen Kane had proper jurisdiction because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not have authority to remove jurisdiction from the Attorney General where it denied constitutionally protected rights and privileges.
Attorney General Kathleen Kane failed to act and did not enforce the law or address the Plaintiff's matters.
RETURN TO REPLY BRIEF INDEX
When acting per Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court may not deny constitutionally protected rights and privileges.
Attorney General Kathleen Kane had proper jurisdiction because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not have authority to remove jurisdiction from the Attorney General where it denied constitutionally protected rights and privileges.
Attorney General Kathleen Kane failed to act and did not enforce the law or address the Plaintiff's matters.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
KEEP CALM and CHALLENGE RULE 1.6
Robo-signing is an act of fraud upon the court. Once committed it results in the loss of constitutional rights and liberties from which any recovery by a litigant is obstructed, denied and prevented by Rule 1.6.
Any act of fraud or judicial misconduct can trigger the loss of constitutionally protected rights and liberties.
Rule 1.6 makes it legal for lawyers and judges to ignore you and to terrorize you without explanation.
Rule 1.6 makes the illegal lawful when committed by lawyers and judges.
Rule 1.6 also prevents any lawyer or judge from helping resolve any matter or helping to restore your rights. The only thing a lawyer can do after the Rule has been triggered is take your money... and get you to hopelessness, despair and suicide faster.
It wasn't always like this... Rule 1.6 was enacted into law. It was not constructed by a Legislature. It was not signed by any Governor. The Supreme Court in each state enacted the law which they are not lawfully permitted to revoke, rescind or annul.
Rule 1.6 went from being a guideline not to expose or prosecute judicial misconduct and corruption TO BEING A LAW WHICH DISCIPLINED ANY ATTORNEY OR JUDGE WHO TRIED TO EXPOSE JUDICIAL CORRUPTION MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY STATE TO PROSECUTE JUDGES AND UNLAWFUL FOR ANY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR ATTORNEY GENERAL TO REQUEST A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION.
IT IS NEVER TO YOUR ADVANTAGE TO BE UNINFORMED.
http://www.facebook.com/groups/ChallengeRule1.6/
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Filed October 18, 2013 in US District Court
Filed on October 18, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
(PDF version)
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
(PDF Version)
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS UNDER RULE 36
(PDF version)
Certificate of Service (PDF version)
There seems to be NUMEROUS issues relating to the Federal Court Docket for Case# 13-4614.
Not only where items have been docketed improperly in paragraph form, but where they have been entered incorrectly resulting in necessary documents being concealed from view.
There is also the issue of the entire case docket being concealed from view in the PACER system.
The Federal Docket should read as follows:
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
(PDF version)
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
(PDF Version)
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS UNDER RULE 36
(PDF version)
Certificate of Service (PDF version)
The Federal Docket
There seems to be NUMEROUS issues relating to the Federal Court Docket for Case# 13-4614.
Not only where items have been docketed improperly in paragraph form, but where they have been entered incorrectly resulting in necessary documents being concealed from view.
There is also the issue of the entire case docket being concealed from view in the PACER system.
The Federal Docket should read as follows:
| 08/08/2013 | 1 | COMPLAINT - CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE filed by Terance Healy, Todd M. Krautheim; and Filing Fee $400 receipt number PPE0086455; and Civil Cover Sheet; and Case Management Track Designation Form; |
| 08/08/2013 | SUMMONS ISSUED TO GREG ABBOTT, American Samoa Attorney General, LUIS SÁNCHEZ BETANCES, JOSEPH R. “BEAU” BIDEN, III, PAM BONDI, JON BRUNING, JAMES D. “BUDDY” CALDWELL, MARTHA COAKLEY, JACK CONWAY, ROBERT E. COOPER, JR., ROY COOPER, KEN CUCCINELLI, MIKE DEWINE, BOB FERGUSON, JOSEPH A. FOSTER, TIM FOX, VINCENT FRAZER, DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, MICHAEL GERAGHTY, KAMALA HARRIS, JOHN JAY HOFFMAN, JIM HOOD, TOM HORNE, MARTY J. JACKLEY, GEORGE JEPSEN, KATHLEEN KANE, PETER KILMARTIN, GARY KING, CHRIS KOSTER, DAVID LOUIE, LISA MADIGAN, CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, DUSTIN MCDANIEL, PETER K. MICHAEL, TOM MILLER, JANET T. MILLS, PATRICK MORRISEY, IRVIN NATHAN, SAM OLENS, SCOTT PRUITT, LENNY RAPADAS, ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM, JOEY PATRICK SAN NICOLAS, DEREK SCHMIDT, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, BILL SCHUETTE, WILLIAM H. SORRELL, WAYNE STENEHJEM, LUTHER STRANGE, JOHN SUTHERS, JOHN SWALLOW, LORI SWANSON, J.B. VAN HOLLEN, LAWRENCE WASDEN, ALAN WILSON, GREG ZOELLER. Forwarded to Pro Se on 8/9/13 | |
| 08/08/2013 | Special Case Management Track | |
| 09/06/2013 | 2 | PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE AND FOR WAIVER OF PRO HAC VICE REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-PENNSYLVANIA DEFENDANTS; and PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF THE RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE AND WAIVER OF PRO HAC VICE REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-PENNSYLVANIA DEFENDANTS; and CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. Modified on 9/9/2013 |
| 09/06/2013 | 3 | NOTICE of request for ECF filing; and CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FOR INITIAL FILING. Entered on 9/9/2013 |
| 09/09/2013 | 4 | Letter dated 9/6/2013 from Terance Healy, Todd M. Krautheim re: Request for ECF Filing. Entered on 09/09/2013 |
| 09/11/2013 | 5 | PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE AND FOR WAIVER OF PRO HAC VICE REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-PENNSYLVANIA DEFENDANTS; and CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. Entered 09/11/2013 |
| 09/16/2013 | 6 | ORDER "AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 2013, upon consideration of Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane's request for extension of the responsive pleading deadline and waiver of the pro hac vice requirements for non-Pennsylvania defendants, and plaintiffs' response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the request is GRANTED. The non-Pennsylvania defendants shall not be required to file a responsive pleading to plaintiff's pro se complaint until thirty days after the Court rules on Attorney General Kathleen Kanes's notion to dismiss the complaint. It is further ORDERED that if the non-Pennsylvania defendants are required to file a responsive pleading, the pro hac vice requirements for the non-Pennsylvania defendants are waived. Plaintiffs do not oppose this waiver." Signed by Honorable Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr on 09/16/2013. Entered on 09/17/2013 |
| 09/27/2013 | 7 | ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE's MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; and ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; and CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . Entered on 09/27/2013 |
| 10/18/2013 | 8 | PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; and MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; and PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS UNDER RULE 36; and CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE; and MOTION FOR ECF FILING and AFFIDAVIT FOR ENTRY OF CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS PREVIOUSLY FILED AND DOCKETED on September 6, 2013 as CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. |
Friday, October 18, 2013
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
(PDF Version)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. Plaintiffs have filed this Constitutional Challenge on behalf of themselves and in the name of the United States and properly served it upon Attorneys General of the United States challenging the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct as the rule causes the complete denial of constitutionally protected rights while subverting justice and corrupting the judiciary. (Initial Pleading August 8, 2013, #5 Statement of Claim)
LAWFUL ACTION
3. Plaintiffs are subject to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States of America.
4. The Attorneys General are subject to the laws of their respective states and the United States of America. The Attorneys General, as attorneys, are required to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct.
5. Plaintiffs have stated that they are NOT BOUND by the Rules of Professional Conduct and, as such, are lawfully permitted to take this action to address the unlawfully enacted, improperly constructed, unjust and unconstitutional law.
6. Pursuant to Rule 1.6, the Attorneys General cannot lawfully take any action to address the constitutionality, the lack of enforcement, and the judicial corruption which mandates a loss of judicial integrity. Paradoxically, the continued injustice for the victims denied their rights and liberties is an indirect result of Rule 1.6.
7. The fifty six (56) Attorneys General of the United States, have yet to file a responsive pleading to the August 8, 2013 Challenge with any defenses, admissions or denials of the allegations or the substance of the constitutional issue.
RESPONSIBILITY
8. The Attorneys General have a responsibility and jurisdiction to address the constitutionality of laws in their respective states, as such Plaintiffs have served the Attorney General with the Constitutional Challenge pursuant to Rule 5.1(a)(2).
9. Attorney General Kane’s Motion to Dismiss is approaching this challenge as a §1983 complaint and citing case law which does not apply to a Constitutional Challenge, or to the Plaintiffs who have taken on the role usually presented by an Attorney General.
10. There is no case law, precedent or citations available which addresses the lawful, but unconstitutional, overthrow of every state government where the Judiciary usurps the power of the Governor and the Legislature and prevents prosecution for sedition and treason against the person(s) or organization involved..
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” - Abraham Lincoln ¹
11. Article III of the Constitution grants the Judicial Branch authority to adjudicate cases and controversies. Plaintiffs have presented their case, controversies and injuries in their initial pleading, and specifically in paragraphs #5, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, and 75. The Plaintiffs’ have a direct stake in the matters which are redressable by this Federal Court.
12. The Constitutional Challenge (#13-4614) filed on August 8, 2013 is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety, and specifically for the paragraphs above mentioned.
13. Attorney General Kane’s statement regarding the constitutionality of the law having no effect on the plaintiffs is a gross misstatement. Rule 1.6 mandates those who are bound by the rule to conceal injustice; ignore corruption; dismiss crime; endorse judicial misconduct; and deny any lawful ability or jurisdiction to enforce the law. These types of neglectful actions have had an effect on the Plaintiffs, and the entire country.
14. Attorney General Kane has publicly stated that
“The Attorney General has a multitude of duties. The first is to protect and defend and obey the Constitution of the United States and of Pennsylvania. The oath that I took on January 15 said exactly that.”
“One of the other duties is to enforce all of the laws of the Commonwealth until such time as a court tells you otherwise. I will do just that.”
“Another one of the Attorney General duties is to act as the lawyer for all of the state agencies including the Governor and the Secretary of Health.”
“ I am protecting and defending the Constitution as I see fit. I will enforce all of the laws of the Commonwealth.”
“As a lawyer, I am a lawyer first. I must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
- Face the State, Sunday August 18, 2013 ²
15. As a lawyer, who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6 has overruled the Law, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the Constitution of the United States, while preventing the Attorney General – the top law enforcement officer in the state - from lawful action.
16. Rule 1.6 has additionally enabled County District Attorneys to usurp law enforcement power from the County Sheriff – the highest law enforcement officer in the county.
17. Where all law enforcement activity (investigation and prosecution) must be authorized by the County District Attorney or the Attorney General – both of whom MUST be attorneys who MUST follow the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6 effectively denies victims of any course of action to address judicial misconduct, judicial corruption, or any criminal action which will expose judicial misconduct or corruption, or criminal activities which are endorsed by a member of the judiciary.
PLAINTIFFS CLAIM AND STANDING FOR RELIEF
18. The settled rule in the Third Circuit, as in all Federal Courts, is that “dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate only if it is beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” To make this determination the court must “accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom.”
19. Statements in documents filed in this Court by Attorney General Kane support and confirm the validity and truth of Plaintiff’s allegations regarding (1) the failure to enforce the law ³, (2) the responsibility for the law ³ and (3) the ignorance of the damages caused as a result of the law ³.
20. Attorney General Kathleen Kane has ignored and denied the Plaintiffs any opportunity to present their case and their loss of rights and liberties. This has also been the case with predecessors Linda Kelly and Tom Corbett.
21. The Attorney General has lawfully (pursuant to Rule 1.6) denied the Plaintiffs any remedy to their continued denial of constitutionally protected rights and liberties.
22. The allegations in the Challenge indicate denial of access to the courts for redress of grievances. Plaintiffs will clearly demonstrate the denial to have their cases heard by an unbiased tribunal; with notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it; with opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken; the right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses; the right to know opposing evidence; the right to cross examine adverse witnesses; a decision based on the evidence presented; the requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of evidence presented; the requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.
23. Plaintiffs are requesting the constitutional determination of this court and requesting such preventive relief for a permanent resolution which is necessary to restore their constitutionally protected rights and liberties as citizens of the United States.
24. Standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute is accurate where the statute would otherwise deprive a party of a right or a privilege even where the statute itself does not apply to them.
CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES
25. Attorney General Kane has correctly indicated that Rule 1.6 was enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania without benefit of statutory review and construction by the Legislature or proper signature of the Governor.
26. Pennsylvania Chapter 19 Sub B §1925 – Constitutional Construction of Statutes
“The provisions of every statute shall be severable. If any provision of any statute or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the statute, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby, unless the court finds that the void provisions of the statute are so essentially and inseparably connected with, and so depend upon, the void provision or application, that it cannot be presumed the General Assembly would have enacted the remaining valid provisions without the void one; or unless the court finds that the remaining valid provisions, standing alone, are incomplete and are incapable of being executed in accordance with legislative intent.”
27. Rule 1.6 is severable without affecting the remaining provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
28. Rule 1.6 was not enacted with benefit of the General Assembly and, as such, it cannot be assumed nor ascertained to be an essential part of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
29. Rule 1.6 was not enacted by the General Assembly and, as such, without benefit of the legislative intent controls §1921(a), (b), (c) and the presumptions in ascertaining legislative intent §1922.
30. The Attorney General’s reference to Article V, Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not authorize the Supreme Court the ability to construct and enact laws which usurp enforcement power and mandate confidentiality to conceal and prevent prosecution of criminal actions by legal professionals.
ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES
31. Plaintiffs will present circumstances where the Attorneys General have demonstrated their inability to take action which exposes judicial misconduct, not only for the named plaintiffs, but also for those on whose behalf the plaintiffs have filed – where a large portion of the citizenry have been placed at risk and the Attorneys General have ‘lawfully’ failed to take action to investigate or prosecute.
32. Plaintiffs additionally offer the extreme examples of crimes committed against the citizens of Pennsylvania and the United States which involve actions relating to attorney or judicial misconduct including Cash for Kids (Luzerne County, PA), Foreclosure Crisis (Nationwide), Penn State University Scandal (State College, PA).
33. In each additional example, the crimes were permitted to continue where any investigation/prosecution would have resulted in the exposure of crimes and misconduct where Rule 1.6 mandated confidentiality of information and prevented lawful action by a District Attorney, an Attorney General or any officer of the court.
34. Attorney General Kane will need to further explain how the declaration of a law being UNCONSTITUTIONAL has no effect, or will have no effect on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as stated in her Motion to Dismiss (B).
35. Plaintiffs have not filed this as a personal claim against Attorney General Kathleen Kane seeking damages.
36. Attorney General Kane has been served with the Challenge as the Attorney General is the appropriate person with whom the issue of constitutionality of a state law must be addressed within the state pursuant to Rule 5.1(a)(2), as the other Attorneys General are similarly positioned within their state governments and have been similarly served with the challenge.
37. Plaintiffs have filed a Constitutional Challenge with The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and served it upon the Attorneys General of each state seeking a determination that Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional which will restore the constitutional rights of litigants while restoring the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession and delivering to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.
STANDARDS FOR DEFENSES BY MOTION
38. The standard for subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) has been presented and met by the Plaintiffs.
39. When deciding a 12(b)(1) motion, “dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not appropriate merely because the legal theory alleged is probably false, but only because the right claimed is ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of the Supreme Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.’” Kulick v. Pocono Downs Racing Association 816 F.2d 895, 899 (3d Cir. 1987) (quoting Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666, 94 S. Ct 772, 776, (1974)).
40. The ‘irreducable constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact – an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Id. Internal citations omitted). A particularized injury in one which affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way. Id. At n.1. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the issue complained of. (citing Simon, 426 U.S. at 41). Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. (citing Simon, 426 U.S. at 38).
41. The standard for personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) has been presented and met by the Plaintiffs.
42. The standard for venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) is properly placed in The United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for a civil action:
- where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred;
- where plaintiffs are residents of the judicial district;
- where defendant is an officer of the state acting in official capacity or under color of legal authority.
43. The standard for process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(4) having been commenced on August 8, 2013 with the filing of the Challenge with the District Court; and the US Clerks docketing and issuance of the Summons and Notice.
44. The standard for service of process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) having been accomplished by the direct service of the initial pleading, summons and notice to each Attorney General via United States Postal Service Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested on August 13, 2013. A Certificate of Service including signed receipts from each Attorney General was filed with the District Court Clerk on September 6, 2013.
45. The standard for stating a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) has been presented and met by the Plaintiffs.
46. When deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, a dismissal may only be granted where the allegations fail to state any claim upon which relief can be granted. See Morse v. Lower Merion School District, 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). A court must view all facts, and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); see also Markowitz v. Northeast Land Co., 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1990). However, the Court will construe a pro se Plaintiff’s complaint more liberally and hold it to a less stringent standard than a pleading drafted by an attorney. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 292 (10976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521, 92 S. Ct. 594, 5965 (1972).
47. The general rules of pleading still require only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, not detailed factual allegations. Phillips, 515 F.3d at 231.
48. The Court must “determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Pinkerton v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d Cir 2002).
49. Pro se plaintiffs are often unfamiliar with the formalities of pleading requirements. Recognizing this, the Supreme Court has instructed the district courts to construe pro se complaints liberally and to apply a more flexible standard in determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint than they would in reviewing a pleading submitted by counsel.” (See e.g., Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10, 101 S.Ct. 173, 175-76, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.)
CONCLUSION
50. Plaintiffs represent that while affected by Rule 1.6, they are NOT bound by Rule 1.6 and as such Plaintiffs are in the unique position to be acting lawfully with proper standing while having valid cause for relief in the proper forum for the matter to be addressed.
51. Plaintiffs request that Attorney General Kane’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) be DENIED with prejudice.
52. In the interest of continuing with the stated goal of a “just, speedy and inexpensive determination“ of this action, Plaintiffs request that the Motion to Dismiss be DENIED with prejudice so that the court will not be inundated with 55 further motions for dismissal raising these same standard procedural defenses by the Attorneys General, however DENIED without prejudice to raise the issue in their responsive pleadings to the challenge.
Respectfully,
FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
| Terance Healy | ) |
| Todd M. Krautheim | ) |
| in the name of the United States | ) Civil Action No# 13-4614 |
| ) | |
| v. | ) |
| Kathleen Kane | ) |
| Pennsylvania Attorney General; | ) |
| and | ) |
| The Attorneys General of the United States | ) |
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. Plaintiffs have filed this Constitutional Challenge on behalf of themselves and in the name of the United States and properly served it upon Attorneys General of the United States challenging the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct as the rule causes the complete denial of constitutionally protected rights while subverting justice and corrupting the judiciary. (Initial Pleading August 8, 2013, #5 Statement of Claim)
LAWFUL ACTION
3. Plaintiffs are subject to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States of America.
4. The Attorneys General are subject to the laws of their respective states and the United States of America. The Attorneys General, as attorneys, are required to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct.
5. Plaintiffs have stated that they are NOT BOUND by the Rules of Professional Conduct and, as such, are lawfully permitted to take this action to address the unlawfully enacted, improperly constructed, unjust and unconstitutional law.
6. Pursuant to Rule 1.6, the Attorneys General cannot lawfully take any action to address the constitutionality, the lack of enforcement, and the judicial corruption which mandates a loss of judicial integrity. Paradoxically, the continued injustice for the victims denied their rights and liberties is an indirect result of Rule 1.6.
7. The fifty six (56) Attorneys General of the United States, have yet to file a responsive pleading to the August 8, 2013 Challenge with any defenses, admissions or denials of the allegations or the substance of the constitutional issue.
RESPONSIBILITY
8. The Attorneys General have a responsibility and jurisdiction to address the constitutionality of laws in their respective states, as such Plaintiffs have served the Attorney General with the Constitutional Challenge pursuant to Rule 5.1(a)(2).
9. Attorney General Kane’s Motion to Dismiss is approaching this challenge as a §1983 complaint and citing case law which does not apply to a Constitutional Challenge, or to the Plaintiffs who have taken on the role usually presented by an Attorney General.
10. There is no case law, precedent or citations available which addresses the lawful, but unconstitutional, overthrow of every state government where the Judiciary usurps the power of the Governor and the Legislature and prevents prosecution for sedition and treason against the person(s) or organization involved..
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” - Abraham Lincoln ¹
| 1. “At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” – Abraham Lincoln (from “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions: Address Before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois” January 27, 1838) |
11. Article III of the Constitution grants the Judicial Branch authority to adjudicate cases and controversies. Plaintiffs have presented their case, controversies and injuries in their initial pleading, and specifically in paragraphs #5, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, and 75. The Plaintiffs’ have a direct stake in the matters which are redressable by this Federal Court.
12. The Constitutional Challenge (#13-4614) filed on August 8, 2013 is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety, and specifically for the paragraphs above mentioned.
13. Attorney General Kane’s statement regarding the constitutionality of the law having no effect on the plaintiffs is a gross misstatement. Rule 1.6 mandates those who are bound by the rule to conceal injustice; ignore corruption; dismiss crime; endorse judicial misconduct; and deny any lawful ability or jurisdiction to enforce the law. These types of neglectful actions have had an effect on the Plaintiffs, and the entire country.
14. Attorney General Kane has publicly stated that
“The Attorney General has a multitude of duties. The first is to protect and defend and obey the Constitution of the United States and of Pennsylvania. The oath that I took on January 15 said exactly that.”
“One of the other duties is to enforce all of the laws of the Commonwealth until such time as a court tells you otherwise. I will do just that.”
“Another one of the Attorney General duties is to act as the lawyer for all of the state agencies including the Governor and the Secretary of Health.”
“ I am protecting and defending the Constitution as I see fit. I will enforce all of the laws of the Commonwealth.”
“As a lawyer, I am a lawyer first. I must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
- Face the State, Sunday August 18, 2013 ²
| 2. Face The State with Robb Hanrahan, CBS, 21 News, August 18, 2013 (Edited without affecting context) |
15. As a lawyer, who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6 has overruled the Law, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the Constitution of the United States, while preventing the Attorney General – the top law enforcement officer in the state - from lawful action.
16. Rule 1.6 has additionally enabled County District Attorneys to usurp law enforcement power from the County Sheriff – the highest law enforcement officer in the county.
17. Where all law enforcement activity (investigation and prosecution) must be authorized by the County District Attorney or the Attorney General – both of whom MUST be attorneys who MUST follow the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6 effectively denies victims of any course of action to address judicial misconduct, judicial corruption, or any criminal action which will expose judicial misconduct or corruption, or criminal activities which are endorsed by a member of the judiciary.
PLAINTIFFS CLAIM AND STANDING FOR RELIEF
18. The settled rule in the Third Circuit, as in all Federal Courts, is that “dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate only if it is beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” To make this determination the court must “accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom.”
19. Statements in documents filed in this Court by Attorney General Kane support and confirm the validity and truth of Plaintiff’s allegations regarding (1) the failure to enforce the law ³, (2) the responsibility for the law ³ and (3) the ignorance of the damages caused as a result of the law ³.
| 3. Pennsylvania Attorney General Kane’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Extension of the Responsive Pleading Deadline and Waiver of the Pro Hac Vice Requirements for Non-Pennsylvania Defendants filed September 6, 2013. 3. Attorney General Kane’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Her Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed September 27, 2013. |
20. Attorney General Kathleen Kane has ignored and denied the Plaintiffs any opportunity to present their case and their loss of rights and liberties. This has also been the case with predecessors Linda Kelly and Tom Corbett.
21. The Attorney General has lawfully (pursuant to Rule 1.6) denied the Plaintiffs any remedy to their continued denial of constitutionally protected rights and liberties.
22. The allegations in the Challenge indicate denial of access to the courts for redress of grievances. Plaintiffs will clearly demonstrate the denial to have their cases heard by an unbiased tribunal; with notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it; with opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken; the right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses; the right to know opposing evidence; the right to cross examine adverse witnesses; a decision based on the evidence presented; the requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of evidence presented; the requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.
23. Plaintiffs are requesting the constitutional determination of this court and requesting such preventive relief for a permanent resolution which is necessary to restore their constitutionally protected rights and liberties as citizens of the United States.
24. Standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute is accurate where the statute would otherwise deprive a party of a right or a privilege even where the statute itself does not apply to them.
CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES
25. Attorney General Kane has correctly indicated that Rule 1.6 was enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania without benefit of statutory review and construction by the Legislature or proper signature of the Governor.
26. Pennsylvania Chapter 19 Sub B §1925 – Constitutional Construction of Statutes
“The provisions of every statute shall be severable. If any provision of any statute or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the statute, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby, unless the court finds that the void provisions of the statute are so essentially and inseparably connected with, and so depend upon, the void provision or application, that it cannot be presumed the General Assembly would have enacted the remaining valid provisions without the void one; or unless the court finds that the remaining valid provisions, standing alone, are incomplete and are incapable of being executed in accordance with legislative intent.”
27. Rule 1.6 is severable without affecting the remaining provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
28. Rule 1.6 was not enacted with benefit of the General Assembly and, as such, it cannot be assumed nor ascertained to be an essential part of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
29. Rule 1.6 was not enacted by the General Assembly and, as such, without benefit of the legislative intent controls §1921(a), (b), (c) and the presumptions in ascertaining legislative intent §1922.
30. The Attorney General’s reference to Article V, Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not authorize the Supreme Court the ability to construct and enact laws which usurp enforcement power and mandate confidentiality to conceal and prevent prosecution of criminal actions by legal professionals.
ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES
31. Plaintiffs will present circumstances where the Attorneys General have demonstrated their inability to take action which exposes judicial misconduct, not only for the named plaintiffs, but also for those on whose behalf the plaintiffs have filed – where a large portion of the citizenry have been placed at risk and the Attorneys General have ‘lawfully’ failed to take action to investigate or prosecute.
32. Plaintiffs additionally offer the extreme examples of crimes committed against the citizens of Pennsylvania and the United States which involve actions relating to attorney or judicial misconduct including Cash for Kids (Luzerne County, PA), Foreclosure Crisis (Nationwide), Penn State University Scandal (State College, PA).
33. In each additional example, the crimes were permitted to continue where any investigation/prosecution would have resulted in the exposure of crimes and misconduct where Rule 1.6 mandated confidentiality of information and prevented lawful action by a District Attorney, an Attorney General or any officer of the court.
34. Attorney General Kane will need to further explain how the declaration of a law being UNCONSTITUTIONAL has no effect, or will have no effect on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as stated in her Motion to Dismiss (B).
35. Plaintiffs have not filed this as a personal claim against Attorney General Kathleen Kane seeking damages.
36. Attorney General Kane has been served with the Challenge as the Attorney General is the appropriate person with whom the issue of constitutionality of a state law must be addressed within the state pursuant to Rule 5.1(a)(2), as the other Attorneys General are similarly positioned within their state governments and have been similarly served with the challenge.
37. Plaintiffs have filed a Constitutional Challenge with The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and served it upon the Attorneys General of each state seeking a determination that Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional which will restore the constitutional rights of litigants while restoring the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession and delivering to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.
STANDARDS FOR DEFENSES BY MOTION
38. The standard for subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) has been presented and met by the Plaintiffs.
39. When deciding a 12(b)(1) motion, “dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not appropriate merely because the legal theory alleged is probably false, but only because the right claimed is ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of the Supreme Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.’” Kulick v. Pocono Downs Racing Association 816 F.2d 895, 899 (3d Cir. 1987) (quoting Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666, 94 S. Ct 772, 776, (1974)).
40. The ‘irreducable constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact – an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Id. Internal citations omitted). A particularized injury in one which affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way. Id. At n.1. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the issue complained of. (citing Simon, 426 U.S. at 41). Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. (citing Simon, 426 U.S. at 38).
41. The standard for personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) has been presented and met by the Plaintiffs.
42. The standard for venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) is properly placed in The United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for a civil action:
- where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred;
- where plaintiffs are residents of the judicial district;
- where defendant is an officer of the state acting in official capacity or under color of legal authority.
43. The standard for process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(4) having been commenced on August 8, 2013 with the filing of the Challenge with the District Court; and the US Clerks docketing and issuance of the Summons and Notice.
44. The standard for service of process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) having been accomplished by the direct service of the initial pleading, summons and notice to each Attorney General via United States Postal Service Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested on August 13, 2013. A Certificate of Service including signed receipts from each Attorney General was filed with the District Court Clerk on September 6, 2013.
45. The standard for stating a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) has been presented and met by the Plaintiffs.
46. When deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, a dismissal may only be granted where the allegations fail to state any claim upon which relief can be granted. See Morse v. Lower Merion School District, 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). A court must view all facts, and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); see also Markowitz v. Northeast Land Co., 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1990). However, the Court will construe a pro se Plaintiff’s complaint more liberally and hold it to a less stringent standard than a pleading drafted by an attorney. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 292 (10976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521, 92 S. Ct. 594, 5965 (1972).
47. The general rules of pleading still require only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, not detailed factual allegations. Phillips, 515 F.3d at 231.
48. The Court must “determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Pinkerton v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d Cir 2002).
49. Pro se plaintiffs are often unfamiliar with the formalities of pleading requirements. Recognizing this, the Supreme Court has instructed the district courts to construe pro se complaints liberally and to apply a more flexible standard in determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint than they would in reviewing a pleading submitted by counsel.” (See e.g., Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10, 101 S.Ct. 173, 175-76, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.)
CONCLUSION
50. Plaintiffs represent that while affected by Rule 1.6, they are NOT bound by Rule 1.6 and as such Plaintiffs are in the unique position to be acting lawfully with proper standing while having valid cause for relief in the proper forum for the matter to be addressed.
51. Plaintiffs request that Attorney General Kane’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) be DENIED with prejudice.
52. In the interest of continuing with the stated goal of a “just, speedy and inexpensive determination“ of this action, Plaintiffs request that the Motion to Dismiss be DENIED with prejudice so that the court will not be inundated with 55 further motions for dismissal raising these same standard procedural defenses by the Attorneys General, however DENIED without prejudice to raise the issue in their responsive pleadings to the challenge.
Respectfully,
| Terance Healy | Todd M.Krautheim |
| c/o 871 Mustang Road | 207 Woodspring Circle |
| Warrington, PA 18976 | Doylestown, PA 18901 |
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
| Terance Healy | ) |
| Todd M. Krautheim | ) |
| in the name of the United States | ) Civil Action No# 13-4614 |
| ) | |
| v. | ) |
| Kathleen Kane | ) |
| Pennsylvania Attorney General; | ) |
| and | ) |
| The Attorneys General of the United States | ) |
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiffs request that Attorney General Kane’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) be DENIED with prejudice.
2. In the interest of continuing with the stated goal of a “just, speedy and inexpensive determination“ of this action, Plaintiffs request that the Motion to Dismiss be DENIED with prejudice so that the court will not be inundated with 55 further motions for dismissal raising these same standard procedural defenses by the Attorneys General, however DENIED without prejudice to raise the issue in their responsive pleadings to the challenge.
3. In support of this request, Plaintiffs present the attached Memorandum of Law.
NOT LAWFULLY ENACTED
4. Attorney General Kane has additionally indicated in her filings with the Court on this matter that the law being challenged was enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and not enacted through the legislature, nor signed by a governor.
5. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania through Rule 1.6 has given itself power over lawyers - which include the Governor, the Attorney General and a majority of the legislature - without due process.
6. All power to lawfully address the improperly enacted law has been removed from those responsible for lawmaking, the legislature and the Governor, and usurped by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. This is a clear violation of separation of powers.
7. Attorney General Kane has indicated a lack of jurisdiction, and having no ability to enforce the law being challenged. The power of enforcement unlawfully rests exclusively with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
8. Rule 1.6 is authored, updated, edited, promoted, maintained, managed, directed and scripted by the American Bar Association. It is reasonable to question if the American Bar Association has effectively usurped the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and each state where Rule 1.6 has been enacted.
9. Rule 1.6 denies litigants of the constitutionally protected right to petition the government for redress of grievances, denies a litigant of life, liberty and/or property without due process of law, and usurps the power of the government to address the issue by placing all power in one branch of government – the judiciary.
10. Rule 1.6 is unlawful and unconstitutional in every location where it has been enacted. Lawful action to challenge the law can only be done by those who are not required to follow it:
“Pro Se litigants with proper standing and a cause for relief - the restoration of rights and liberties protected by the U.S. Constitution.”
On behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiffs affirm their proper lawful standing to challenge the constitutionality of this improperly enacted law in every State, the District of Columbia and the US Virgin Islands.
Where Rule 1.6 has not been enacted into law, Attorneys General are on notice of this Constitutional Challenge and the impact the Rule can have on the civil rights and liberties of the People.
Respectfully,
| Terance Healy | Todd M. Krautheim |
| c/o 871 Mustang Road | 207 Woodspring Circle |
| Warrington, PA 18976 | Doylestown, PA 18901 |
Monday, August 5, 2013
For Openers...
TERANCE HEALY and TODD M. KRAUTHEIM in the name of THE UNITED STATES file this pleading against KATHLEEN KANE, Pennsylvania Attorney General and the ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES challenging the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Plaintiffs seek to restore the constitutional rights of Pro Se litigants while restoring the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession and deliver to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.
Plaintiffs additionally offer that they are in the extremely unique position to be acting lawfully with proper standing while having a valid causes for relief in the proper forum for the rule to be addressed.
Yes, we've got standing AND a cause for relief AND a venue.
Evidence in Family Court, Civil Court and Criminal Court.
American Bar Association...
Plaintiffs seek to restore the constitutional rights of Pro Se litigants while restoring the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession and deliver to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.
Plaintiffs additionally offer that they are in the extremely unique position to be acting lawfully with proper standing while having a valid causes for relief in the proper forum for the rule to be addressed.
Yes, we've got standing AND a cause for relief AND a venue.
Evidence in Family Court, Civil Court and Criminal Court.
American Bar Association...
I AM COMING. I WANT MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
I WANT THEM NOW.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)