The recipient of Rule 1.6 injustice has no protection of the law. Their constitutional rights are ignored by the courts and law enforcement. All legal professionals are prevented from helping or doing anything to resolve ANY situation. Triggered by an act of judicial misconduct, Rule 1.6 secretly and silently undermines a litigant while attempting to conceal the injustice of a judge and protect the integrity of the judiciary.
There is no opportunity to succeed in a court. Without the rule of law and while constitutional rights are being ignored, survival is the best possible outcome - - BUT the victim does not know that and arrives in court... Prepared. Researched. Documented. Properly executed. Procedures followed. Yet, the victim leaves court battered and further threatened and terrified by the experience of the inexplicable actions of a corrupted court. The court provides no explanations for their injustice. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality applies.
The ONLY person in the courtroom who believes in 'the justice system' is the unwitting target who trusts it. Everyone else knows that there will be no justice. The lawyers, the judges, the court staff, the deputies observe the corruption and injustice. They witness justice. Intimidated by corruption, THEY RECOGNIZE WHEN A PROCEEDING IS A FARCE.
A FARCE. Every proceeding. For years.
In hindsight, it is clear and undeniable. Procedures are not followed. Protocol is abandoned. The law is ignored. Rights protected by the US Constitution are unavailable. Court Orders are not enforced. Only their victim is swiftly held to a stringent adherence to every procedure, protocol, law, and order. The victim must respond to and address and disprove each and every false allegation against them to survive it.
Robert Angst and Valerie Angst, the lawyers with education and a staff are excused from every failure. Their failures are deliberate. They serve to create an undercurrent of deliberate chaos. An ever increasing volume of issues to be presented. A cacophony of injustice which will 'annoy the living shit' out of the judge who knows that the entire thing is a complete farce. Angst & Angst made certain that they were protected from any backlash by a judge who ignored their every failure.
In the end, it is the document filed by Robert Angst to prevent any divorce decree from being issued 'pre-maturely' which exacerbates the procedural defect and a law deliberately constructed and enacted to assure litigants had the opportunity to be heard. Where neither party requested the entry of the divorce decree the court lacks authority and jurisdiction to enter an order. Robert Angst had filed a document indicating that a divorce decree should NOT be entered. Where neither party requested the entry of the Divorce Decree, and the Plaintiff through her lawyers indicated they did NOT want the entry of a divorce decree, Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio acted in the clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction.
The calculated actions of Angst & Angst neglected due process, procedure and law with intent. Those actions would appear to create a form of leverage whereby the judge might be lenient on their next failure. While every proceeding was pre-determined to deny any success to the hopeful victim, they were daring the judge to follow procedure and law. Sociopaths throwing the judge under the bus. By creating a 'clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction' for the judiciary, Angst & Angst were able to leverage judicial immunity for further injustice.
Absolute Judicial Immunity is provided to the judiciary even where the judicial actions of the judge…
… exceed their jurisdiction,
… are done maliciously or corruptly, or
… are flawed by grave procedural error.
THERE IS A SINGLE EXCEPTION. In order to lose immunity, there must be a clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction.
Where any judge strikes the defective and void order, they would be expose the liability of their benchmates. Angst & Angst again leverage the corruption of the judiciary and attempt to enforce a defective and void order. The Court complies with their extortion by COMPLETELY IGNORING THAT THE ORDER IS VOID AND COMPLETELY NEGLECTING THE CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION. The terror of an 'unappealable order' which defies the attention of the court and threatens the life and liberty of the victim.
Why would there be twenty (20) judges involved in the matter of Healy v Healy? Imagine the shame and self-loathing which would occur when you are participating in a deliberate injustice, violating the trust of a litigant, a rouse to harass and terrify. Angst & Angst were doing everything possible to ensure that the judge excused and ignored enough of their wrong-doing to be identified as an active and involved participant. Those actions were being subsequently documented on the court record and were building a considerable volume of evidence.
Evidence of the procedural failures and the breach of protocol and violation of law are being presented in proceedings to enforce compliance with court orders - yet, the judge dismisses every matter without explanation. The judge can't tell the litigant that THE ENTIRE THING IS JUST A SHAM TO TERRORIZE A MAN. The judge is disgusted and just wants out. The judge's integrity is being sacrificed while Rule 1.6 prevents explanation or resolution or escape.
Where every judicial proceeding and action has been a complete sham. A performance whereby the victim is attacked again and again... because the victim survives, there will be further actions. NO ONE WILL STOP THEIR DESTRUCTIVE FARCE... Rule 1.6 allows fraud in the furtherance of fraud. Rule 1.6 does not permit disclosure to rectify the fraud. Rule 1.6 prevents every legal professional from helping.
Their 'FARCE' has denied life and liberty. Destroyed Financially. Isolated and divided family. Prevented custody and visitation. Left you unemployed, homeless and threatened with jail. Attached supporters bank accounts. Infiltrated all technology - your friends tech also. False friendships by Investigators and Informants. Required additional litigation, additional parties. Undermined an entire judiciary. Nine (9) years of my life. Prevented and denied any future relief or escape. THIS IS A DIVORCE. This is not a criminal case.
Only in the family courts can someone who has committed no crime lose everything.
WTF? I asked that in a letter to the Montgomery County Judiciary two months before I realized Rule 1.6 was the problem. There was no response.
The available resources, actions and efforts to terrorize their victim to being 1) homeless/destitute 2) incarcerated or 3) suicide are not as arbitrary as you might think. A review of documents which relate to good mental health practices when going through a stressful period demonstrates a disturbing strategy. Their litigation has been designed to undermine the target psychologically by removing or obstructing support and coping methods while isolating the victim. They are undermining emotional and mental health by directly inhibiting efforts which provide resilience.
Acting above the law without any sense of moral responsibility or social conscience they wrote a law which permitted every act against the target and prevented any escape. As long as the target is not going to be murdered, Rule 1.6 confidentiality mandates non-disclosure. Driving a target to suicide is an acceptable 'loophole'. Only a sociopath would design a system by which criminals were not permitted to kill, but permitted to bring about a suicide. Kutek would be horrified.
Lawyers rejected the 'fraud provisions' of Rule 1.6 against the prolonged debate and strong lobbying efforts of Robert Kutek while writing the code of ethical conduct for lawyers. Weeks after Kutek's sudden death in 1983, the fraud provisions were removed from Rule 1.6 and promoted by the American Bar Association to each state as an ethical standard while it's lack of ethics was inconsequential. In a clear contradiction to his legacy, the ABA refers to the committee responsible for the Rules of Professional Conduct as The Kutek Commission.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality undermines the judiciary and every proceeding. The injustice grows while Rule 1.6 prevents resolution or escape from further actions. I would hope that my case is an extreme. My case demonstrates the broad affect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality which prevents any remedy. It is the volume of information and experiences which lead to the discovery of the needle in the haystack of injustice. Where no explanation was offered... and no question answered... EVER. Rule 1.6 could be applied to 'justify' the silence.
Rule 1.6 non-disclosure is permitted to conceal Rule 1.6 non-disclosure. They won't say anything and won't tell you why... Rule 1.6 is permitted to be invoked without invoking it. Rule 1.6 makes it possible to break the law, commit acts in the furtherance of that fraud, undermine the integrity and independence of the judiciary, prevent exposure through further fraud AND NOT EVER INDICATE THAT RULE 1.6 is involved. Ex parte communications, letters and meetings which arrange the injustice and corruption are also Rule 1.6 Confidential.
Prevented from information and denied rights and the protection of the law, my experience may be extreme but it is not isolated or unique... Rule 1.6 is law in every state. A violation of the public trust by the Judicial branch. The judiciary are accorded respect and honor BY LAW because it is necessary for the People to trust in JUSTICE.
The American Bar Association's Rule 1.6 has leveraged the public trust to undermine the judiciary. The only folks who profit from injustice are the members of the ABA and its affiliated organizations.
THE SCANDAL OF RULE 1.6 IS BIG. VERY BIG. HUGE.
JUSTICE IS COMING.
Showing posts with label RULE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RULE. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Basic PsyOps Protocol
In my 'survival kit', I have always had what I referred to as 'my rules'. They were the way of compartmentalizing experiences into categories and approaches. It required my recognition of my experience and the recognition of the reaction of people to hearing of my experience. Everyone knew Oliver Douglas was perfectly sane while everyone else in Hooterville was "not". I knew what it was like to be "a sane man in an insane situation". If you want the experience, discuss Arnold Ziffel with someone from Hooterville and THEN with someone who is NOT from there.
This morning, I stumbled upon the scholarly journals which not only put a more 'polite' description and definition to the categories (without expletives - but me loves my expletives sometimes) BUT reviewing the educated categorical definitions and aspects showed that those aspects were specifically being targeted by those who were seeking to undermine and destroy me.
I never would have put the sentence together as was done in prolly the most violent episode of BANSHEE. It'd be kind of arrogant and that is not my style. It would also suggest that my actions were calculated in some way. I did what I did because of who I am... and out of necessity. There were no survival guides. I did immediately recognize "it" as soon as Antony Starr said it.
"Basic Psy Ops protocol. The only way to overcome a physical advantage is to establish a psychological one."
I suppose that was what I did. However, I had called it "Mindfuck me and I will mindfuck you right back, mothafukkah." Their team may have been bigger and better equipped, but I knew everything. They only knew their part. TRUTH was on my side. TRUTH is powerful - when YOU know the difference between truth and non-truth. TRUTH is a definite psychological advantage.
One sentence recognized and defined the situation early on and guided my survival through the last 10 years. It applied to everything. The TRUTH of the entire experience. "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 HELPED."
Every scholarly paper seems to indicate, albeit in hindsight, that I was on the path to discovering the RULE 1.6 INJUSTICE all along.
Everyone should insist on being treated fairly - to stand up for our rights without violating the rights of others by tactfully, justly and effectively expressing our experience, opinions and feelings.
JUSTICE IS COMING.
| I will present some of the 'scholarly' info in a later post. I have not posted them here because they all have a major shortcoming. The articles neglect one area. When the psychological information is used in efforts to undermine a target. The PsyOps part of the information. It kind of blew me away to see it documented and summarized where the items read like a laundry list of actions which effectively undermine a person psychologically. |
Monday, November 24, 2014
Overview of The Challenge to Rule 1.6
A law enacted by the state supreme court in every state without proper construction, without constitutional review, without involvement of any state legislature and without the signature of any governor designed to ignore judicial corruption and injustice which includes an aggressively enforced MANDATE of silence for all lawyers while ignoring, denying and preventing the constitutional rights of litigants.
Rule 1.6 affects civil, criminal, family, federal district and federal appeals courts making it impossible to address the loss of constitutional rights when committed by a judge.
The Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandates confidentiality of client information where the information
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary
- would reveal the misconduct of their own office,
- would expose individual liability,
- would adversly affect their client.
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, The Attorney General's office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers and the Public. All Clients.
This is why Cash for Kids was ignored by the Attorney General, the Luzerne County District Attorney, every lawyer in Luzerne county, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Judicial Conduct Board.
This is why the 'Sandusky Report' released in 2014 failed to indicate any improper conduct. The Report also failed to include a disclaimer that Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandated the silence of the Attorney General regarding information about the Office of the Attorney General, the Governor, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, etc...
This is why millions of foreclosures were ignored by the Attorneys General nationwide with no prosecutions while millions of people lost their homes based on fraudulent and robo-signed deeds and other documents.
Rule 1.6 has undermined law enforcement and the judicial branch in the states and federally.
Rule 1.6 is a core part of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Most, if not all, rules point back to Rule 1.6 by cross-reference.
The ABA presented their Model Rules to each state supreme court for promulgation into law. As trade rules confidentiality was discretionary. As LAW, the confidentiality became an aggressively enforced mandate which denied people of constitutional rights and prevented anyone in law from acting on behalf of the victims against it's unconstitutional effect.
The victims having no protection of the law become 1) destitute/homeless 2) incarcerated or 3) suicidal.
RULE 1.6 CAUSES AN INESCAPABLE LOSS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
WHICH UNDERMINES THE STATE AND FEDERAL JUDICIARY.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6
Rule 1.6 affects civil, criminal, family, federal district and federal appeals courts making it impossible to address the loss of constitutional rights when committed by a judge.
The Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandates confidentiality of client information where the information
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary
- would reveal the misconduct of their own office,
- would expose individual liability,
- would adversly affect their client.
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, The Attorney General's office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers and the Public. All Clients.
This is why Cash for Kids was ignored by the Attorney General, the Luzerne County District Attorney, every lawyer in Luzerne county, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Judicial Conduct Board.
This is why the 'Sandusky Report' released in 2014 failed to indicate any improper conduct. The Report also failed to include a disclaimer that Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandated the silence of the Attorney General regarding information about the Office of the Attorney General, the Governor, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, etc...
This is why millions of foreclosures were ignored by the Attorneys General nationwide with no prosecutions while millions of people lost their homes based on fraudulent and robo-signed deeds and other documents.
Rule 1.6 has undermined law enforcement and the judicial branch in the states and federally.
Rule 1.6 is a core part of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Most, if not all, rules point back to Rule 1.6 by cross-reference.
The ABA presented their Model Rules to each state supreme court for promulgation into law. As trade rules confidentiality was discretionary. As LAW, the confidentiality became an aggressively enforced mandate which denied people of constitutional rights and prevented anyone in law from acting on behalf of the victims against it's unconstitutional effect.
The victims having no protection of the law become 1) destitute/homeless 2) incarcerated or 3) suicidal.
WHICH UNDERMINES THE STATE AND FEDERAL JUDICIARY.
| Happy Holidays. Since 2007 Rule 1.6 injustice and terror has caused me to be destitute, alone and isolated on every holiday. Families cannot handle the stress which is placed upon the victim who cannot escape the constant litigation - a judicial farce where justice is NOT POSSIBLE when concealing injustice and fraud is MANDATED BY LAW.. Friends witness the injustices and are attacked for supporting the victim in any way. When your children are manipulated into participation in actions against you, it puts a massive level of humiliation and shame on them which prevents any chance of reconciliation. Rule 1.6 was designed to destroy people. Rule 1.6 is evil made lawful. |
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Another Suicide Season Approaches
As we head into the Holidays, Persevere. Justice is coming. It is slow. Painfully slow.
But like an addict who delays a need for rehab, THE INTERVENTION is an eventuality.
I've been through seven long, lonely, isolated, destitute holidays.
Pa rum pa pum pum.
I can't promise it will ever get better while the cause of their injustice is ignored ... while the media remains mysteriously silent ... and while the entire Pennsylvania Judiciary, the entire Legislature, and the entire state and federal government ignores.
This last year WE TOLD EVERYONE in government. They know what they are ignoring.
The unconstitutional Rule 1.6 requirement to say and do nothing is the worst kept secret in Pennsylvania.
Rule 1.6 injustice demonstrates how EVIL undermines society. Rule 1.6 cannot conceal a murder.
Pushing for a RULE 1.6 SUICIDE is totally lawful, and let's them off the hook. The corrupt achieve their reward - their goal.
I understand. Persevere. Please. EVERY PERSON MATTERS.
My list of the suicides is too long already. The sad truth is that people really don't give a damn if you live or die.
It's your own personal choice, but you can do more to expose and resolve this UNFATHOMABLE TERROR than you ever imagined.
You don't belong down here. We don't belong down here. Not Anymore. NOT EVER.
But like an addict who delays a need for rehab, THE INTERVENTION is an eventuality.
I've been through seven long, lonely, isolated, destitute holidays.
Pa rum pa pum pum.
I can't promise it will ever get better while the cause of their injustice is ignored ... while the media remains mysteriously silent ... and while the entire Pennsylvania Judiciary, the entire Legislature, and the entire state and federal government ignores.
This last year WE TOLD EVERYONE in government. They know what they are ignoring.
The unconstitutional Rule 1.6 requirement to say and do nothing is the worst kept secret in Pennsylvania.
Rule 1.6 injustice demonstrates how EVIL undermines society. Rule 1.6 cannot conceal a murder.
Pushing for a RULE 1.6 SUICIDE is totally lawful, and let's them off the hook. The corrupt achieve their reward - their goal.
I understand. Persevere. Please. EVERY PERSON MATTERS.
My list of the suicides is too long already. The sad truth is that people really don't give a damn if you live or die.
It's your own personal choice, but you can do more to expose and resolve this UNFATHOMABLE TERROR than you ever imagined.
You don't belong down here. We don't belong down here. Not Anymore. NOT EVER.
Email + Carluccio ÷ Tornetta x 1.6 = COVERUP
When Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio wanted to secretly cancel hearings she did so via email.
The Courthouse was stunned to learn that I had the praecipe numbers which indicated that multiple hearings had been cancelled by email. No one would take responsibility or explain.
Court Administration had cancelled the hearings without notice or entry... and without Court Order.
When Judge Carluccio was asked about the cancellations SHE LIED indicating it was an error. At the end of that session, she forgot so I reminded her to reschedule. She did.
THEN, she cancelled those rescheduled hearings by email - without notice AGAIN. So, much for the 'error' excuse.
Well, all but one was cancelled. A 15 minute window. If I did not appear for that hearing she could use THAT as the excuse to ignore and dismiss ALL the petitions. BUT, I showed up prepared to address all 15 matters. There was no hearings. Cancelled Without Notice... AGAIN.
Where was the opposing party? Their setup was exposed. They had written indicating they were aware of the hearing, BUT THEY DID NOT SHOW UP. I got their letter 2 days later. BOY, THEIR SETUP WAS EXPOSED. EPIC FAIL:
The judge had indicated to Court Administration on the day before that she would neither confirm or deny the hearing was scheduled. WTF? Cheryl Leslie in Court Admin knew that the corruption was overwhelming in this matter. She could not explain the irrational lack of explanation. She knew, but could not explain. I knew too. They went to great lengths to fool a litigant and failed.
WHERE NO ONE EVER ASKED FOR THE DIVORCE DECREE, WHY WOULD JUDGE CARLUCCIO ISSUE ONE?
Carluccio issued a defective and void Divorce Decree in violation of PA Law and without any jurisdiction. The court was notified of the error. The deliberately defective and void order is being used to continue to ruin my life where everyone is ignoring the volume of information indicating it is void. Pretending the divorce decree is valid prevents any filing to address all those cancelled petitions on financial issues. It keeps the litigation going... an additional 4 years now in the Superior Court.
Fraud to conceal fraud and prevent any resolution of the fraud is what Rule 1.6 does to litigants in all kinds of injustice cases. Foreclosures, false imprisonment, false prosecution,...
Judges issue void orders deliberately because they know how other judges won't act where the error is exposed... or corrected. The subsequent judges commit fraud and act to further the error.
BUT, RULE 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.... and those acts of fraud cannot be excused by an unconstitutional law.
Considering the effort of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania towards silencing the availability of emails - they updated Rule 1.6 about 7-8 times in the last 2 years... the Supreme Court knows there is something in emails that will demonstrate the abuse of power within the courts. Why are they updating an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law?
Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional, it causes a denial of constitutionally protected rights, it permits fraud to conceal fraud, it permits EVERY effort to conceal the fraud, it made fraud 'legal' for legal professionals... and MANDATORY, AND THEY CALLED IT ETHICAL.
When the American Bar Association had the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania enact Rule 1.6 into law where they DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY to enact ANY law which affects substantive rights of a litigant which are guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Rule 1.6 is about concealing corruption and fraud within the judicial branch.
Rule 1.6 is an aggressively enforced MANDATE of Confidentiality.
Rule 1.6 is NOT ethical, yet is referenced throughout the 'ethical standard for legal professionals'
Rule 1.6 has permitted the American Bar Association to undermine the judiciary.
Rule 1.6 has concealed the ABA infiltration between the people and the courts, where the ABA staff intercepts and interferes with the administration of justice and prevents access to the courts.
Rule 1.6 is not helping the judiciary. The ABA is concealing that they have caused the judiciary to be UNDONE.
Rule 1.6 is holding the judiciary hostage with the threat of exposing that the judicial branch has been usurped and undermined by the American Bar Association.
BUT, Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. A NULLITY. NO LAW. NEVER REALLY WAS A LAW. NEVER EXISTED.
So when concealing how Rule 1.6 has caused a systemic problem within the judiciary, who better to approach the topic than a Special Prosecutor named CARLUCCIO.
Special Prosecutor Carluccio should know and understand the issues related to emails, Rule 1.6, concealing corruption, excusing fraud, denying constitutional rights as his wife, Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio WAS DOING ALL OF THOSE THINGS IN HER COURTROOM.
In Healy v Healy when Judge Carluccio's corruption was exposed she improperly issued a defective and void order calling it a divorce decree and using it to destroy a litigant who survived. That order lacked jurisdiction. It will NEVER have jurisdiction. So every subsequent judge involved IGNORES THE FAILURE and continues to attack her victim.
The Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court assumed the mantle of Rule 1.6 fraud, BUT WITHOUT THE PROTECTION of RULE 1.6 because their crimes PROVE the unconstitutional effect. RULE 1.6 is PROVEN to be unconstitutional within the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
NO DECISION OR ORDER HAS BEEN SIGNED BY ANY JUDGE. Rule 1.6 fraud concealing fraud.... but clearly without benefit of the hostage judge's participation. A VIOLATION OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW, the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the US Constitution, and Federal Crimes.
When Judge Carluccio used emails and void orders to conceal her corruption and injustice, she was also concealing that the American Bar Association had undermined the judiciary at state and federal levels.
At the time, Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio was also the President of the Montgomery County Bar Association.
Special Prosecutor Carluccio knows exactly what he is trying to conceal and his effort to permit continuing corruption is very clearly motivated.
He also knows his wife is dumb as a rock. She didn't think this up all by herself. She had no concept of her conflict of interest in real estate dealings. She made up laws from the bench with the belief that litigants are fools. She prevented the Barnes Foundation from remaining in Montgomery County by concealing available funds. She worked for the US Attorney for a while so she avoids federal investigation unless they bring someone in from outside the area.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio is a judicial terrorist.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL Rule 1.6 is not going to hide her abuse of power under color of law with intent to cause harm and irreparable damage.... and neither will her husband.
SO WHY SPEND SO MUCH TIME TRYING TO CONCEAL ACTIONS BEHIND AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW? It's been concealed since 1988 while the injustice destroyed people and families who could not turn to any legal professionals for resolution.
It's never going to be constitutional, lawful, ethical or good to commit, enable or conceal judicial corruption.
So much effort to enable corruption to continue.
CARLUCCIO's don't seem to have any grasp of CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
All this effort to mandate Kathleen Kane to be quiet about Rule 1.6 injustice and corruption - the thing she cannot reveal... while it destroys lives, and leads to suicide.
In the meantime, I am available to inform the Grand Jury, and the public, of what it is they won't allow the Attorney General to discuss.
I AM NOT RESTRICTED BY RULE 1.6 UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONFIDENTIALITY.
The Courthouse was stunned to learn that I had the praecipe numbers which indicated that multiple hearings had been cancelled by email. No one would take responsibility or explain.
Court Administration had cancelled the hearings without notice or entry... and without Court Order.
When Judge Carluccio was asked about the cancellations SHE LIED indicating it was an error. At the end of that session, she forgot so I reminded her to reschedule. She did.
THEN, she cancelled those rescheduled hearings by email - without notice AGAIN. So, much for the 'error' excuse.
Well, all but one was cancelled. A 15 minute window. If I did not appear for that hearing she could use THAT as the excuse to ignore and dismiss ALL the petitions. BUT, I showed up prepared to address all 15 matters. There was no hearings. Cancelled Without Notice... AGAIN.
Where was the opposing party? Their setup was exposed. They had written indicating they were aware of the hearing, BUT THEY DID NOT SHOW UP. I got their letter 2 days later. BOY, THEIR SETUP WAS EXPOSED. EPIC FAIL:
The judge had indicated to Court Administration on the day before that she would neither confirm or deny the hearing was scheduled. WTF? Cheryl Leslie in Court Admin knew that the corruption was overwhelming in this matter. She could not explain the irrational lack of explanation. She knew, but could not explain. I knew too. They went to great lengths to fool a litigant and failed.
WHERE NO ONE EVER ASKED FOR THE DIVORCE DECREE, WHY WOULD JUDGE CARLUCCIO ISSUE ONE?
Carluccio issued a defective and void Divorce Decree in violation of PA Law and without any jurisdiction. The court was notified of the error. The deliberately defective and void order is being used to continue to ruin my life where everyone is ignoring the volume of information indicating it is void. Pretending the divorce decree is valid prevents any filing to address all those cancelled petitions on financial issues. It keeps the litigation going... an additional 4 years now in the Superior Court.
Fraud to conceal fraud and prevent any resolution of the fraud is what Rule 1.6 does to litigants in all kinds of injustice cases. Foreclosures, false imprisonment, false prosecution,...
Judges issue void orders deliberately because they know how other judges won't act where the error is exposed... or corrected. The subsequent judges commit fraud and act to further the error.
BUT, RULE 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.... and those acts of fraud cannot be excused by an unconstitutional law.
Considering the effort of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania towards silencing the availability of emails - they updated Rule 1.6 about 7-8 times in the last 2 years... the Supreme Court knows there is something in emails that will demonstrate the abuse of power within the courts. Why are they updating an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law?
Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional, it causes a denial of constitutionally protected rights, it permits fraud to conceal fraud, it permits EVERY effort to conceal the fraud, it made fraud 'legal' for legal professionals... and MANDATORY, AND THEY CALLED IT ETHICAL.
When the American Bar Association had the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania enact Rule 1.6 into law where they DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY to enact ANY law which affects substantive rights of a litigant which are guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Rule 1.6 is about concealing corruption and fraud within the judicial branch.
Rule 1.6 is an aggressively enforced MANDATE of Confidentiality.
Rule 1.6 is NOT ethical, yet is referenced throughout the 'ethical standard for legal professionals'
Rule 1.6 has permitted the American Bar Association to undermine the judiciary.
Rule 1.6 has concealed the ABA infiltration between the people and the courts, where the ABA staff intercepts and interferes with the administration of justice and prevents access to the courts.
Rule 1.6 is not helping the judiciary. The ABA is concealing that they have caused the judiciary to be UNDONE.
Rule 1.6 is holding the judiciary hostage with the threat of exposing that the judicial branch has been usurped and undermined by the American Bar Association.
BUT, Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. A NULLITY. NO LAW. NEVER REALLY WAS A LAW. NEVER EXISTED.
So when concealing how Rule 1.6 has caused a systemic problem within the judiciary, who better to approach the topic than a Special Prosecutor named CARLUCCIO.
Special Prosecutor Carluccio should know and understand the issues related to emails, Rule 1.6, concealing corruption, excusing fraud, denying constitutional rights as his wife, Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio WAS DOING ALL OF THOSE THINGS IN HER COURTROOM.
In Healy v Healy when Judge Carluccio's corruption was exposed she improperly issued a defective and void order calling it a divorce decree and using it to destroy a litigant who survived. That order lacked jurisdiction. It will NEVER have jurisdiction. So every subsequent judge involved IGNORES THE FAILURE and continues to attack her victim.
The Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court assumed the mantle of Rule 1.6 fraud, BUT WITHOUT THE PROTECTION of RULE 1.6 because their crimes PROVE the unconstitutional effect. RULE 1.6 is PROVEN to be unconstitutional within the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
NO DECISION OR ORDER HAS BEEN SIGNED BY ANY JUDGE. Rule 1.6 fraud concealing fraud.... but clearly without benefit of the hostage judge's participation. A VIOLATION OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW, the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the US Constitution, and Federal Crimes.
When Judge Carluccio used emails and void orders to conceal her corruption and injustice, she was also concealing that the American Bar Association had undermined the judiciary at state and federal levels.
At the time, Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio was also the President of the Montgomery County Bar Association.
Special Prosecutor Carluccio knows exactly what he is trying to conceal and his effort to permit continuing corruption is very clearly motivated.
He also knows his wife is dumb as a rock. She didn't think this up all by herself. She had no concept of her conflict of interest in real estate dealings. She made up laws from the bench with the belief that litigants are fools. She prevented the Barnes Foundation from remaining in Montgomery County by concealing available funds. She worked for the US Attorney for a while so she avoids federal investigation unless they bring someone in from outside the area.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio is a judicial terrorist.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL Rule 1.6 is not going to hide her abuse of power under color of law with intent to cause harm and irreparable damage.... and neither will her husband.
SO WHY SPEND SO MUCH TIME TRYING TO CONCEAL ACTIONS BEHIND AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW? It's been concealed since 1988 while the injustice destroyed people and families who could not turn to any legal professionals for resolution.
It's never going to be constitutional, lawful, ethical or good to commit, enable or conceal judicial corruption.
So much effort to enable corruption to continue.
CARLUCCIO's don't seem to have any grasp of CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
All this effort to mandate Kathleen Kane to be quiet about Rule 1.6 injustice and corruption - the thing she cannot reveal... while it destroys lives, and leads to suicide.
In the meantime, I am available to inform the Grand Jury, and the public, of what it is they won't allow the Attorney General to discuss.
I AM NOT RESTRICTED BY RULE 1.6 UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONFIDENTIALITY.
Friday, November 14, 2014
Motion for the Applicable Rule of Law
Filed in Superior Court - PDF version
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
MOTION FOR THE APPLICABLE RULE OF LAW
When the Appellant presented one unstapled original and a copy of a NOTICE / COMPLAINT of UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS to the Prothonotary of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on November 7, 2014, with the request that ten (10) original copies presented at the same time be time stamped by the clerk for distribution in this matter.
THE REQUEST WAS DENIED.
The clerk for at the Prothonotary window indicated that only 4 copies could be stamped.
Appellant respectfully requests, the Rule of Law, the Pennsylvania Statute, the Rule of Appellate Procedure or the procedure within the Internal Operating Procedures of the Superior Court which prevents the clerk from the 10 second task of time-stamping original copies for distribution in this matter.
Where the document (NOTICE/COMPLAINT) being filed that day was indicating the fraud in the furtherance of a fraud being committed in violation of the Constitutional rights of the Appellant, Appellant appends this additional action to the list of intentional and deliberate actions by the Prothonotary and Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Respectfully,
Terance Healy
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
| Sonya Healy | : |
| (Appellee) | : # 1330 EDA 2013 |
| : | |
| v. | : |
| : | |
| Terance Healy | : |
| (Appellant) | : |
When the Appellant presented one unstapled original and a copy of a NOTICE / COMPLAINT of UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS to the Prothonotary of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on November 7, 2014, with the request that ten (10) original copies presented at the same time be time stamped by the clerk for distribution in this matter.
THE REQUEST WAS DENIED.
The clerk for at the Prothonotary window indicated that only 4 copies could be stamped.
Appellant respectfully requests, the Rule of Law, the Pennsylvania Statute, the Rule of Appellate Procedure or the procedure within the Internal Operating Procedures of the Superior Court which prevents the clerk from the 10 second task of time-stamping original copies for distribution in this matter.
Where the document (NOTICE/COMPLAINT) being filed that day was indicating the fraud in the furtherance of a fraud being committed in violation of the Constitutional rights of the Appellant, Appellant appends this additional action to the list of intentional and deliberate actions by the Prothonotary and Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Friday, November 7, 2014
Notice/Complaint of Unconstitutional Actions
Filed in Superior Court - PDF version
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
NOTICE/COMPLAINT OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS
When this Honorable Superior Court and Attorney General Kathleen Kane were notified pursuant to Rule 521 that the Constitutionality of a State law was being called into question in this matter, it was not made with the intention, or expectation, that the unconstitutional actions would occur within this court.
Where each action, decision, and opinion cannot be directly attributed to any judge of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania,
Where evidence of involvement of the judiciary has been requested and not provided,
Where there is no allowance within the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure (Title 210) or within Internal Operating Procedures of the Superior Court (Chapter 65) which permits actions by the Central Legal staff to the exclusion of the judiciary,
Where there is no allowance for Per Curiam orders within the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Title 210) or the Internal Operating Procedures of the Superior Court (Chapter 65) where a motion seeks action relating to issues directly related to the Appeal,
Where each decision on a motion returned by the court has been unsigned,
Where each decision on a motion returned by the court has been unsubstantiated by law,
Where each decision on a motion returned by the court has been unexplained,
Where every action seeking an appearance before the court has been prevented,
Where all exhibits from the lower court proceeding were not provided,
Where the Court failed to take any action to compel production of the full record by the lower court,
Where the Appellant was not sent the notification of a Briefing Schedule and the Appeal had been improperly dismissed for failure to file a brief, and then reopened,
Where the Argument Letter was not sent, and not acknowledged, denying the Appellant any appearance before the court,
Where these actions can be directly attributed to the Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania,
Where these actions obstruct justice,
Where these actions interfere with the administration of the courts,
Where these actions deny constitutional rights,
Where these actions demonstrate participation in a conspiracy to deny, prevent and obstruct justice,
Where these actions are fraudulent,
Where these actions are not permitted by Pennsylvania law,
Where the Central Legal Staff is positioned between the litigant and the judiciary where there is the opportunity to intercept, misdirect, and 'play judge',
These actions demonstrate the denial and prevention of the Rule of Law and rights and liberties secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States.
The Appeal in this matter was filed in good faith. Every document and motion was filed in good faith, and not with the expectation or intent to create more evidence of systemic injustice and fraud ignored pursuant to Rule 1.6.
CALLING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW INTO QUESTION
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information has a broad affect on victims of an injustice denying, preventing and obstructing justice. FOREVER.
There is no escaping the injustice, there can be no restoration of protection of the law. There can be no restoration of the constitutional rights which have been denied. NONE. EVER.
A victim loses all protection of the law and all constitutional rights because of a simple injustice, even while and where that injustice is being concealed.
The efforts to conceal the injustice can, and likely will, become far more egregious than the initial injustice.
The mandate for the participation of all legal professionals to conceal the fraud affects the integrity and the independence of the judiciary.
The systemic obstruction of justice, denial of the rule of law, and disregard of constitutional rights undermines the judicial branch of government at state and federal levels.
RULE 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information is referred to by lawyers as Attorney Client privilege, but the affect of Rule 1.6 is far broader than a lawyer keeping a secret for his client.
Rule 1.6 affects every legal professional, lawyer and law enforcement, and MANDATES their silence, non-exposure and participation in every effort which prevents disclosure or exposure of the injustice.
EVOLUTION OF RULE 1.6
With deliberate intent, and lacking any consideration for the rights of a victim, the American Bar Association rejected the 'fraud provisions' of the Kutak Commission.
- which would have permitted disclosure of a fraud, or acts in the furtherance of a fraud.
- which would permit disclosure to rectify the fraud.
By removing the 'fraud provisions', the ABA deliberately prevented disclosure by every member of the legal profession (lawyers, judges, District Attorneys, Attorneys General) and effectively denied, prevented and ignored the rights of the victim of the crime.
Where fraud is undeniably a crime, the American Bar Association made fraud not only legal, but has required the mandatory participation to conceal that fraud for all legal professionals while preventing any disclosure which would rectify the fraud.
Where continued fraud and prevention of any resolution is wrong and unethical, the American Bar Association mandated participation in unethical activities for all legal professionals within their mislabeled “Ethics Rules”.
The ABA presented their Model Rules of Professional Conduct as an ethical standard for the profession of law. Fraud is not legal. Preventing fraud from being addressed, stopped or resolved is not ethical.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania enacted the Rules of Professional Conduct into law on October 16, 1987 to be effective April 1, 1988.
Where Rule 1.6, directly and by cross-reference throughout the rules, affects the substantive rights of a litigant, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was without the authority under the Pennsylvania Constitution to enact the law.
ARTICLE V SECTION 10(c)
… if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality Of Information involves four aspects
1. Confidentiality
2. Non-Disclosure
3. Fraud, and continued fraud to conceal fraud
4. No action which rectifies the fraud is allowed.
Evidence of any aspect of the fraud and injustice when presented within the court is ignored, neglected and not addressed by any counter argument from an attorney. The court will ignore, neglect and not address the issue in any decision, memorandum or opinion.
It is this broad and absolute avoidance (non-disclosure) which indicates Rule 1.6 has been triggered in a matter.
An evaluation of the case will clearly indicate the point where the victim lost any protection under the law and any ability to assert their constitutional rights as an act of judicial misconduct/fraud and injustice is what causes Rule 1.6 Injustice to be triggered.
AFFECT ON JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
In order to assure the independence of the judiciary to make decisions, judges are granted immunity from prosecution for judicial errors no matter how malicious or grievous their 'error' or actions.
Rule 1.6 requires that the “initial injustice’ not be addressed at anytime.
Rule 1.6 permits and ignores any and every action which prevents exposure. This is most often accomplished by the judge IGNORING the issue, even when it is the only issue which the judge is considering.
Where the court must ignore, neglect and not address an issue in any decision, memorandum or opinion, the court does not have the independence to make an impartial unbiased decision based on the merits and the evidence, exhibits and testimony presented during proceedings.
Where Rule 1.6 MANDATES continued injustice to the victim who cannot succeed where the injustice may be revealed, the judge is not permitted to render an independent decision based on the facts. The lack of an ability to render an independent decision affects the immunity accorded to the judge.
The intervention by the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF is not permitted by law, even where seeking to protect the Superior Court Judiciary from a decision which compromises immunity and lacks judicial independence and any ability to render an impartial decision based on the facts.
While not permitted under the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure or the Internal Operating Procedures of the Superior Court. The actions by the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF are knowingly ignored and excused by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality which requires fraudulent efforts to conceal a prior fraud and does not allow for the fraud to ever be rectified.
These unlawful actions of the Central Legal Staff, while concealed by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality, adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary while denying constitutionally protected rights of a litigant.
Where the constitutionally protected rights, or substantive rights of a litigant, have been negated and ignored albeit secretly and with deception pursuant to Rule 1.6, the Supreme Court was without the authority under the Pennsylvania Constitution to enact the rule into law. Rule 1.6 is no law. It is unconstitutional. A nullity.
RULE 1.6 SELF DEFENSE MECHANISMS
Pursuant to Rule 1.6, where Confidentiality is required where an action will adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania may not lawfully remove the rule which they have improperly enacted into law, even where they have acted in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States..
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
As the Local Rules adopted by the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania incorporate the Rules of Professional Conduct which are in effect where the court is located, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information as enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affects litigation within the District Court.
A Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed on August 8, 2013 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and served upon every state Attorney General.
Every state Attorney General defaulted by failing to file any answer to the summons.
An improperly filed late response purporting to act on behalf of all attorneys general, though indicting it was without any authority to act on the part of other states, seeking to dismiss the matter as a 1983 case while failing to recognize that the challenge was a pre-emptory challenge to the constitutionality of a law became the act of fraud which prevented and obstructed justice in the matter.
The unsigned orders and opinions of the court, which contained misinformation unrelated to the case did not support any doctrine for dismissal, were fraudulently used to dismiss the matter.
Similarly to this matter within the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, there is no indication or evidence whatsoever which indicated that the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 had ever been before any member of the District Court judiciary.
On Appeal to the Third Circuit, the Local Rules again incorporated the Rules of Professional Conduct in effect where the court was located.
The unsigned orders and opinions of the court, which contained misinformation unrelated to the appeal and failed to recognize the facts within the District Court documents did not support any doctrine for dismissal, were fraudulently used to affirm dismissal the matter.
Similarly to this matter within the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, there is no indication or evidence whatsoever which indicated that the Appeal to the Third Circuit had ever been before any member of the Court of Appeals judiciary.
The federal Challenge to the Constitutionality of Rule 1.6, had been undermined by the fraud committed, permitted and ignored pursuant to Rule 1.6.
Where legal professionals were permitted to commit fraud and their actions in the furtherance of that fraud were concealed and kept confidential, there could be no resolution to the injustice under Rule 1.6 within the Courts.
The Default by the state Attorneys General was the legal, moral and ethical action necessary to remove this unconstitutional law.
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFENSES
Criminal prosecution of the fraud and constitutional violations does not occur where the District Attorney/state Attorney General are mandated by Rule 1.6. The crime, and any acts in the furtherance of the crime, is ignored.
Federal criminal prosecution of the fraud and constitutional violations does not occur where the Department of Justice/US Attorneys and all government lawyers are mandated by Rule 1.6 under the McDade-Murtha Amendment – the local version of Rule 1.6. The crime, and any acts in the furtherance of the crime, is ignored.
Civil lawsuit within Pennsylvania cannot be successful where the Court is mandated by Rule 1.6. The lawsuit will be avoided by the courts based on disinformation, an excused act in the furtherance of fraud.
Federal lawsuit brought in Federal district court cannot not be successful as the District Court has indicated within their ‘LOCAL RULES’ that the local Rules of Professional Conduct apply. The lawsuit will be avoided by the courts based on disinformation, an excused act in the furtherance of fraud.
The Sheriff, as Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the County, has the authority which pre-dates the constitution to enforce the every law.
While uniquely not obligated under Rule 1.6, the County Sheriffs have been improperly convinced of a diminished authority by the judiciary and their legal counsel which prevents them from taking action to address the fraud and constitutional violations.
While the evident and proven lack of judicial independence causes the loss of judicial immunity, the judge could be subjected to criminal prosecution, civil lawsuits, or disciplinary actions. Rule 1.6 prevents any of those actions from occurring or being successful. Rule 1.6 prevents justice forever.
PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE
The Pennsylvania Constitution Article I Section 12 places exclusive authority to suspend laws within the Pennsylvania Legislature.
“No power of suspending laws shall be exercised unless by the Legislature or by its authority.”
State Senator Charles McIlhinney, a non-lawyer, after several meetings where he recognized and understood the issue, on the advice of his counsel has stalled and failed to inform the Pennsylvania Legislature of the unconstitutional affect of Rule 1.6 .
State Representative Kathy Watson after recognizing and understanding the problem and indicating her interest in resolving the problem was contacted by a state senator who relayed a threat. The threat had been falsely attributed to me. The representative contacted Warrington Township Police who took no action to investigate the unsubstantiated information.
Upon hearing the absolute fear and peril in a voicemail from Rep. Watson, I went to Warrington Township Police to assure them I had made no threat. The Police indicated there was no investigation regarding the threat report, and they were taking no action.
It would defy any logic to threaten the only government official with an ability and a iondicated interest in raising and addressing the unconstitutionality of Rule 1.6 within the state legislature.
Representative Kathy Watson has refused to meet, discuss or take any further action.
Rule 1.6 allows for the fraudulent act of a lawyer (even a state senator) to prevent disclosure.
WHAT TRIGGERED RULE 1.6 INJUSTICE IN HEALY v HEALY
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania may be under the impression that the procedurally defective divorce decree issued without jurisdiction on May 9, 2011 by Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio, while President of the Montgomery County Bar Association, which they have completely neglected and ignored though the central issue in the appeal before the court is the event which triggered the injustice in this matter.
Rule 1.6 has affected this matter since August 27, 2007 when a 'secret' order signed by Judge Rhonda Daniele without any hearing, was not docketed, was not distributed, was being concealed within a separate file at the Prothonotary.
Upon discovery on August 10, 2010, the clearly undocketed and undistributed order was immediately presented to the clerk for entry into the docket.
There has been no explanation, or apology, offered by any judge who participated in the efforts to conceal the document or their inexplicable injustice to further conceal the document.
The Court record contains the evidence of the active participation and avoidance of justice which undermined the judicial independence of twenty members of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas while undermining and preventing any justice.
These actions can only be described as an egregious abuse of power under color of law often with the intent to cause emotional distress. The Montgomery County judiciary have behaved as terrorists with a single deliberate intent to deny any justice, prevent any liberty, to harass a man while they destroyed his life and his family through improper, unjust and illegal actions using every available county resource in the process. Their cruelty is incomprehensible and has been a constant torment since 2007.
TRIGGERS FOR RULE 1.6 INJUSTICE
Rule 1.6 Injustice can be triggered by any act of fraud which involves the court.
A secret court order signed by a judge.
A fraudulent, robo-signed deed presented in a foreclosure.
An improper incarceration of a juvenile in Luzerne County.
Rule 1.6 injustice results in the loss of any protection of the law and denial of a person's constitutional rights without recourse or redress while permitted acts in the furtherance of fraud which seek to prevent any effort to rectify the situation.
Rule 1.6 is a cancer which undermines the entire Judicial Branch of state and federal government.
Whereas, the actions by the Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
in violation of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
which violate rights and privileges secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States, and
which violate the inherent rights, and the general great and essential principles of liberty provided in the Constitution of Pennsylvania,
AND WHERE any law which seeks to remove, abridge, modify, negate or ignore a violation of those protected and secured rights is repugnant to the U. S. Constitution, and NO LAW. A Nullity;
AND WHERE any law which abridges, enlarges or modifies the substantive rights of any litigant may not be enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania pursuant to Article V, Section 10 (c),
AND AS SUCH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW, specifically Rule 1.6 Confidentiality among others generally and by cross-reference, included within the Rules of Professional Conduct having been enacted unconstitutionally, improperly and unlawfully,
HAVING UNCONSTITUTIONALLY permitted, endorsed, mandated, ignored and excused the participation of legal professionals in actions of fraud in violation of established procedure, the rule of law, and the rights and liberties secured and protected by Constitution of the United States,
AND WHERE SUCH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW has undermined the judicial independence and authority of the judicial branch at every level of the state and federal judiciary,
AND WHERE SUCH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW was presented to the state supreme courts of the United States by the American Bar Association as their MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT as a professional ethical standard while lacking in ethics, morality or legality where DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY preventing disclosure of fraud, acts in the furtherance of fraud, and actions to rectify fraud,
AND IN SO DOING the American Bar Association had caused the judicial branch of government to become undone, by undermining judicial independence which affected judicial immunity.
AND WHERE the American Bar Association, and affiliated organizations, positioned their organization and their membership in positions which could interfere with and obstruct justice and the administration of the courts, and violate the law and the rights of the people to conceal their sedition and damage they had caused to the judiciary,
AND WHERE the judiciary have been held hostage, their authority usurped and leveraged, the judges have been held hostage without judicial immunity where they had lost their judicial independence,
AND WHERE the integrity of the Judicial Branch has been compromised and undermined by those actions.
I DEMAND AND ASSERT MY RIGHTS WHICH ARE SECURED AND PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND MY RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW,
AND DEMAND IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, INVESTIGATION, AND PROSECUTION OF THE CRIMINAL ACTS TO WHICH I HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED, PROMPT RESOLUTION WITH SANCTIONS AND RESTITUTION,
WITH ACTIVE EFFORTS INVOLVING THE FOLLOWING:
THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
THE PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE,
THE GOVERNOR/GOVERNOR-ELECT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA,
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO STRIKE THIS REPUGNANT ABOMINATION FROM CAUSING ANY FURTHER TERROR TO THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA.
RESPECTFULLY,
Terance Healy
Filed on November 7, 2014 at the Superior Couert of Pennsylvania
With Separate Service to Philip Yoon, Central Legal Staff and the Superior Court Judiciary by the Prothonotary
Prevented from personal delivery to President Judge Gantmann, where her office staff refused to accept the document or open the door. Assembling 5 members of the staff to decide to call security instead of accepting a document which informed of systemic problems within the superior Court. A level of discourtesy and disrespect which was perplexing. Experience indicates EVERYTHING prevents informing a judge of an issue.
Hand Delivered by Joan Healy to State Representative Kathy Watson
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
| Sonya Healy | : |
| (Appellee) | : # 1330 EDA 2013 |
| : | |
| v. | : |
| : | |
| Terance Healy | : |
| (Appellant) | : |
When this Honorable Superior Court and Attorney General Kathleen Kane were notified pursuant to Rule 521 that the Constitutionality of a State law was being called into question in this matter, it was not made with the intention, or expectation, that the unconstitutional actions would occur within this court.
Where each action, decision, and opinion cannot be directly attributed to any judge of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania,
Where evidence of involvement of the judiciary has been requested and not provided,
Where there is no allowance within the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure (Title 210) or within Internal Operating Procedures of the Superior Court (Chapter 65) which permits actions by the Central Legal staff to the exclusion of the judiciary,
Where there is no allowance for Per Curiam orders within the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Title 210) or the Internal Operating Procedures of the Superior Court (Chapter 65) where a motion seeks action relating to issues directly related to the Appeal,
Where each decision on a motion returned by the court has been unsigned,
Where each decision on a motion returned by the court has been unsubstantiated by law,
Where each decision on a motion returned by the court has been unexplained,
Where every action seeking an appearance before the court has been prevented,
Where all exhibits from the lower court proceeding were not provided,
Where the Court failed to take any action to compel production of the full record by the lower court,
Where the Appellant was not sent the notification of a Briefing Schedule and the Appeal had been improperly dismissed for failure to file a brief, and then reopened,
Where the Argument Letter was not sent, and not acknowledged, denying the Appellant any appearance before the court,
Where these actions can be directly attributed to the Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania,
Where these actions obstruct justice,
Where these actions interfere with the administration of the courts,
Where these actions deny constitutional rights,
Where these actions demonstrate participation in a conspiracy to deny, prevent and obstruct justice,
Where these actions are fraudulent,
Where these actions are not permitted by Pennsylvania law,
Where the Central Legal Staff is positioned between the litigant and the judiciary where there is the opportunity to intercept, misdirect, and 'play judge',
These actions demonstrate the denial and prevention of the Rule of Law and rights and liberties secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States.
The Appeal in this matter was filed in good faith. Every document and motion was filed in good faith, and not with the expectation or intent to create more evidence of systemic injustice and fraud ignored pursuant to Rule 1.6.
CALLING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW INTO QUESTION
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information has a broad affect on victims of an injustice denying, preventing and obstructing justice. FOREVER.
There is no escaping the injustice, there can be no restoration of protection of the law. There can be no restoration of the constitutional rights which have been denied. NONE. EVER.
A victim loses all protection of the law and all constitutional rights because of a simple injustice, even while and where that injustice is being concealed.
The efforts to conceal the injustice can, and likely will, become far more egregious than the initial injustice.
The mandate for the participation of all legal professionals to conceal the fraud affects the integrity and the independence of the judiciary.
The systemic obstruction of justice, denial of the rule of law, and disregard of constitutional rights undermines the judicial branch of government at state and federal levels.
RULE 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information is referred to by lawyers as Attorney Client privilege, but the affect of Rule 1.6 is far broader than a lawyer keeping a secret for his client.
Rule 1.6 affects every legal professional, lawyer and law enforcement, and MANDATES their silence, non-exposure and participation in every effort which prevents disclosure or exposure of the injustice.
EVOLUTION OF RULE 1.6
With deliberate intent, and lacking any consideration for the rights of a victim, the American Bar Association rejected the 'fraud provisions' of the Kutak Commission.
- which would have permitted disclosure of a fraud, or acts in the furtherance of a fraud.
- which would permit disclosure to rectify the fraud.
By removing the 'fraud provisions', the ABA deliberately prevented disclosure by every member of the legal profession (lawyers, judges, District Attorneys, Attorneys General) and effectively denied, prevented and ignored the rights of the victim of the crime.
Where fraud is undeniably a crime, the American Bar Association made fraud not only legal, but has required the mandatory participation to conceal that fraud for all legal professionals while preventing any disclosure which would rectify the fraud.
Where continued fraud and prevention of any resolution is wrong and unethical, the American Bar Association mandated participation in unethical activities for all legal professionals within their mislabeled “Ethics Rules”.
The ABA presented their Model Rules of Professional Conduct as an ethical standard for the profession of law. Fraud is not legal. Preventing fraud from being addressed, stopped or resolved is not ethical.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania enacted the Rules of Professional Conduct into law on October 16, 1987 to be effective April 1, 1988.
Where Rule 1.6, directly and by cross-reference throughout the rules, affects the substantive rights of a litigant, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was without the authority under the Pennsylvania Constitution to enact the law.
ARTICLE V SECTION 10(c)
… if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality Of Information involves four aspects
1. Confidentiality
2. Non-Disclosure
3. Fraud, and continued fraud to conceal fraud
4. No action which rectifies the fraud is allowed.
Evidence of any aspect of the fraud and injustice when presented within the court is ignored, neglected and not addressed by any counter argument from an attorney. The court will ignore, neglect and not address the issue in any decision, memorandum or opinion.
It is this broad and absolute avoidance (non-disclosure) which indicates Rule 1.6 has been triggered in a matter.
An evaluation of the case will clearly indicate the point where the victim lost any protection under the law and any ability to assert their constitutional rights as an act of judicial misconduct/fraud and injustice is what causes Rule 1.6 Injustice to be triggered.
AFFECT ON JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
In order to assure the independence of the judiciary to make decisions, judges are granted immunity from prosecution for judicial errors no matter how malicious or grievous their 'error' or actions.
Rule 1.6 requires that the “initial injustice’ not be addressed at anytime.
Rule 1.6 permits and ignores any and every action which prevents exposure. This is most often accomplished by the judge IGNORING the issue, even when it is the only issue which the judge is considering.
Where the court must ignore, neglect and not address an issue in any decision, memorandum or opinion, the court does not have the independence to make an impartial unbiased decision based on the merits and the evidence, exhibits and testimony presented during proceedings.
Where Rule 1.6 MANDATES continued injustice to the victim who cannot succeed where the injustice may be revealed, the judge is not permitted to render an independent decision based on the facts. The lack of an ability to render an independent decision affects the immunity accorded to the judge.
The intervention by the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF is not permitted by law, even where seeking to protect the Superior Court Judiciary from a decision which compromises immunity and lacks judicial independence and any ability to render an impartial decision based on the facts.
While not permitted under the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure or the Internal Operating Procedures of the Superior Court. The actions by the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF are knowingly ignored and excused by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality which requires fraudulent efforts to conceal a prior fraud and does not allow for the fraud to ever be rectified.
These unlawful actions of the Central Legal Staff, while concealed by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality, adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary while denying constitutionally protected rights of a litigant.
Where the constitutionally protected rights, or substantive rights of a litigant, have been negated and ignored albeit secretly and with deception pursuant to Rule 1.6, the Supreme Court was without the authority under the Pennsylvania Constitution to enact the rule into law. Rule 1.6 is no law. It is unconstitutional. A nullity.
RULE 1.6 SELF DEFENSE MECHANISMS
Pursuant to Rule 1.6, where Confidentiality is required where an action will adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania may not lawfully remove the rule which they have improperly enacted into law, even where they have acted in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States..
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
As the Local Rules adopted by the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania incorporate the Rules of Professional Conduct which are in effect where the court is located, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information as enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affects litigation within the District Court.
A Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed on August 8, 2013 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and served upon every state Attorney General.
Every state Attorney General defaulted by failing to file any answer to the summons.
An improperly filed late response purporting to act on behalf of all attorneys general, though indicting it was without any authority to act on the part of other states, seeking to dismiss the matter as a 1983 case while failing to recognize that the challenge was a pre-emptory challenge to the constitutionality of a law became the act of fraud which prevented and obstructed justice in the matter.
The unsigned orders and opinions of the court, which contained misinformation unrelated to the case did not support any doctrine for dismissal, were fraudulently used to dismiss the matter.
Similarly to this matter within the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, there is no indication or evidence whatsoever which indicated that the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 had ever been before any member of the District Court judiciary.
On Appeal to the Third Circuit, the Local Rules again incorporated the Rules of Professional Conduct in effect where the court was located.
The unsigned orders and opinions of the court, which contained misinformation unrelated to the appeal and failed to recognize the facts within the District Court documents did not support any doctrine for dismissal, were fraudulently used to affirm dismissal the matter.
Similarly to this matter within the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, there is no indication or evidence whatsoever which indicated that the Appeal to the Third Circuit had ever been before any member of the Court of Appeals judiciary.
The federal Challenge to the Constitutionality of Rule 1.6, had been undermined by the fraud committed, permitted and ignored pursuant to Rule 1.6.
Where legal professionals were permitted to commit fraud and their actions in the furtherance of that fraud were concealed and kept confidential, there could be no resolution to the injustice under Rule 1.6 within the Courts.
The Default by the state Attorneys General was the legal, moral and ethical action necessary to remove this unconstitutional law.
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFENSES
Criminal prosecution of the fraud and constitutional violations does not occur where the District Attorney/state Attorney General are mandated by Rule 1.6. The crime, and any acts in the furtherance of the crime, is ignored.
Federal criminal prosecution of the fraud and constitutional violations does not occur where the Department of Justice/US Attorneys and all government lawyers are mandated by Rule 1.6 under the McDade-Murtha Amendment – the local version of Rule 1.6. The crime, and any acts in the furtherance of the crime, is ignored.
Civil lawsuit within Pennsylvania cannot be successful where the Court is mandated by Rule 1.6. The lawsuit will be avoided by the courts based on disinformation, an excused act in the furtherance of fraud.
Federal lawsuit brought in Federal district court cannot not be successful as the District Court has indicated within their ‘LOCAL RULES’ that the local Rules of Professional Conduct apply. The lawsuit will be avoided by the courts based on disinformation, an excused act in the furtherance of fraud.
The Sheriff, as Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the County, has the authority which pre-dates the constitution to enforce the every law.
While uniquely not obligated under Rule 1.6, the County Sheriffs have been improperly convinced of a diminished authority by the judiciary and their legal counsel which prevents them from taking action to address the fraud and constitutional violations.
While the evident and proven lack of judicial independence causes the loss of judicial immunity, the judge could be subjected to criminal prosecution, civil lawsuits, or disciplinary actions. Rule 1.6 prevents any of those actions from occurring or being successful. Rule 1.6 prevents justice forever.
PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE
The Pennsylvania Constitution Article I Section 12 places exclusive authority to suspend laws within the Pennsylvania Legislature.
“No power of suspending laws shall be exercised unless by the Legislature or by its authority.”
State Senator Charles McIlhinney, a non-lawyer, after several meetings where he recognized and understood the issue, on the advice of his counsel has stalled and failed to inform the Pennsylvania Legislature of the unconstitutional affect of Rule 1.6 .
State Representative Kathy Watson after recognizing and understanding the problem and indicating her interest in resolving the problem was contacted by a state senator who relayed a threat. The threat had been falsely attributed to me. The representative contacted Warrington Township Police who took no action to investigate the unsubstantiated information.
Upon hearing the absolute fear and peril in a voicemail from Rep. Watson, I went to Warrington Township Police to assure them I had made no threat. The Police indicated there was no investigation regarding the threat report, and they were taking no action.
It would defy any logic to threaten the only government official with an ability and a iondicated interest in raising and addressing the unconstitutionality of Rule 1.6 within the state legislature.
Representative Kathy Watson has refused to meet, discuss or take any further action.
Rule 1.6 allows for the fraudulent act of a lawyer (even a state senator) to prevent disclosure.
WHAT TRIGGERED RULE 1.6 INJUSTICE IN HEALY v HEALY
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania may be under the impression that the procedurally defective divorce decree issued without jurisdiction on May 9, 2011 by Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio, while President of the Montgomery County Bar Association, which they have completely neglected and ignored though the central issue in the appeal before the court is the event which triggered the injustice in this matter.
Rule 1.6 has affected this matter since August 27, 2007 when a 'secret' order signed by Judge Rhonda Daniele without any hearing, was not docketed, was not distributed, was being concealed within a separate file at the Prothonotary.
Upon discovery on August 10, 2010, the clearly undocketed and undistributed order was immediately presented to the clerk for entry into the docket.
There has been no explanation, or apology, offered by any judge who participated in the efforts to conceal the document or their inexplicable injustice to further conceal the document.
The Court record contains the evidence of the active participation and avoidance of justice which undermined the judicial independence of twenty members of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas while undermining and preventing any justice.
These actions can only be described as an egregious abuse of power under color of law often with the intent to cause emotional distress. The Montgomery County judiciary have behaved as terrorists with a single deliberate intent to deny any justice, prevent any liberty, to harass a man while they destroyed his life and his family through improper, unjust and illegal actions using every available county resource in the process. Their cruelty is incomprehensible and has been a constant torment since 2007.
TRIGGERS FOR RULE 1.6 INJUSTICE
Rule 1.6 Injustice can be triggered by any act of fraud which involves the court.
A secret court order signed by a judge.
A fraudulent, robo-signed deed presented in a foreclosure.
An improper incarceration of a juvenile in Luzerne County.
Rule 1.6 injustice results in the loss of any protection of the law and denial of a person's constitutional rights without recourse or redress while permitted acts in the furtherance of fraud which seek to prevent any effort to rectify the situation.
Rule 1.6 is a cancer which undermines the entire Judicial Branch of state and federal government.
Whereas, the actions by the Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
in violation of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
which violate rights and privileges secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States, and
which violate the inherent rights, and the general great and essential principles of liberty provided in the Constitution of Pennsylvania,
AND WHERE any law which seeks to remove, abridge, modify, negate or ignore a violation of those protected and secured rights is repugnant to the U. S. Constitution, and NO LAW. A Nullity;
AND WHERE any law which abridges, enlarges or modifies the substantive rights of any litigant may not be enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania pursuant to Article V, Section 10 (c),
AND AS SUCH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW, specifically Rule 1.6 Confidentiality among others generally and by cross-reference, included within the Rules of Professional Conduct having been enacted unconstitutionally, improperly and unlawfully,
HAVING UNCONSTITUTIONALLY permitted, endorsed, mandated, ignored and excused the participation of legal professionals in actions of fraud in violation of established procedure, the rule of law, and the rights and liberties secured and protected by Constitution of the United States,
AND WHERE SUCH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW has undermined the judicial independence and authority of the judicial branch at every level of the state and federal judiciary,
AND WHERE SUCH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW was presented to the state supreme courts of the United States by the American Bar Association as their MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT as a professional ethical standard while lacking in ethics, morality or legality where DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY preventing disclosure of fraud, acts in the furtherance of fraud, and actions to rectify fraud,
AND IN SO DOING the American Bar Association had caused the judicial branch of government to become undone, by undermining judicial independence which affected judicial immunity.
AND WHERE the American Bar Association, and affiliated organizations, positioned their organization and their membership in positions which could interfere with and obstruct justice and the administration of the courts, and violate the law and the rights of the people to conceal their sedition and damage they had caused to the judiciary,
AND WHERE the judiciary have been held hostage, their authority usurped and leveraged, the judges have been held hostage without judicial immunity where they had lost their judicial independence,
AND WHERE the integrity of the Judicial Branch has been compromised and undermined by those actions.
I DEMAND AND ASSERT MY RIGHTS WHICH ARE SECURED AND PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND MY RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW,
AND DEMAND IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, INVESTIGATION, AND PROSECUTION OF THE CRIMINAL ACTS TO WHICH I HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED, PROMPT RESOLUTION WITH SANCTIONS AND RESTITUTION,
WITH ACTIVE EFFORTS INVOLVING THE FOLLOWING:
THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
THE PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE,
THE GOVERNOR/GOVERNOR-ELECT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA,
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO STRIKE THIS REPUGNANT ABOMINATION FROM CAUSING ANY FURTHER TERROR TO THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA.
RESPECTFULLY,
Terance Healy
Filed on November 7, 2014 at the Superior Couert of Pennsylvania
With Separate Service to Philip Yoon, Central Legal Staff and the Superior Court Judiciary by the Prothonotary
Prevented from personal delivery to President Judge Gantmann, where her office staff refused to accept the document or open the door. Assembling 5 members of the staff to decide to call security instead of accepting a document which informed of systemic problems within the superior Court. A level of discourtesy and disrespect which was perplexing. Experience indicates EVERYTHING prevents informing a judge of an issue.
Hand Delivered by Joan Healy to State Representative Kathy Watson
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Invitation - 2nd Request
Local Politicians have not yet responded to our invitation to meet. Silent Complicity.
Today we extended the invitation to the ENTIRE Pennsylvania Legislature - Senators and Representatives.
September 3, 2014
SECOND REQUEST
Rep. Katherine M. Watson
Rep. Marguerite Quinn
Rep. Todd Stephens
Rep. Tina Davis
Rep. Scott Petri
Rep. John T. Galloway
Rep. Thomas Murt
Rep. Steven J. Santarsiero
Rep. Frank Farry
Rep. Paul Clymer
Rep. Gene DiGirolamo
Rep. Bernie O’Neill
Rep. Kate Harper
Sen. Bob Mensch
Sen. Robert Tomlinson
Sen. Charles McIlhinney
Sen. Stewart Greenleaf
Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick
Senator Bob Casey
Senator Pat Toomey
A package of information regarding the loss of constitutional rights and liberties caused by Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct has been delivered to your office, by hand, and by fax, with a request to meet to discuss the issue, and ways to address it.
We have been very fortunate to have had the opportunity to meet with members of your staff, or directly when your schedule has permitted. Those meetings have proven to be productive and informative.
As we are all located nearby to each other, we are proposing a meeting with everyone who is available. Please contact our office with 3 possible dates/times when you are available in the coming weeks and if you are interested in hosting the meeting at your office, another location, or our location in Doylestown.
Thank You for your attention to this very important issue.
Terance Healy
Todd Krautheim
A law enacted by the state supreme court in every state without proper construction, without constitutional review, without involvement of any state legislature and without the signature of any governor designed to ignore judicial corruption and injustice which includes an aggressively enforced MANDATE of silence for all lawyers while ignoring, denying and preventing the constitutional rights of litigants.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6
Rule 1.6 affects civil, criminal, family, federal district and federal appeals courts making it impossible to address the loss of constitutional rights when committed by a judge.
The Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandates confidentiality of client information where the information
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
- would reveal the misconduct of their own office,
- would expose individual liability,
- would adversely affect their client.
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, the Attorney General’s office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers and the public. All Clients.
This is why Kids for Cash was ignored by the Attorney General, the Luzerne County District Attorney, every lawyer in Luzerne county, the PA Supreme Court and the Judicial Conduct Board.
This is why the ‘Sandusky Report’ released in 2014 failed to indicate any improper conduct. The Report also failed to include a disclaimer that Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandated the silence of the Attorney General regarding information about the Office of the Attorney General, the Governor, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, etc…
This is why millions of foreclosures were ignored by the Attorneys General nationwide with no prosecutions while millions of people lost their homes based on fraudulent and robosigned deeds and other documents.
Rule 1.6 has undermined law enforcement and the judicial branch in the states and federally.
Rule 1.6 is a core part of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Most, if not all, rules point back to Rule 1.6 by cross reference.
The ABA presented their Model Rules to each state supreme court for promulgation into law. As trade rules, confidentiality was discretionary. As law, the confidentiality became an aggressively enforced mandate which denied people of constitutional rights and prevented anyone in law from acting on behalf of the victims against it’s unconstitutional effect. The victims having no protection of the law become 1) destitute/homeless, 2) incarcerated, or 3) suicidal.
RULE 1.6 CAUSES AN INESCAPABLE LOSS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
WHICH UNDERMINES THE STATE AND FEDERAL JUDICIARY.
PDF Version
PDF version (Initial Invitation)
Fax'd 8/26/2014 11:25 AM - 1:13 PM
Today we extended the invitation to the ENTIRE Pennsylvania Legislature - Senators and Representatives.
September 3, 2014
Rep. Katherine M. Watson
Rep. Marguerite Quinn
Rep. Todd Stephens
Rep. Tina Davis
Rep. Scott Petri
Rep. John T. Galloway
Rep. Thomas Murt
Rep. Steven J. Santarsiero
Rep. Frank Farry
Rep. Paul Clymer
Rep. Gene DiGirolamo
Rep. Bernie O’Neill
Rep. Kate Harper
Sen. Bob Mensch
Sen. Robert Tomlinson
Sen. Charles McIlhinney
Sen. Stewart Greenleaf
Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick
Senator Bob Casey
Senator Pat Toomey
A package of information regarding the loss of constitutional rights and liberties caused by Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct has been delivered to your office, by hand, and by fax, with a request to meet to discuss the issue, and ways to address it.
We have been very fortunate to have had the opportunity to meet with members of your staff, or directly when your schedule has permitted. Those meetings have proven to be productive and informative.
As we are all located nearby to each other, we are proposing a meeting with everyone who is available. Please contact our office with 3 possible dates/times when you are available in the coming weeks and if you are interested in hosting the meeting at your office, another location, or our location in Doylestown.
Thank You for your attention to this very important issue.
Terance Healy
Todd Krautheim
A law enacted by the state supreme court in every state without proper construction, without constitutional review, without involvement of any state legislature and without the signature of any governor designed to ignore judicial corruption and injustice which includes an aggressively enforced MANDATE of silence for all lawyers while ignoring, denying and preventing the constitutional rights of litigants.
Rule 1.6 affects civil, criminal, family, federal district and federal appeals courts making it impossible to address the loss of constitutional rights when committed by a judge.
The Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandates confidentiality of client information where the information
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
- would reveal the misconduct of their own office,
- would expose individual liability,
- would adversely affect their client.
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, the Attorney General’s office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers and the public. All Clients.
This is why Kids for Cash was ignored by the Attorney General, the Luzerne County District Attorney, every lawyer in Luzerne county, the PA Supreme Court and the Judicial Conduct Board.
This is why the ‘Sandusky Report’ released in 2014 failed to indicate any improper conduct. The Report also failed to include a disclaimer that Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandated the silence of the Attorney General regarding information about the Office of the Attorney General, the Governor, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, etc…
This is why millions of foreclosures were ignored by the Attorneys General nationwide with no prosecutions while millions of people lost their homes based on fraudulent and robosigned deeds and other documents.
Rule 1.6 has undermined law enforcement and the judicial branch in the states and federally.
Rule 1.6 is a core part of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Most, if not all, rules point back to Rule 1.6 by cross reference.
The ABA presented their Model Rules to each state supreme court for promulgation into law. As trade rules, confidentiality was discretionary. As law, the confidentiality became an aggressively enforced mandate which denied people of constitutional rights and prevented anyone in law from acting on behalf of the victims against it’s unconstitutional effect. The victims having no protection of the law become 1) destitute/homeless, 2) incarcerated, or 3) suicidal.
WHICH UNDERMINES THE STATE AND FEDERAL JUDICIARY.
PDF Version
PDF version (Initial Invitation)
Fax'd 8/26/2014 11:25 AM - 1:13 PM
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Invitation
August 26, 2014
Rep. Katherine M. Watson
Rep. Marguerite Quinn
Rep. Todd Stephens
Rep. Tina Davis
Rep. Scott Petri
Rep. John T. Galloway
Rep. Thomas Murt
Rep. Steven J. Santarsiero
Rep. Frank Farry
Rep. Paul Clymer
Rep. Gene DiGirolamo
Rep. Bernie O’Neill
Rep. Kate Harper
Sen. Bob Mensch
Sen. Robert Tomlinson
Sen. Charles McIlhinney
Sen. Stewart Greenleaf
Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick
Senator Bob Casey
Senator Pat Toomey
A package of information regarding the loss of constitutional rights and liberties caused by Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct has been delivered to your office, by hand, and by fax, with a request to meet to discuss the issue, and ways to address it.
We have been very fortunate to have had the opportunity to meet with members of your staff, or directly when your schedule has permitted. Those meetings have proven to be productive and informative.
As we are all located nearby to each other, we are proposing a meeting with everyone who is available. Please contact our office with 3 possible dates/times when you are available in the coming weeks and if you are interested in hosting the meeting at your office, another location, or our location in Doylestown.
Thank You for your attention to this very important issue.
Terance Healy
Todd Krautheim
A law enacted by the state supreme court in every state without proper construction, without constitutional review, without involvement of any state legislature and without the signature of any governor designed to ignore judicial corruption and injustice which includes an aggressively enforced MANDATE of silence for all lawyers while ignoring, denying and preventing the constitutional rights of litigants.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6
Rule 1.6 affects civil, criminal, family, federal district and federal appeals courts making it impossible to address the loss of constitutional rights when committed by a judge.
The Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandates confidentiality of client information where the information
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
- would reveal the misconduct of their own office,
- would expose individual liability,
- would adversely affect their client.
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, the Attorney General’s office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers and the public. All Clients.
This is why Kids for Cash was ignored by the Attorney General, the Luzerne County District Attorney, every lawyer in Luzerne county, the PA Supreme Court and the Judicial Conduct Board.
This is why the ‘Sandusky Report’ released in 2014 failed to indicate any improper conduct. The Report also failed to include a disclaimer that Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandated the silence of the Attorney General regarding information about the Office of the Attorney General, the Governor, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, etc…
This is why millions of foreclosures were ignored by the Attorneys General nationwide with no prosecutions while millions of people lost their homes based on fraudulent and robosigned deeds and other documents.
Rule 1.6 has undermined law enforcement and the judicial branch in the states and federally.
Rule 1.6 is a core part of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Most, if not all, rules point back to Rule 1.6 by cross reference.
The ABA presented their Model Rules to each state supreme court for promulgation into law. As trade rules, confidentiality was discretionary. As law, the confidentiality became an aggressively enforced mandate which denied people of constitutional rights and prevented anyone in law from acting on behalf of the victims against it’s unconstitutional effect. The victims having no protection of the law become 1) destitute/homeless, 2) incarcerated, or 3) suicidal.
RULE 1.6 CAUSES AN INESCAPABLE LOSS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
WHICH UNDERMINES THE STATE AND FEDERAL JUDICIARY.
PDF version
Fax'd 8/26/2014 11:25 AM - 1:13 PM
Rep. Katherine M. Watson
Rep. Marguerite Quinn
Rep. Todd Stephens
Rep. Tina Davis
Rep. Scott Petri
Rep. John T. Galloway
Rep. Thomas Murt
Rep. Steven J. Santarsiero
Rep. Frank Farry
Rep. Paul Clymer
Rep. Gene DiGirolamo
Rep. Bernie O’Neill
Rep. Kate Harper
Sen. Bob Mensch
Sen. Robert Tomlinson
Sen. Charles McIlhinney
Sen. Stewart Greenleaf
Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick
Senator Bob Casey
Senator Pat Toomey
A package of information regarding the loss of constitutional rights and liberties caused by Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct has been delivered to your office, by hand, and by fax, with a request to meet to discuss the issue, and ways to address it.
We have been very fortunate to have had the opportunity to meet with members of your staff, or directly when your schedule has permitted. Those meetings have proven to be productive and informative.
As we are all located nearby to each other, we are proposing a meeting with everyone who is available. Please contact our office with 3 possible dates/times when you are available in the coming weeks and if you are interested in hosting the meeting at your office, another location, or our location in Doylestown.
Thank You for your attention to this very important issue.
Terance Healy
Todd Krautheim
A law enacted by the state supreme court in every state without proper construction, without constitutional review, without involvement of any state legislature and without the signature of any governor designed to ignore judicial corruption and injustice which includes an aggressively enforced MANDATE of silence for all lawyers while ignoring, denying and preventing the constitutional rights of litigants.
Rule 1.6 affects civil, criminal, family, federal district and federal appeals courts making it impossible to address the loss of constitutional rights when committed by a judge.
The Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandates confidentiality of client information where the information
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
- would reveal the misconduct of their own office,
- would expose individual liability,
- would adversely affect their client.
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, the Attorney General’s office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers and the public. All Clients.
This is why Kids for Cash was ignored by the Attorney General, the Luzerne County District Attorney, every lawyer in Luzerne county, the PA Supreme Court and the Judicial Conduct Board.
This is why the ‘Sandusky Report’ released in 2014 failed to indicate any improper conduct. The Report also failed to include a disclaimer that Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandated the silence of the Attorney General regarding information about the Office of the Attorney General, the Governor, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, etc…
This is why millions of foreclosures were ignored by the Attorneys General nationwide with no prosecutions while millions of people lost their homes based on fraudulent and robosigned deeds and other documents.
Rule 1.6 has undermined law enforcement and the judicial branch in the states and federally.
Rule 1.6 is a core part of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Most, if not all, rules point back to Rule 1.6 by cross reference.
The ABA presented their Model Rules to each state supreme court for promulgation into law. As trade rules, confidentiality was discretionary. As law, the confidentiality became an aggressively enforced mandate which denied people of constitutional rights and prevented anyone in law from acting on behalf of the victims against it’s unconstitutional effect. The victims having no protection of the law become 1) destitute/homeless, 2) incarcerated, or 3) suicidal.
WHICH UNDERMINES THE STATE AND FEDERAL JUDICIARY.
PDF version
Fax'd 8/26/2014 11:25 AM - 1:13 PM
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Everyone can be a victim of Rule 1.6 - Terrorism
An unconstitutional law enacted by the judiciary without any review during construction for constitutionality is further excluded from any 'checks and balances' because ONLY THE COURTS can decide constitutionality which causes judicial corruption and injustice to be ignored while denying basic constitutional rights.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality further mandates that lawyers take no action which would adversely affect the integrity of the court.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality further mandates that an Attorney General not expose corruption within the OAG, by state officials or other state agencies.
Rule 1.6 mandates the victim to be abused and terrorized within the courts made destitute, homeless or incarcerated until their suicide.
Rule 1.6 is so powerful that lawyers, attorneys general and judges will deny law, constitutional rights, human rights, and facts to conceal the corruption and injustice which it causes.
It only requires a judge and lawyer commit misconduct. The resulting injustice will overwhelm. Whether aware of the injustice's existence or not, the target experiences the loss of rights and the denial of the protection of the law. Even if the initial injustice is discovered, there is no method by which a victim may recover or survive. There is no possibility of regaining your rights where they have been deliberately denied by the judiciary.
The victim knows what it means to be terrorized. Any attempt to survive requires the court and judiciary to address the denial of rights. They don't. They won't. Ever. It's their law.
The law was deliberately written without opportunity for escape. It's intent was destruction. It has been allowed to foreclose on millions of people's homes. It has thrown innocent children in jail. It has denied parents of their children. It has thrown innocent people in jail.
Homeless. Destitute. Suicide. Incarceration. THE ONLY CHOICES UNDER RULE 1.6. Perseverance is self-torture. Survival is futile.
Rule 1.6 destroys HOPE last. Hope is requisite for justice - even where you know justice will be denied. There is no alternative. You must return to the corrupt court seeking justice that won't come... ...until you are dead.
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 continues to persevere on behalf of the survivors and to help further victims. BUT, I am exhausted... fighting the misinformation and corruption art every level of the courts. It proves my case against Rule 1.6, while it consumes my life and terrorizes every moment since 2006. There are no vacations, no breaks, no relief, ever... I understand why people break.
Please Persevere. I understand. Terror, destruction and isolation is no life.
Every. Person. Matters. JUSTICE IS COMING.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality further mandates that lawyers take no action which would adversely affect the integrity of the court.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality further mandates that an Attorney General not expose corruption within the OAG, by state officials or other state agencies.
Rule 1.6 mandates the victim to be abused and terrorized within the courts made destitute, homeless or incarcerated until their suicide.
Rule 1.6 is so powerful that lawyers, attorneys general and judges will deny law, constitutional rights, human rights, and facts to conceal the corruption and injustice which it causes.
| Kids for Cash corruption concealed the crimes of Judge Ciavarella. Judges, lawyers, prosecutors, district attorneys, attorneys general, public defenders, Supreme Court Justices, Judicial Conduct Boards, Disciplinary Boards,... THEY ALL CONSPIRED TO CONCEAL THAT A JUDGE WAS TRAFFICKING CHILDREN INTO A JAIL FOR KICKBACKS FOR YEARS. EVEN THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE HOW IT HAPPENED, AND HOW TO PREVENT IT FROM EVER HAPPENING AGAIN CONCEALED RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY FROM THEIR REPORT. (They were all lawyers and judges. They all knew.) |
| Judge Ann Lokuta who contacted federal authorities was disciplined for violating Rule 1.6 and removed from the bench. She may never hold judicial office again. |
It only requires a judge and lawyer commit misconduct. The resulting injustice will overwhelm. Whether aware of the injustice's existence or not, the target experiences the loss of rights and the denial of the protection of the law. Even if the initial injustice is discovered, there is no method by which a victim may recover or survive. There is no possibility of regaining your rights where they have been deliberately denied by the judiciary.
The victim knows what it means to be terrorized. Any attempt to survive requires the court and judiciary to address the denial of rights. They don't. They won't. Ever. It's their law.
The law was deliberately written without opportunity for escape. It's intent was destruction. It has been allowed to foreclose on millions of people's homes. It has thrown innocent children in jail. It has denied parents of their children. It has thrown innocent people in jail.
Homeless. Destitute. Suicide. Incarceration. THE ONLY CHOICES UNDER RULE 1.6. Perseverance is self-torture. Survival is futile.
Rule 1.6 destroys HOPE last. Hope is requisite for justice - even where you know justice will be denied. There is no alternative. You must return to the corrupt court seeking justice that won't come... ...until you are dead.
| If you have been involved in litigation and the following description fits. then you are a victim of Rule 1.6. "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… NO ONE HELPED… " |
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 continues to persevere on behalf of the survivors and to help further victims. BUT, I am exhausted... fighting the misinformation and corruption art every level of the courts. It proves my case against Rule 1.6, while it consumes my life and terrorizes every moment since 2006. There are no vacations, no breaks, no relief, ever... I understand why people break.
| It has annihilated my life. Every minute of every day of every week of every year form over 9 years. Not one moment of relief during that entire time. Destitute. Property destroyed. No protection of the law. Constant technology intrusions and attacks. Tech attacks against any friends or supporters - they disappear. Constant fraudulent litigation. Court orders issued without lawful jurisdiction. Ignored Appeals. Further harassing litigation without jurisdiction. Court Records denied and prevented from the appeals court. Somehow I have survived when I would have preferred suicide. I find Rule 1.6 which causes the situation. Only to discover it was intentionally written and enacted to destroy people, children, families,... Destruction without any empathy or mercy. Rule 1.6 is the purest most vile form of evil I have ever encountered in my life. |
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.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
OPINION - Third Circuit Court of Appeals
No one has ever said RULE 1.6 is Constitutional.
| The Most logical reason for this... BECAUSE IT IS NOT. However, RULE 1.6 mandates the judges and lawyers not say THAT either. When facts and law are NOT discussed, addressed or properly resolved, the resulting injustice is a clear indicator that RULE 1.6 is affecting in the matter. |
THE OPINION (PDF Format)
Within the next few days... I will post
- a Breakdown of the incorrect information in the Opinion
- the issues raised on appeal which the Judges neglected to address
THE LETTER
THE COSTS (PDF Format)
THE FEES (PDF Format)
The Fees raises alot of questions. BUT the first thing to consider is that the Attorney General was supposed to be representing the plaintiffs... aka The Public.
Instead, Attorney General Kathleen Kane neglected her clients, the PUBLIC.
Attorney General Kathleen Kane defended her other clients,
1. the Government as a whole,
2. herself as Attorney General,
3. the office of the Attorney General, and
4. the staff of the Attorney General's office
BUT THOSE CLIENTS are there at the request of the PUBLIC, the neglected client.THOSE CLIENTS are there on behalf of the PUBLIC, the neglected client.
Why does this problem exist for the Attorneys General?... RULE 1.6 - CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.
Attorney General Kathleen Kane must maintain confidentiality of information for her clients... EVEN WHEN IT CAUSES THE PUBLIC TO BE DENIED OF RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES PROTECTED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
The twisted law would required Attorney General Kathleen Kane to be disciplined if she even discussed it with herself.
RULE 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
JUSTICE IS COMING.
Friday, March 28, 2014
The Corruption FAQ
When I first encountered THE CORRUPTION FAQ in 2007, the presentation of this most hopeless and despair-filled situation was not anything I could comprehend or imagine being real and accurate.
Then, I lived the experience.
I found the document again in 2011, and found it to be the most complete and precisely accurate documentation of what a victim who has lost their constitutional rights experiences. So precisely accurate and encompassing every aspect of the terror and harassment of the injustice. So exact in every detail where NO ONE HELPED - Lawyers, judges, local, state and federal law enforcement, District Attorneys, Attorneys General, Governors, Senators, Congressmen, Government Bureaucrats, every single level of the government IGNORED me and the overwhelming situation.
So impressed with the completeness and accuracy of the information, I posted the document in it's entirety for others to find and perhaps find some relief in the knowledge that 'it wasn't them'. It was NOT something they were doing or saying or failing to communicate properly. Someone else had documented it. I had lived it. I found the experience exactly as documented.
Rule 1.6 causes and mandates each situation documented in THE CORRUPTION FAQ. I reviewed the FAQ and noted how Rule 1.6 was responsible for each part of the thirty questions presented.
EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS CAUSED BY ONE RULE. ONE LAW. EVERY STATE. EVERY VICTIM LOST THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS WITH NO RECOURSE, RESOLUTION, SALVATION or ESCAPE.
THE CORRUPTION FAQ is not misleading. It does not misinform about anything. It is precisely accurate. My experience corroborates everything in it. EVERYTHING.
WELL, EVERYTHING except....
Then, I lived the experience.
I found the document again in 2011, and found it to be the most complete and precisely accurate documentation of what a victim who has lost their constitutional rights experiences. So precisely accurate and encompassing every aspect of the terror and harassment of the injustice. So exact in every detail where NO ONE HELPED - Lawyers, judges, local, state and federal law enforcement, District Attorneys, Attorneys General, Governors, Senators, Congressmen, Government Bureaucrats, every single level of the government IGNORED me and the overwhelming situation.
So impressed with the completeness and accuracy of the information, I posted the document in it's entirety for others to find and perhaps find some relief in the knowledge that 'it wasn't them'. It was NOT something they were doing or saying or failing to communicate properly. Someone else had documented it. I had lived it. I found the experience exactly as documented.
Rule 1.6 causes and mandates each situation documented in THE CORRUPTION FAQ. I reviewed the FAQ and noted how Rule 1.6 was responsible for each part of the thirty questions presented.
EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS CAUSED BY ONE RULE. ONE LAW. EVERY STATE. EVERY VICTIM LOST THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS WITH NO RECOURSE, RESOLUTION, SALVATION or ESCAPE.
THE CORRUPTION FAQ is not misleading. It does not misinform about anything. It is precisely accurate. My experience corroborates everything in it. EVERYTHING.
WELL, EVERYTHING except....
There were only two things which THE CORRUPTION FAQ missed completely. The complete, precise and accurate, rational, well-written, organized and presented document with only two things missing from it.
The document was written by Dr. Les Sachs. His biography lists the following accomplishments.
- graduated high school at 16
- Native American spirituality
- attended Harvard College on a scholarship (graduated at age 19)
- worked for the U.S. Federal Aviation Association
- worked for City of Boston - Mayors Office
- worked for U.S. Department of Justice
Superior Performance Award - Law Enforcement Assistance
- Masters Degree Harvard's Graduate School of Education
- Masters and Master of Philosophy from City University of New York
- Fellowship at Catholic University of Washington, DC
- Car Salesman
- Writer, Author Journalist, Novelist
The Virginia Ghost Murderers
How to Buy Your New Car for a Rock Bottom Price
Dr. Sachs had earned 7 degrees and his doctorate by the age of 28.
THE CORRUPTION FAQ definitely reads like the work of a man with experience and education.
Two essential things which are deliberately missing from the document.
THE CAUSE - Rule 1.6 - Confidentiality of Information
THE ESCAPE - Sheriffs - The Chief Law Enforcement Officers in the County
How does a document so completely researched, organized and prepared neglect to include that RULE 1.6 caused the situation and the inescapable circumstances.
How does the author further neglect to present the lawful ability of the County Sheriff to address the injustice and corruption. The single point of failure in the conspiracy to conceal Rule 1.6 was that it would require modification of each state constitution to prevent the Sheriff from enforcing the law. It was necessary to convince the Sheriff's that they had no power.
The Sheriffs were incorrectly convinced by the judges and lawyers that they do not have any authority. The state constitution contradicts that misinformation. The Sheriff was/is lawfully permitted to prosecute the crimes on behalf of the victims. Each level of the state judiciary participated in the unconstitutional removal of the Sheriff's authority.
The County District Attorney, a lawyer, then usurped the authority of the Sheriff.
It would seem that THE CORRUPTION FAQ is a document specifically designed to discourage and diminish any hope from any source. It is very suspicious that an author this well educated and informed, with work experience in government and Department Of Justice would neglect the CAUSE, and the only available lawful ESCAPE.
WELL PLAYED, INDEED.
(It confirmed two other people and their organizations were also very likely fake. They had never accomplished any of their goals. They were there to steal hope from the hopeless and desperate victims of injustice in America. Sorry, Bill. Sorry, Ron. I always suspected you were frauds.)
| As has been the case all along, what was being said was NEVER the issue. Rule 1.6 is about Confidentiality. It was always what was not being said or provided or addressed. |
BRIDGEGATE: Rule 1.6'd
When the New Jersey Governor was ready to release his findings on the BridgeGate fiasco...
Did anyone else notice he had it announced by his lawyer?
The Governor's lawyer is not permitted to release any information which could incriminate his client, or himself.
WELL PLAYED, CHRIS CHRISTIE!
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Plaintiffs have lawfully petitioned the court and served the challenge on every US Attorney General to address a constitutional calamity which has ‘LAWFULLY BUT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY’ persisted in the United State for decades.
Did anyone else notice he had it announced by his lawyer?
The Governor's lawyer is not permitted to release any information which could incriminate his client, or himself.
WELL PLAYED, CHRIS CHRISTIE!
RULE 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct mandates confidentiality of information by lawyers and judges and prosecutors and attorneys general where the information:
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
- would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office, or
- would expose individual liability
- would negatively impact their client.
When applied to judicial corruption and injustice, Rule 1.6 cause an inescapable denial of constitutional rights for a litigant. The victim is further required to return to the courts for resolution, however the judiciary is required to ignore and conceal the injustice pursuant to Rule 1.6. The injustice becomes inescapable as District Attorneys and states Attorneys General are lawyers mandated to confidentiality. Federal Law Enforcement Authorities will not enter the jurisdiction of the District Attorney or the Attorney General without an invitation to investigate.
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Plaintiffs have lawfully petitioned the court and served the challenge on every US Attorney General to address a constitutional calamity which has ‘LAWFULLY BUT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY’ persisted in the United State for decades.
The Corruption FAQ - RULE 1.6 Causes Everything.
| RULE 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information by lawyers and judges and prosecutors and attorneys general where the information: - would affect the integrity of the judiciary, - would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office, or - would expose individual liability. |
The Questions asked on this site and in The Corruption FAQ written in 2004/5 indicate Rule 1.6 is responsible for the corruption, the injustice and the failure to resolve issues.
When I first read the FAQ in 2007, I absolutely refused to accept or believe that anything could be that insurmountable. By 2011, I had experienced each and every aspect of the hopelessness presented in the FAQ. The FAQ is 100% accurate. It only failed where it did not provide the cause or the escape.
The author, Dr. Les Sachs, left the United States to find a political refuge and escape threats. We exchanged emails a few years ago discussing my experience as it was documented on this web site.
I wrote a letter to the Montgomery County Judiciary. After surviving their injustice and lawlessness for over 7 years and 18 judges, I delivered a letter to the judges. Not out of anger. Not out of frustration. It was a sincere attempt to obtain information. They never replied. (Of Course NOT. Rule 1.6 would not allow it.)
In the letter To the Judiciary of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, I asked:
Rule 1.6 is what is wrong with them. Rule 1.6 mandates the judiciary to become an organization which coordinates and conspires to conceal errors and injustices. The victim of the injustice must return to the 'affected' court to resolve defects and errors, and in doing so causes the corruption to be further exposed by the evidence of the court's actions. Rule 1.6 mandates further injustice for the victim to protect the integrity of the judiciary.
The opening paragraph to the Corruption FAQ.Information for the many victims of USA legal injustice, and for anyone seeking to understand America’s terrifying legal system, and how America really works.
IT STOPPED WORKING, RULE 1.6 MANDATED THE INJUSTICE IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM.
Why American lawyers and judges are destroying families, sending innocent people to prison, and why average working people cannot get justice in American courts.
WHEN YOU KNOW AND APPLY RULE 1.6, THE CAUSE OF THE DESTRUCTION, THE CAUSE OF INJUSTICE IN AMERICAN COURTS BECOMES CLEAR.
This FAQ is especially important, because America’s major news media are afraid to talk about wrongdoing by lawyers and judges. Here is the truth that the U.S. media knows, but hides from the public.
RULE 1.6 MANDATES CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. THE AMERICAN MEDIA CLEARS EVERY STORY WITH THEIR LEGAL DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO PUBLICATION. LAWYERS DECIDE THE NEWS THAT GETS DISTRIBUTED. RULE 1.6 IS CONFIDENTIAL.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 HAS NOT BEEN CARRIED BY ANY NEWS MEDIA.
Hard Copies were hand-delivered to every major news outlet in the Philadelphia/New York area. The story was emailed to every major news media outlet on the planet. (That we could find.)
AND NOTHING WAS PUBLISHED.
1. I’ve been a victim of wrongdoing by a judge or lawyer – where do I start in getting help?
RULE 1.6 MANDATES NO JUDGE OR LAWYER TAKE ANY ACTION WHICH EXPOSES THE INJUSTICE. THERE IS NO HELP AVAILABLE BECAUSE RULE 1.6 MAKES THAT HELP ILLEGAL.
2. I thought America was a “free country” with the “greatest legal system in the world” – so why is my situation such a difficult problem?
RULE 1.6 MANDATES LEGAL PROFESSIONALS TAKE NO ACTION TO HELP AS IT MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY, IMPACT THE LAWYERS REPUTATION, OR BE SELF_INCRIMINATING, OR HURT THEIR CLIENTS SUCCESS. RULE 1.6 EXCUSES THEIR INACTION. RULE 1.6 EXCUSES THEIR UNLAWFUL ACTIONS EVEN WHERE IT VIOLATES YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. YOUR SITUATION IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE THE LAWYERS AND JUDGES WHO CAUSED IT ARE MANDATED TO PREVENT EXPOSURE OF THEIR MISDEEDS.
3. What about the grievance procedures for dishonest and criminal judges?
RULE 1.6 PREVENTS PROSECUTION OF DISHONEST AND CRIMINAL JUDGES. THE IRONIC THING IS THE RULE WHICH PURPORTS TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY, SACRIFICES THE INTEGRITY OF EACH JUDGE THAT BECOMES INVOLVED IN YOUR CASE.
4. What about the local Bar or Bar association – Aren’t they supposed to go after crooked lawyers and judges?
RULE 1.6 MANDATES THE PROTECTION OF THE REPUTATION OF CROOKED LAWYERS AND JUDGES. RULE 1.6 WAS AUTHORED BY THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION. THE BAR ASSOCIATION MANDATES REGULAR TRAINING OF ITS MEMBER LAWYERS AND JUDGES - THAT TRAINING TEACHES THEM TO AVOID AND IGNORE THE INJUSTICE CAUSED BY THEIR RULE 1.6.
5. Why is it so hard to find a lawyer to fight legal or judicial corruption, why are all the lawyers afraid to help me?
RULE 1.6 MANDATES THAT A LAWYER IGNORE LEGAL AND JUDICIAL CORRUPTION. ANY LAWYER TAKING ON A CASE TAINTED BY CORRUPTION KNOWS THEY CAN NOT WIN. THE LAWYER WILL BE REQUIRED TO MISLEAD THEIR CLIENT, OR DELIBERATELY FAIL TO PROPERLY REPRESENT THEIR CLIENTS INTERESTS. WHERE THAT MISREPRESENTATION IS ACTIONABLE AND A CLIENT BRINGS THE LAWYER INTO COURT, THE JUDGE IGNORES THE CRIME BECAUSE THE LAWYER WAS MANDATED BY RULE 1.6 TO PROTECT THE REPUTATION OF LAWYERS, OR THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT.
6. Aren’t there lawyers who specialize in “legal malpractice” or misconduct by lawyers?
RULE 1.6 MANDATES CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANY INJUSTICE WHICH OCCURS IN THE COURT. MISCONDUCT IS IGNORED BY THE DISCIPLINARY BOARDS WHICH DISMISS COMPLAINTS TO PROTECT THE REPUTATION OF LAWYERS.
7. I read about crazy lawsuits for trivial reasons where people win money – so why can’t I find a lawyer to fight serious issues of legal corruption?
RULE 1.6 MANDATES CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANY INJUSTICE WHICH OCCURS IN THE COURT. ANY LAWYER IS PREVENTED BY LAW FROM DISCUSSING THE CORRUPTION WITH THEIR CLIENT.
8. I had a lawyer in my original legal case, but he acted weak, timid and stupid in the courtroom, he didn’t try to strongly defend me – Why was that?
WHERE POSSIBLE RULE 1.6 MANDATES THE LAWYER TAKE THE BLAME FOR THE FAILURE OF YOUR CASE. THE LAWYER IS INDEED 'ACTING' WEAK, TIMID AND STUPID BECAUSE ANY OTHER TYPE OF ACTION RISKS EXPOSING THE INJUSTICE AND CORRUPTION.
9. What about prosecutors and police – won’t the prosecutors or the FBI go after crooked lawyers and judges?
PROSECUTORS ARE LAWYERS. RULE 1.6 MANDATES PROSECUTORS IGNORE CROOKED LAWYERS AND JUDGES. FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT LACKS JURISDICTION IN THE STATE UNLESS INVITED IN BY A PROSECUTOR, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR ATTORNEY GENERAL - ALL LAWYERS MANDATED TO IGNORE CROOKED LAWYERS AND JUDGES. THERE ARE LIMITED ALTERNATIVES WHICH PERMITS PEOPLE TO INVITE FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS INTO ANY JURISDICTION. THOSE LOOPHOLES ARE QUICKLY ADDRESSED BY AMENDMENT OF RULE 1.6. (THIS LEAVES AN AUDIT TRAIL WHICH REVEALS THE TRUE PURPOSE OF RULE 1.6).
THE SHERIFF IS THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL IN EVERY COUNTY - AND USUALLY IS NOT A LAWYER. THE SHERIFF HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE LAW AND/OR TO REQUEST FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INVESTIGATE. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES HAVE UNDERMINED AND MISLEAD THE SHERIFFS. JUDGES HAVE RULED AGAINST SHERIFFS CONVINCING SHERIFFS THAT THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THE COUNTY LACKS ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.
10. Is it true that once I become a victim of judicial and legal corruption, I basically become an “outlaw” to the whole legal system in America?
RULE 1.6 IS LAW IN EVERY STATE. THE INJUSTICE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY JUDGE IS NOT RESTRICTED TO ANY ONE COURTROOM OR COUNTY OR STATE. THE VICTIM LOSES ALL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND HAS NO PROTECTION OF THE LAW. THE INJUSTICE CAN FURTHER EXTEND INTO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 WILL SOON TEST THE INFLUENCE ON THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS, AND THEN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. SHOULD THOSE COURTS DEMONSTRATE INFLUENCE BY RULE 1.6, PLAINTIFF'S WILL BE LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO SEEK AN ACT OF CONGRESS TO ADDRESS THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND PERVASIVE RULE WHICH UNDERMINES THE JUDICIARY AT EVERY LEVEL.
11. Is it just a question of money – could I fix things if I had some money?
RULE 1.6 WILL LEAVE YOU IN A FINANCIAL RUIN. NO AMOUNT OF MONEY CAN RESOLVE THE INJUSTICE WITHIN THE COURT. THE INJUSTICE MAY FADE, BUT THE VICTIM IS ALWAYS AT RISK.
12. Why doesn’t someone fight this whole big crooked system – What is keeping all of this going?
RULE 1.6 IS SELF SUSTAINING. ONCE IMPROPERLY ENACTED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT, THE RULE COULD NOT BE REPEALED OR REMOVED AS IT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE REPUTATION OF LAWYERS. THE RESULT: THE STATE SUPREME COURT COULD NOT LAWFULLY ACT TO CORRECT THEIR ERROR.
13. But with the judges so out of control in America, aren’t there rich people and political groups that have even more power than the judges?
NO. THOSE RICH PEOPLE AND POLITICAL GROUPS ARE ALSO ADVISED BY LAWYERS. RULE 1.6 REQUIRES THEIR LAWYERS TO DO NOTHING WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY.
14. How is the power of the big corporations in America, connected to the abuse of power by judges and lawyers?
THE BIG CORPORATIONS ARE GUIDED BY LAWYERS. RULE 1.6 REQUIRES THEIR LAWYERS TO DO NOTHING WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY.
15. What kind of a deal is in place between America’s judges and lawyers, on the one hand, and the corporations and multi-millionaires?
THE AUTHOR OF RULE 1.6 IS THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION. MEMBERSHIP INCLUDES ALL LAWYERS AND JUDGES WHO ARE PRACTICING LAW. MOST DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AGAINST LAWYERS ARE DUE TO THEIR FAILURE TO PAY THEIR DUES OR TO ATTEND ABA TRAINING CLASSES.
16. I couldn’t get help from my political representative, about my battle with a crooked judge or crooked lawyer – Why won’t the politicians help me?
MANY POLITICIANS ARE LAWYERS WHO ARE MANDATED NOT TO HELP. THOSE WHO ARE NOT LAWYERS OFTEN CONSULT WITH THE POLITICIANS WHO ARE LAWYERS AND ARE MISINFORMED AND PREVENTED FROM ASSISTING THE VICTIM.
NON-LAWYER POLITICIANS HAVE NOTICED THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS, AND THEIR INABILITY TO ASSIST THEIR CONSTITUENTS BUT THEY HAVE BEEN PREVENTED FROM ACTION.
17. So the current state of legal corruption, is really supported by both political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans together?
RULE 1.6 CROSSES ALL POLITICAL, SOCIAL, RACIAL AND IDEOLOGICAL BOUNDARIES.
18. Is the problem of judicial and legal corruption, the same as the problem of “political activist judges”, or is that a different issue?
RULE 1.6 AFFECTS ALL JUDGES.
19. There are so many organizations out there – isn’t there an organization that will help me fight wrongdoing by a judge or lawyers?
THE ONLY ORGANIZATION WHICH COULD POSSIBLY HELP WOULD HAVE NO LAWYERS MANDATED BY RULE 1.6.
THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU) COINCIDES WITH RULE 1.6 BEING ENACTED IN THE MID-80's.
VICTIMS OF INJUSTICE AND DENIAL OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ALL SHARE A COMMON STORY OF BEING TURNED AWAY BY THE ACLU.
20. I’ve got great evidence, and an important story, of judicial or legal corruption. How do I get the news media to cover my case?
THE MEDIA IS GUIDED BY THEIR LAWYERS WHO PREVENT EXPOSURE OF ANYTHING WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE REPUTATION OF LAWYERS.
HAVE YOU SEEN ANY COVERAGE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 WHICH WAS FILED IN AUGUST 2013? NOT A WORD HAS BEEN PUBLISHED IN ANY MEDIA OTHER THAN THE PLAINTIFF'S SITES AND THEIR FRIENDS FACEBOOK WALLS.
21. What about investigative reporters – won’t they be interested in my story of legal or judicial corruption?
THE MEDIA IS GUIDED BY THEIR LAWYERS WHO PREVENT EXPOSURE OF ANYTHING WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE REPUTATION OF LAWYERS.
22. What about the alternative or radical or foreign news media – won’t they be interested in my story of legal or judicial corruption?
THE WORLDWIDE MEDIA IS GUIDED BY THEIR LAWYERS WHO PREVENT EXPOSURE OF ANYTHING WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE REPUTATION OF LAWYERS.
23. What about the professors at the law schools – aren’t they studying and writing about legal corruption?
MANY LAWYERS HAVE WRITTEN OF THE MORAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEM CAUSED BY RULE 1.6. UNFORTUNATELY, AS LAWYERS THEY MAY NOT LAWFULLY ADDRESS THE PROBLEM. RULE 1.6 DOES NOT END WHEN A LAWYER CEASES BEING A LAWYER. RULE 1.6 AFFECTS AND CONTROLS LAWYERS AND JUDGES UNTIL THEIR DEATH.
24. There’s all these rich business executives getting convicted now, like Martha Stewart – Doesn’t that prove that the system is really working?
RULE 1.6 JUSTIFIES AND EXCUSES THE MISINFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE NEWS MEDIA. RICH BUSINESS EXECUTIVES CAN BE VICTIMIZED BY INJUSTICE ALSO.
25. What about being my own lawyer in court, and filing lawsuits against legal corruption on my own?
YOU WILL BE ABLE TO DOCUMENT EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR INJUSTICE ON THE COURT RECORD. RULE 1.6 WILL MANDATE THAT IT ALL BE IGNORED BY SUBSEQUENT JUDGES. THE INJUSTICE MANDATED BY RULE 1.6 DOES NOT END UNTIL RULE 1.6 ENDS.
26. What things should I keep in mind in dealing with lawyers?
RULE 1.6 IS THE CORE OF THE LAWYERS CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. THE THINGS THAT A LAWYER IS SAYING ARE NOT NEARLY AS RELEVANT AS THE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT BEING SAID. WHEN THE COURT FAILS TO ADDRESS YOUR EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION AND INJUSTICE, IT IS DELIBERATE, INTENTIONAL AND MANDATED BY RULE 1.6.
27. What is the history of how judges and lawyers got so much power in America?
RULE 1.6 WAS ENACTED INTO LAW IN RESPONSE TO THE FBI'S OPERATION GREYLORD WHICH DECIMATED THE CORRUPT JUDICIARY IN THE COOK COUNTY COURTHOUSE IN CHICAGO IN THE 80's. THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION WANTED TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY BY MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO PROSECUTE CORRUPT JUDGES.
28. Is the problem of legal and judicial corruption really different or better in other countries, or is it just the same as in America?
RULE 1.6 DOES HAVE VARIANTS IN THE LAWS OF OTHER COUNTRIES. THE COUNTRIES WHICH HAVE ORGANIZATIONS OF LAWYERS STRUCTURED SIMILARLY TO THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION HAVE SIMILAR INJUSTICE PROBLEMS.
29. So what can I do to fight my personal battle against judicial and legal corruption – or is it just hopeless?
PRIOR TO FINDING THE NEEDLE IN THE HAYSTACK OF JUDICIAL CORRUPTION AND INJUSTICE, THE SITUATION WAS HOPELESS.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 LAWFULLY ADDRESSES THE CONSTITUTIONAL CALAMITY AND CRISIS CAUSED BY RULE 1.6.
30. What is the best thing happening to fight judicial and legal corruption in America?
AS A SURVIVOR OF JUDICIAL TERROR AND INJUSTICE SINCE 2007, FACING NO FUTURE WITH MY PAST DESTROYED, AND INCAPABLE OF SUICIDE, IT BECAME A NECESSITY TO FIND OUT WHY EVERYONE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT THOUGHT IT WAS OK TO IGNORE MY UNDENIABLE SITUATION.
FINDING THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE NATIONAL FAILURE TO ADDRESS CORRUPTION AND INJUSTICE PRESENTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO FIX WHAT NO LAWYER OR JUDGE COULD LAWFULLY FIX.
TERANCE HEALY AND TODD KRAUTHEIM PREPARED THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 WHICH WAS FILED ON AUGUST 8, 2013 AND SERVED UPON THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF EACH STATE TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, RESURRECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND REPAIR THE REPUTATION OF LAWYERS NATIONWIDE.
JUSTICE IS COMING.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)