The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6

Every American is just one act of injustice away from lawfully losing their constitutional rights and protection of the law. Once triggered sacrificing the integrity of the judiciary and the reputation of lawyers. Injustice is leveraged for further injustice with no escape. Ever. RULE 1.6 Confidentiality is the cause - improperly enacted in EVERY state. Profiting from injustice... the authors of the rule... The American Bar Association and it's members.

Showing posts with label Rights. Show all posts

Monday, February 9, 2015

with apologies to Oprah. You're being sued. And You're being sued. And You're being sued.

The volume of correspondence being prepared this week is daunting. Their injustice clock runs on billable hours. Time slows when every hope becomes a further injustice and corruption. Where isolated from family and the milestones which build into a life, time stops.

Those who offer the Facebook meme versions of Let It Go, Get Over It, Move On, This Too Shall Pass... have failed to recognize I am surviving, nothing more. THIS TOO SHALL PASS was wrong in 2007. You did not believe me, trust my judgement, the logical fail, my rationale... they played you against me. Friendships waned.

No one wants to live a life void of joy where other people's smiles make you wonder if you will ever have cause to smile again. Somehow, I persevere.

I have never done anything where the sole intent was to demonstrate that failure of a system or the person involved. That was always a consequence within their own control. I had no ability to cause people to do the right thing. At best, I could provide them the opportunity. Every response provided the chance for explanations which were not provided, or were deliberately concealed.

A stranger lies. The lie is contrary to reason and lacking any necessity or motivation. When asked to explain, they panic acting fearful and threatened - - You made no threat, but someone else has. When asking for an explanation, the answer "I need my job" demonstrates the intimidation involved. Their supervisors never responded. Everything - ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING - and EVERYONE at the courthouse was 'affected' by the corruption and injustice... and fearful of exposing it further. They knew the retaliatory realities of judges and lawyers. I was learning that reality.

Every proceeding and action in the divorce from 2007 forward had been affected - manipulated by secrecy, failure to apply the law, no explanations, no resolutions. Every injustice was a FARCE which when exposed resulted in the recusal of the judge and another judfge assigned. Twenty Judges have been directly involved in the matter with each sacrificing their integrity for the failure of the prior judges - mandated by Rule 1.6.

Farce is not an overly broad generalization. It is fact. Evidence is the court record, the hundred of documents filed.

I was being prosecuted/terrorized to the fullest extent of every law and court order and defending against every false allegation held accountable to know and follow every procedure and law. Any, every and All failures by my wife, and her attorneys, to follow the law, procedures, due process, court orders, courtroom protocol were excused without consequence or warning for continued failures. Their deliberate failures lead to the situation which is undeniable. The judge to issued an order in the clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction, a defective and void order which is void ab initio, evidence is clearly demonstrated in 'the court record'. BUT the lawyers still present the defective order for enforcement... successfully... even on appeal, successfully... leveraging the exposure of the corruption of the court for further injustice while preventing any resolution. Rule 1.6 Injustice. FOREVER.

Everything was undermined by the necessity to NOT REVEAL the secret, or prevent discovery. EVER. No law. No rights. No justice. None. EVER. FOREVER. No kidding. FOREVER. Another reality to learn because no one would believe it. Myself included.

The Rule 1.6 mandate of non-disclosure and confidentiality survives the death of the attorney. Forever.

Believe it. No justice. No escape. Ever. Forever.

Those who continue to undermine the US Constitution have been (and will be) compelled to public actions which they will not be able to deny or ignore or conceal or obfuscate. "Through their own words, they will be exposed." If one person had done the right thing at anytime, the situation would not have been able to continue. No one helped. So many people working against me in violation of the law and procedures. What could possibly cause so many people to fail without explanation or reason... It's their fault I found RULE 1.6 which undermined everyone and everything and every law including the US Constitution.

The law is clear about who may be held responsible for their failures to perform the responsibilities of their government office and whether they may be litigated professionally and PERSONALLY.

I have no other alternative but to present the illegal actions to persons who are in government positions where they recognize the corruption of the judiciary and DO NOTHING to address the wrongdoing. The lawyers and non-lawyers have no long term protection by and through an unconstitutional law and the corruption concealed by it.... except that the entire government has participated and concealed the corruption of the undermined judiciary under the false impression that it is better than addressing the problem.... which is HUGE.

Americans must set pride aside, acknowledge the past injustice and rectify the government for the future.

Every. Person. Matters.

"The truth is sometimes a hard pill to swallow. It sometimes causes us difficulties at home and abroad. It is sometimes used by our enemies in attempts to hurt us. But the American people are entitled to it, nonetheless." - Sen. John McCain

By its terms, US Section 1983 imposes liability without defense on state and local officials who, acting under color of law in their individual capacity, deprive plaintiffs of rights created by the Constitution and federal law.

The Problem arises where Rule 1.6 being unconstitutional is No Law. A nullity.
IT WAS, UNTIL IT ISN'T. AND THEN, it never was.

Unconstitutional secret secrecy is Rule 1.6 INJUSTICE.

While Rule 1.6 is mandating a conspiracy to deprive a person of rights and requiring the participation (or inaction or disinformation) of everyone required to follow it, there is no excuse in the 'Liability Game' for the actions which clearly deprive a person of their rights by a person who is sworn to protect their rights and who knows that their own actions are unconstitutional and repugnant.

PROFESSIONALLY - certain immunities apply to the organizations and officials involved in government, PERSONAL LIABILITY is another issue where a person knows better and has the responsibility to effect a change. The LAW has allowances built into the construction of the law which addresses the purpose and explains the reasoning and the proper application for the judiciary. No law violates the US Constitution.

The government is constitutional where allowing for review of constitutional questions by the judiciary. The Public Trusts the Judiciary. A necessity so essential that they trusted it would not be violated. Corrupt judges were hung because we trusted them.

A problem exists where there is no way to tell the judiciary that A LAW THE JUDICIARY ENACTED is unconstitutional. Done outside the normal legislative construction of a law, there was no construct, no explanation, no review, no reasoning, ... and no legislative immunity for the authors. The law mandating non-disclosure and confidentiality did not permit ANY lawyer to address the unconstitutional aspect or effects, and concealed fraud in the furtherance to prevent the situation from being rectified or exposed.

Injustice has thrived based on disinformation which distracts from the problem law. A perceived prideful judicial arrogance is leveraged while interference with the administration of justice conceals the violation of the public trust and the loss of judicial independence. Two essential elements have been surreptitiously removed from the US Justice system - the known point of failure was always the judiciary. The judiciary had been undermined and held hostage by the American Bar Association by a law which required that information be concealed... that the violation of the public trust be concealed... the loss of judicial independence was concealed... everything they were doing to conceal it was also concealed. Everything leveraged to the benefit of their membership - who had no idea how it broke, but knew something was not right. Everyone noticed the government was 'ignoring' the US Constitution.

When an individual person is participating in actions which they know to be wrong, and quite UNCONSTITUTIONAL, the law expects and requires them to do the right thing. They can be held professionally and personally responsible for their actions, or the failure to act, even where an unconstitutional law had them violate a person's rights.

The US Constitution does not provide any allowance for the denial of rights protected by the US Constitution. Any law which attempts to deny rights is No Law, a nullity, and provides no protection for participation in unconstitutional acts.

But, you must bring the case to the Judiciary. The judiciary who enacted the unconstitutional law, the nullity, in violation of the US Constitution AND THE CONSTITUTION OF EVERY STATE. You must bring the humiliatingly embarrassing case of AMERICAN INJUSTICE to those responsible for the INJUSTICE.

ONE OTHER THING, that unconstitutional law, Rule 1.6, mandates that they do nothing to expose that unconstitutional aspect. Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure by judges, lawyers or legal professionals. Rule 1.6 permits/requires further acts of fraud to prevent exposure, or where disclosure would rectify the matter.

Rule 1.6 permits/requires the failure to indicate that Rule 1.6 is the reason that you cannot have justice pursuant to Rule 1.6. Rule 1.6 will undermine the law and the courts while any attempt is made to address the unconstitutional results.

PENNSYLVANIA - The judiciary shut down the Attorney General in defiance of law, procedures, separation of powers, etc... They clearly realized that it was not just about the inappropriate relationships which delayed the prosecution of Jerry Sandusky, Kathleen Kane was about to blow the lid off of the INJUSTICE game - NATIONALLY! Two cases which by law required the Attorney General's attention as an unconstitutional state law would be demonstrated in the appeals. In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania - Healy v Healy and Healy v Miller.

For example. You own a house. That house is illegally sold.

The law is clear. If you have possession, you file QUIET TITLE. If you do not have possession, you file EJECTMENT.

You file Ejectment and it is dismissed because you do not have possession. An error in application of law. On Appeal, it is affirmed. No Reconsideration. The judiciary neglects to address the proper law, neglects to apply that law to the situation, and neglects to address the issue. The 'elephant in the room', INJUSTICE, is being concealed pursuant to Rule 1.6. The court is mandated to conceal that Rule 1.6 is causing further Rule 1.6 injustice.

It defies logic. It defies common sense. They write pages, yet miss the mark. BECAUSE, the unconstitutional law requires that the unconstitutional law not be disclosed.

To conceal the judicial quagmire, the court staff intercepts and intervenes handling the matter without the involvement of the judiciary. Are the staff protecting the judges from the liability for unconstitutional actions? ... or holding the judiciary hostage by preventing the judge from the decision?

The criminal, and unconstitutional, interception and interference with the administration of justice and the forgery and fraud by the court staff are in the furtherance of a fraud, Non-Disclosure is mandated pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality. The court staff are professional lawyers who know their actions are violating the state and federal law and the US Constitution.

Where the court may not have believed when you indicated that the case would expose a constitutional issue, their own unconstitutional actions quickly convinces them.

(CONSIDER: Secret Order/Unidentified Court which prevents investigation and responsibilities of the Office of the Attorney General.

Where an unconstitutional law is a nullity, a court order must be followed while appealed even when improper, unlawful and unconstitutional. The 'secret' court order creates a liability, professionally and personally, for the Attorney General who is being required by court order to participate in a conspiracy to deny constitutionally protected rights.

Multiple actions to silence Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane are carefully exposed to the media. Without any allowance for explanation, the Attorney General must be silent or risk a contempt action for violating the court order. Two court orders - one for each appeal in Superior Court.

GRAND JURY SECRECY becomes an issue where allegations are 'leaked' suggesting violations by Kathleen Kane, personally and professionally as Attorney General. No explanations or details. Speculation is widespread misdirection, it is no coincidence that my cases are in Montgomery County.

CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT: A call is made to the Legislature to impeach Kathleen Kane for non-enforcement of an unconstitutional law - the Marriage issue - and the 'speculation' of the Grand Jury leaks.

EVERYTHING IS ABOUT THE SILENCING OF KATHLEEN KANE - under whom the 'monkeywrench' was thrown which undermined a Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 in the federal courts after every state attorney general intentionally defaulted. A very similar situation where everything was handled by the court staff without any evidence of judicial involvement. Reported to the US Marshalls and the DOJ, US Attorney general Eric Hodler and US Attorney Zane Memeger. SILENCE.)

Prosecution of the court staff would expose the unconstitutional effect of Rule 1.6 which has resulted in YOUR loss of any protection under the law AND loss of rights protected by the US Constitution. No PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. NO KIDDING.

The Crimes and Constitutional offenses were reported. I am still awaiting the investigation by
1) Zane Memeger, US Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
2) Seth Williams, District Attorney for Philadelphia
3) David Heckler, District Attorney for Bucks County
4) Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General
5) USPS, United States Postal Inspectors - Mail Fraud
6) the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Their silence is unexplained. AG Kathleen Kane couldn't even say WHY she is being silent.

The Silence of Lawyers regarding an unconstitutional law which results in INJUSTICE, leaving people with no protection under the law while denying and ignoring rights protected and secured by the US Constitution with no opportunity for relief or resolution.

The Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to report this to the Judiciary. It is the law. If they did, it was not disclosed at any level. Rule 1,6 non-disclosure trumps that requirement. Rule 1.6 trumps every law, every constitution, every reform and mandates that it be concealed and any explanation prevented.

THAT IS WRONG. Ask a lawyer... but, they probably won't tell you. (At best you may hear 'attorney-client privilege' blah blah. It's not called attorney-client privilege. It is called Confidentiality of Information.)

AS FOR THE NEWS MEDIA??? Draw your own conclusions about the control of the news media in the US.

THE PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE HAS THE ONLY AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND A LAW WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PA. While they not acting on the 'worst kept secret in Pennsylvania' people are suffering an incomprehensible injustice which is difficult to explain and they are killing themselves. Suicide is logical where there is no hope.

Where there may seem to be no hope, there is still a Constitution of the United States of America. Somewhere along the way, the Judiciary neglected the trust placed in them by the People. The Public Trust - The lawyers ripped of it's head. shit down it's throat and raped it leaving it for dead. Big mistake. HUGE. EVERY PERSON MATTERS.

The list of available immunities is considerably longer than one might believe. Judicial Immunity, Absolute Immunity, Absolute Judicial Immunity, Prosecutorial Immunity, Witness Immunity, Legislative Immunity, Qualified Immunity (Executive Officials), Established Law, Reason and Discretion. One thing which they all have in common... THERE IS NO IMMUNITY FOR VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS OF AMERICAN PEOPLE.

What has been happening is that Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information has prevented disclosure of the constitutional violations and prevented resolution of the crimes where it would expose that they are keeping a secret pursuant to their secret Rule 1.6 - which hides in plain site buried by cross references throughout the Rules of Professional Conduct - a minimum ethical standard which lacks ethics, morality and lawfulness - presented to every state Supreme Court and enacted into law at the behest of the American Bar Association.

The American Bar Association knew what they were doing when they deliberately removed the fraud provisions from Rule 1.6 in 1983. INJUSTICE IS A GOLDMINE - the ABA membership is the beneficiary to their unconstitutional law which holds a judiciary hostage - removing judicial independence from the judge and requiring injustice continue unexplained without resolution.

To the ABA,
Close your doors now. Shut Down your corrupt and seditious organization... including the affiliates in every jurisdiction of state and federal judiciary. You tried to save the integrity of your profession by writing a code of ethical conduct, and you deliberately failed - at a considerable profit for some members but sacrificing any integrity, respect or honor for the remainder.

Rule 1.6 Peek-A-Boo Injustice cannot be concealed by an apathetic population who does not want to believe or accept that 48 million people lost their homes, thousands of children were jailed in Luzerne County, and people were murdered in Ferguson and New York without anyu opportunity for JUSTICE, or any relief from further injustice.

To the government officials who, once notified, are personally and professionally liable for their participation in the conspiracy to deny Americans of constitutionally protected rights.

Do you really want me to bring you all into a courtroom to demonstrate Rule 1.6 INJUSTICE again. I have the confirmations of receipt by every state attorney general, every state governor, every senator in every state, the US Congress, the entire Pennsylvania Legislature, every sheriff in Pennsylvania, every judge in every court in Bucks and Montgomery Counties... It's not called the 'worst kept secret in Pennsylvania' for nothing.

Is it your preference that Rule 1.6 be demonstrated in a courtroom before your very eyes... To see no protection under the law? To see denial of constitutional rights?

"They can't do that" going over and over in your head. "The judges are NOT supposed to do that."

"They are ignoring the law, the constitution, civil rights, human rights, ... They can't do that. BUT, THEY DID. He was correct.

He has no protection under the law and every constitutional right is being ignored. Why?

The judge just threw his case out of court but didn't indicate a reason, and explanation or any support in applicable law.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality does not permit the judge to indicate that the current injustice was necessitated to conceal prior injustice pursuant to Rule 1.6 - - to conceal prior injustice before that... and before that...

Rule 1.6 has broken and undermined the entire judiciary and JUSTICE. Improper law? enacted by Judiciary without authority? no review for constitutionality? not constructed as law? no legislature? no governor signed it? enacted in every state? included in federal district courts (Local Rules)? included in federal Court of Appeals (Local Rules)? mandated to every federal government lawyer (McDade-Murtha Amendment)?

Did no one realize that the ABA Rule - the ethical standard for lawyers - lack ethics? morality? legality?
or was every lawyer mandated to non-disclosure by Rule 1.6 and prevented from explaining what they meant to Congress when they indicated that McDade Murtha would have a disastrous result for the country.
Did Rule 1.6 prevent the lawyers testifying before Congress from indicating that the state ethics laws lacked any ethics?
... and permitted, endorse and required lawyers to participate in fraud in the furtherance of fraud?
... even where it would rectify a prior fraud?
... preventing every federal government lawyer from any action which exposes, investigates or prosecutes judicial corruption and injustice within the state courts... in every state ... even where constitutional rights are concerned.

Your lawyer just congratulated you on the 'BIG WIN'
...but you are not permitted to discuss the issue ... or the case pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality
... if you do, you would be prosecuted for your part in a conspiracy to deny the constitutional rights of an American
... your hearing would not be publicized
... your accidental suicide will be on the front pages - 'Defender of the Constitution'
(This ironic award title is a standard practice by the American bar Association.... sometimes there's cash too.)
It's just not even funny when it is true.

By neglect you encourage endorse and conceal an egregious violation of the Public Trust which harms Americans.
There is no valid excuse for unconstitutional acts. That is treason.

The non-lawyer Legislators have an obligation to every American which cannot be ignored by an unconstitutional law.
The non-lawyer legislators cannot ask their lawyers to advise them while their lawyers are obligated to commit fraud to conceal the injustice.

It is so wrong... affecting so many people... there is no argument offered ... no explanation... no justification,... no apology.

Surprise America!! - Your country was overthrown by lawyers 30 years ago. About fucking time you noticed. eh?

Americans must set pride aside, acknowledge the past injustice and rectify the government for the future.
Every. Person. Matters.

SHUT RULE 1.6 DOWN NOW. Suspend this unconstitutional law and vaccinate the entire country... so this never happens again.

I will "GO FULL OPRAH" commencing litigation against every government official that ignored this matter for the last 9 years. Silence and Non-response will not provide any defense or immunity when you are on the wrong side of the US Constitution.

Where the courts sacrifice integrity to conceal the injustice, everyone loses.

The only person getting paid will be your lawyer who is relying on his non-disclosure and license for fraud in the furtherance to conceal the constitutional violation of his client.

As a person without any protection of the law and experiencing the denial of rights protected by the constitution, I have no choice but to persevere. I have demonstrated my ability to persevere through injustice since 2007.

County Court documents and transcripts were not available or presented for the recent appeal. The 'court' ignored without explanation.

A mountain of evidence seems to have been concealed by Montgomery County, a grand jury investigation may have been misdirected by a special prosecutor with a potential conflict of interest (being married to a judge and President of the Montgomery County Bar Association resulting in the unavailability of the evidence.

The failure of a prolonged investigation designed and determined to destroy a man which prevented any protections under the law while excessive and improper informants, handlers, private investigators, and detective shared surveillance products throughout the courts and every level of law enforcement contributed the inability of law enforcement to correct the errors and wrongdoing.

Secrecy is the thing that makes every evil far worse than it would have been.

The damage continues while I am denied any life, protection of the law and constitutional rights.

A JUDGE COVERED FOR A LAWYER WHO TOLD HER CLIENT TO COMMIT A FEDERAL CRIME.
The efforts to conceal their injustice (court order found in 2010 after 3 years) has been an evil far worse than the initial injustice.

Twenty (20) judges, multiple courts. multiple appeals, federal constitutional challenges, every level of state and federal law enforcement, state and federal government, all prevented from any effort to help by a secrecy which overwhelmed and intimidated.

Only a sociopath, who was a lawyer, could have calculated and manipulated every situation and liability into one unconstitutional law - which mandates silence and permits continued terror.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane:

I am coming to pry open your secret court orders. We have not spoken a single word to each other, yet I believe in you still.

My belief in people is the source of my perseverance, and my challenge to trust again.

Americans must set pride aside, acknowledge the past injustice and rectify the government for the future.
Every. Person. Matters.

Saturday, January 31, 2015

Mail Fraud

MAIL FRAUD AND WIRE FRAUD

Prosecution Policy Relating to Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud

Prosecutions of fraud ordinarily should not be undertaken if the scheme employed consists of some isolated transactions between individuals, involving minor loss to the victims, in which case the parties should be left to settle their differences by civil or criminal litigation in the state courts. Serious consideration, however, should be given to the prosecution of any scheme which in its nature is directed to defrauding a class of persons, or the general public, with a substantial pattern of conduct.
See also USAM 9-85.210 (requires prior consultation with the Public Integrity Section to use the mail or wire fraud statutes in the prosecution of election fraud cases).

Further guidance and legal analysis of issues surrounding the investigation and prosecution of frauds involving use of the mail or wire, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341 and 1343 can be found in the Criminal Resource Manual:

Investigative Authority

Primary investigative jurisdiction of possible violations of the mail and wire fraud statutes is vested in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In some cases, complaints involving securities may be investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, the Postal Inspection Service of the United States Postal Service may initiate mail or wire fraud investigations. In both situations, the investigations are usually continued by the agency initiating the investigation. Reports of investigation are disseminated directly to the appropriate United States Attorney.

18 U.S.C. Section 1341—Elements of Mail Fraud

"There are two elements in mail fraud: (1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme to defraud (or to perform specified fraudulent acts), and (2) use of the mail for the purpose of executing, or attempting to execute, the scheme (or specified fraudulent acts)." Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 721 n. 10 (1989); see also Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954) ("The elements of the offense of mail fraud under . . . § 1341 are (1) a scheme to defraud, and (2) the mailing of a letter, etc., for the purpose of executing the scheme."); Laura A. Eilers & Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 704 (1994) (cases cited).

The Scheme and Artifice to Defraud

The wire fraud statute was patterned after the mail fraud statutes. United States v. Lemon, 941 F.2d 309, 316 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Castillo, 829 F.2d 1194, 1198 (1st Cir. 1987). Thus, the same principles apply in defining "scheme to defraud" for mail and wire fraud prosecutions. See Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 25 n. 6 (1987) ("The mail and wire fraud statutes share the same language in relevant part, and accordingly we apply the same analysis to both sets of offenses here."); United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327, 1334-35 n. 6 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("The requisite elements of 'scheme to defraud' under the wire fraud statute [§ 1343] and the mail fraud statute [§ 1341], are identical. Thus, cases construing mail fraud apply to the wire fraud statute as well."), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1226 (1984).

The mail fraud and wire fraud statutes do not define the terms "scheme" or "artifice" and the courts have traditionally been reluctant to offer definitions of either term except in the broadest and most general terms. Lemire, 720 F.2d at 1335 ("Congress did not define 'scheme or artifice to defraud' when it first coined that phrase, nor has it since. Instead that expression has taken on its present meaning from 111 years of case law.").

The fraudulent aspect of the scheme to defraud is to be measured by nontechnical standards and is not restricted by any common-law definition of false pretenses. "[T]he words 'to defraud' in the mail fraud statute have the 'common understanding' of '"wrongdoing one in his property rights by dishonest methods or schemes," and "usually signify the deprivation of something of value by trick, chicane, or overreaching."'" Carpenter, 484 U.S. at 27 (quoting McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 358 (1987) (quoting Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924))). "The concept of 'fraud' includes the act of embezzlement, which is '"the fraudulent appropriation to one's own use of the money or goods entrusted to one's own care by another."'" Id. (quoting Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 189 (1902)).

No Loss or Gullible Victims

"It is the scheme to defraud and not actual fraud that is required." United States v. Reid, 533 F.2d 1255, 1264 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

"No particular type of victim is required . . . nor need the scheme have succeeded." United States v. Coachman, 727 F.2d 1293, 1302-03 n. 43 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

No actual loss to the victims is required. See United States v. Pollack, 534 F.2d 964, 971 (D.C. Cir.)

"The fraud statutes speak alternatively of devising or intending to devise a scheme to defraud and do not require that the deception bear fruit for the wrongdoer or cause injury to the intended victim as a prerequisite to successful prosecution. [S]uccess of the scheme and loss by a defrauded person are not essential elements of the crime under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 . . . .", cert. denied, 429 U.S. 924 (1976); see also United States v. Jordan, 626 F.2d 928, 931 (D.C. Cir. 1980)

"The amount of money realized as a result of the scheme is not an essential element of mail fraud. It was not even necessary to prove that the scheme succeeded."

For a discussion of fraud loss computation in sentencing see Guidelines Sentencing (Federal Judicial Center, 1997), Section II.D.2. Offense Involving Fraud and Deceit.

"[I]t makes no difference whether the persons the scheme is intended to defraud are gullible or skeptical, dull or bright . . . . " United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299, 311 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 (1980)).

"[T]he monumental credulity of the victim is no shield for the accused . . ." Id. (quoting Deaver v. United States, 155 F.2d 740, 744-45 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 766 (1946)); cf. Pollack, 534 F.2d at 971 (To hold that actual loss to victim is required "would lead to the illogical result that the legality of a defendant's conduct would depend on his fortuitous choice of a gullible victim.") (quoted in Maxwell, 920 F.2d at 1036).

Proof of Scheme and Artifice to Defraud

To sustain a conviction the government must prove the existence of a scheme; it is not required, however, to prove all details or all instances of allegedly illicit conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Stull, 743 F.2d 439, 442 n. 2 (6th Cir. 1984) ("It is well established that proof of every allegation is not required in order to convict; the government need only prove that the scheme to defraud existed."), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1062 (1985); United States v. Halbert, 640 F.2d 1000, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) ("[T]he Government need not prove every misrepresentation charged conjunctively in the indictment."); United States v. Jordan, 626 F.2d 928, 930 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ("The Government is not required to prove the details of a scheme; it is, however, required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt . . . that the defendant . . . willfully and knowingly devised a scheme or artifice to defraud . . . .") (quoting with approval the trial court's instruction on § 1341); United States v. Amrep Corp., 560 F.2d 539, 546 (2d Cir. 1977)

("A scheme to defraud may consist of numerous elements, no particular one of which need be proved if there is sufficient overall proof that the scheme exists."), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1015 (1978); Anderson v. United States, 369 F.2d 11, 15 (8th Cir. 1966) (all instances of illicit conduct need not be proved to sustain a conviction), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 976 (1967).

"All that is required is that [the defendant has] knowingly and willingly participated in the scheme; she need not have performed every key act herself." United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 1990). The "evidence need only show that defendant was a 'knowing and active participant' in scheme to defraud and that scheme involved interstate wire communications." Id. (quoting United States v. Wiehoff, 748 F.2d 1158, 1161 (7th Cir. 1984)).

McNally and Intangible Rights

In McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), the Supreme Court held that the mail fraud statute does not reach "schemes to defraud citizens of their intangible rights to honest and impartial government" . . . and that the statute is "limited in scope to the protection of property rights." See Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 25 (1987) (quoting McNally and extending it to wire fraud statute); see also Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 292 (1992) ("[I]n McNally . . . we rejected the Government's contention that the federal mail fraud statute . . . protected the citizenry's 'intangible right' to good government . . . . ") (Thomas, J., dissenting).

In response to McNally, Congress passed Section 1346 of Title 18, United States Code, which provides that "For the purposes of this Chapter, the term 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

Section 1346, which became effective November 18, 1988, seemed to resolve the intangible rights issue. See Madeoy, 912 F.2d 1486, 1492 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("McNally has been overruled by legislation."), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1105 and 498 U.S. 1110 (1991); cf. United States v. Bush, 888 F.2d 1145, 1145-46 (7th Cir. 1989) (ex post facto concerns bar the application of section 1346 to pre-1988 conduct). In United States v. Brumley, 79 F.3d 1430, 1440 (5th Cir. 1996), petition for rehearing en banc pending, however, the court concluded that the wording of § 1346, "simply does not effect a change in the portion of the McNally opinion which held that the mail fraud statute does not reach 'schemes to defraud citizens of their intangible rights to honest and impartial government.'"

Tangible Versus Intangible Property Rights

In Carpenter, 484 U.S. 19, 25 (1987), the Court confirmed that "McNally did not limit the scope of § 1341 to tangible as distinguished from intangible property rights." The Court held that the intangible nature of "confidential business information" does not make it any less "property" protected by the mail and wire fraud statutes. Id. Carpenter accordingly distinguished intangible property rights, which were still protected by the mail and wire fraud statutes, and intangible non-property rights, which were not protected. Cf. United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327, 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("[A]lthough the scheme to defraud must threaten some cognizable harm to its target, that harm need not be a deprivation of tangible property or money; criminal fraud encompasses schemes to defraud persons of significant intangibles as well."), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1226 (1984).

QUERY: Whether interests such as contract rights, licenses, permits, trade secrets, franchises, government grants, goodwill, market share, etc., are intangible or tangible property rights that can be the subject of a mail or wire fraud violation. See, e.g., Carpenter, 484 U.S. at 25 (suggesting that contractual right to honest and faithful services is too ethereal in itself to fall within the protection of the mail fraud statute); United States v. DeFries, 43 F.3d 707, 709-11 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (union ballots are tangible property); United States v. Henry, 29 F.3d 112, 114-15 (3d Cir. 1994) (fair bidding opportunity is not a property right); United States v. F.J. Vollmer & Co., 1 F.3d 1511, 1521 (7th Cir. 1993) ("It is well established that the government's regulatory interests are not protected by the mail fraud statute.") (citing cases concerning licenses and permits), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 688 (1994); United States v. Loney, 959 F.2d 1332, 1336 (5th Cir. 1992) (flight award coupons are property); United States v. Madeoy, 912 F.2d 1486, 1492 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (a FHA insurance commitment, by which the Government promises to pay the lender if the borrower defaults on the loan, is a "property interest," not an "intangible right" because it involves the Government's "control over how its money [is] spent."), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1105 and 498 U.S. 1110 (1991). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia's decision in DeFries provides a brief survey of cases finding property interests in permits, city liquor licenses, medical licenses and other items. See generally, 43 F.3d at 709-10 and n. 2; see also Laura A. Eilers & Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 706-11 (1994) (discussing "traditional frauds" and "frauds involving intangible rights").

QUERY: How to determine whether an interest is property? See, e.g., United States v. D'Amato, 39 F.3d 1249, 1258 (2d Cir. 1994) (shareholder's property rights to information are defined by state law and the law of fraud); cf. Henry, 29 F.3d at 115 ("[T]o determine whether a particular interest is property for purposes of the fraud statutes, we look to whether the law traditionally has recognized and enforced it as a property right."); see also Eilers & Silikovitz, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. at 706 n. 19 (case cited).

Fiduciary Duty

QUERY: Whether a fiduciary duty or relationship is a necessary ingredient to frauds relating to intangible property rights. See generally Laura A. Eilers & Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 706 n. 19 (1994) ("Unlike traditional frauds which may arise regardless of the relationship between the defendant and the victim, frauds related to intangible rights stem from a fiduciary relationship between the defendant and the defrauded party or entity."). "At the core of the judicially defined 'scheme to defraud' is the notion of a trust owed to another and a subsequent breach of that trust." United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327, 1335 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("But '[n]ot every breach of a fiduciary duty works a criminal fraud.'") (quoting United States v. George, 477 F.2d 508 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 827 (1973)), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1226 (1984). But cf. United States v. Sawyer, 878 F. Supp. 279, 288-90 (D. Mass. 1995) (mail fraud statutes do not require that a public fiduciary be a participant in the scheme). It may follow that to defraud one of the "right to honest services" would generally require a fiduciary relationship that creates the right to provide or protect honest services. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the existence or protection of an intangible property right must depend upon the existence of a fiduciary relationship or duty. Nonfiduciaries can steal, embezzle and defraud others of property interests, regardless of whether the property interest is tangible or intangible. Cf. United States v. Allen, 554 F.2d 398, 410 (10th Cir.) ("While the existence of a fiduciary duty is relevant and an ingredient in some mail fraud prosecutions, . . . it is not an essential in all such cases.") (citations omitted), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 836 (1977); Eilers & Silikovitz, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. at 711 ("There is some debate in the Circuit Courts about whether intangible rights can be violated if they are not premised upon fiduciary duty.").

Courts have held nonfiduciaries criminally liable for frauds related to intangible rights when a co-schemer or co-conspirator was a fiduciary. See United States v. Alexander, 741 F.2d 962, 964 (7th Cir. 1984) (an intangible rights scheme is cognizable when at least one of the schemers has a fiduciary relationship with the defrauded person or entity), overruled on other grounds by, United States v. Ginsburg, 773 F.2d 798 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1011 (1986); see also Sawyer, 878 F. Supp. at 289 (describing situation of nonfiduciary) (citing United States v. Margiotta, 688 F.2d 108, 121-23 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 913 (1983), and Alexander, 741 F.2d at 964).

Intent to Defraud

The government must prove that the defendant had the specific intent to defraud. See United States v. Diggs, 613 F.2d 988, 997 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ("Because only 'a scheme to defraud' and not actual fraud is required, proof of fraudulent intent is critical."), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 982 (1980); see also United States v. Costanzo, 4 F.3d 658, 664 (8th Cir. 1993) (intent is an essential element, inquiry is whether defendants intended to defraud); United States v. Porcelli, 865 F.2d 1352, 1358 (2d Cir.) (specific intent requires intent to defraud, not intent to violate the statute), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 810 (1989); cf. United States v. Reid, 533 F.2d 1255, 1264 n. 34 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ("Proof that someone was actually defrauded is unnecessary simply because the critical element in a 'scheme to defraud' is 'fraudulent intent,' Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306 . . . (1896), and therefore the accused need not have succeeded in his scheme to be guilty of the crime."); United States v. Bailey, 859 F.2d 1265, 1273 (7th Cir. 1988) (court held that there must be sufficient evidence that the defendant acted with intent to defraud, that is, "willful participation in [the] scheme with knowledge of its fraudulent nature and with intent that these illicit objectives be achieved." (quoting United States v. Price, 623 F.2d 587, 591 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 (1980), overruled on other grounds by, United States v. DeBright, 730 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir. 1984)), cert denied, 488 U.S. 1010 (1989).

Proof of Fraudulent Intent

"The requisite intent under the federal mail and wire fraud statutes may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances and need not be proven by direct evidence." United States v. Alston, 609 F.2d 531, 538 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 918 (1980). Thus, intent can be inferred from statements and conduct. United States v. Cusino, 694 F.2d 185, 187 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing United States v. Beecroft, 608 F.2d 753, 757 (9th Cir. 1979)), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 932 (1983). Impression testimony, that is, testimony of victims as to how they had been misled by defendants, is admissible to show an intent to defraud. See Phillips v. United States, 356 F.2d 297, 307 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 952 (1966). Also consider complaint letters received by defendants as relevant to the issue of intent to defraud. The inference might be drawn that, since the defendant knew victims were being misled by solicitation literature and other representations, the continued operation of the business despite this knowledge showed the existence of a scheme to defraud.

Fraudulent intent is shown if a representation is made with reckless indifference to its truth or falsity. Cusino, 694 F.2d at 187. In addition, "[f]raudulent intent may be inferred from the modus operandi of the scheme." United States v. Reid, 533 F.2d 1255, 1264 n. 34 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ("[T]he purpose of the scheme 'must be to injure, which doubtless may be inferred when the scheme has such effect as a necessary result of carrying it out.") (quoting United States v. Regent Office Supply Co., 421 F.2d 1174, 1180-81 (2d Cir. 1970) (quoting Horman v. United States, 116 F. 350, 352 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 187 U.S. 641 (1902))). "Of course proof that someone was actually victimized by the fraud is good evidence of the schemer's intent." Id. (quoting Regent Office Supply Co., 421 F.2d at 1180-81). In United States v. D'Amato, the court explained the government's burden of proving fraudulent intent as follows:

The scheme to defraud need not have been successful or complete. Therefore, the victims of the scheme need not have been injured. However, the government must show "that some actual harm or injury was contemplated by the schemer." Because the defendant must intend to harm the fraud's victims, "[m]isrepresentations amounting only to a deceit are insufficient to maintain a mail or wire fraud prosecution." "Instead, the deceit must be coupled with a contemplated harm to the victim." In many cases, this requirement poses no additional obstacle for the government. When the "necessary result" of the actor's scheme is to injure others, fraudulent intent may be inferred from the scheme itself. Where the scheme does not cause injury to the alleged victim as its necessary result, the government must produce evidence independent of the alleged scheme to show the defendant's fraudulent intent.
39 F.3d 1249, 1257 (2d Cir. 1994) (citations and footnote omitted) (holding that the government failed to produce legally sufficient evidence of criminal intent).

Use of Mailings and Wires in Furtherance of the Execution of the Scheme

"The federal mail fraud statute does not purport to reach all frauds, but only those limited instances in which the use of the mails is a part of the execution of the fraud, leaving all other cases to be dealt with by appropriate state law." United States v. Schmuck, 489 U.S. 705, 710 (1989) (quoting Kann v. United States, 323 U.S. 88, 95 (1944)); accord United States v. Coachman, 727 F.2d 1293, 1302 n. 43 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ("The offense of mail fraud demands proof of a scheme to defraud which, at some point, is intentionally furthered by use of the mails.").

"It is not necessary that the scheme contemplate the use of the mails as an essential element." Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954); Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306, 313 (1896) (proof of specific intent to use the mails on the part of defendants need not be proven). "It is sufficient for the mailing to be 'incident to an essential part of the scheme,' . . . or 'a step in [the] plot' . . . . " Schmuck, 489 U.S. at 710-11 (citations omitted); cf. United States v. Diggs, 613 F.2d 988, 998 (D.C. Cir.) ("[A]lthough the schemer need not 'contemplate the use of the mails as an essential element,' the mailings must be sufficiently closely related to [the] scheme to bring his conduct within the statute.") (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 982 (1980); United States v. Alston, 609 F.2d 531, 538 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ("For conviction under the mail fraud statute, the mails must be used 'for the purpose of executing' the fraudulent scheme, and not merely 'as a result of' such scheme.") (quoting Kann, 323 U.S. 88), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 918 (1980).

As in the case of mail fraud, a wire transmission may be considered to be for the purpose of furthering a scheme to defraud if the transmission is incident to the accomplishment of an essential part of the scheme. United States v. Mann, 884 F.2d 532, 536 (10th Cir. 1984). Moreover, it is not necessary to show that the defendant directly participated in the transmission, where it is established that the defendant caused the transmission, and that such use was the foreseeable result of his acts. United States v. Gill, 909 F.2d 274, 277-78 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Jones, 554 F.2d 251, 253 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 866 (1977) (cases cited); United States v. Wise, 553 F.2d 1173 (8th Cir. 1977).

The gist of the offenses is not the scheme to defraud, but the use of the mails or interstate wire communication. See United States v. Garland, 337 F. Supp. 1, 3 (N.D. Ill. 1971); see also United States v. Gardner, 65 F.3d 82, 85 (8th Cir. 1995) ("The use of the post office establishment in the execution of the alleged scheme to obtain money by false pretenses is the gist of the offense which the statute denounces, and not the scheme to defraud.") (quoting Cochran v. United States, 41 F.2d 193, 197 (8th Cir. 1930)), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 748 and 116 S.Ct. 1044 (1996); United States v. Lebovitz, 669 F.2d 894, 898 (3d Cir.) ("The gist of the offense of mail fraud is the use of mails by someone to carry out some essential element of the fraudulent scheme or artifice."), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 929 (1982). Accordingly, each use of the mails (in the case of mail fraud) and each separate wire communication (in the case of wire fraud) constitutes a separate offense, i.e., each mailing and/or wire transmission can constitute a separate count in the indictment. See, e.g., United States v. Pazos, 24 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 1994) (mail fraud); United States v. Rogers, 960 F.2d 1501, 1514 (10th Cir.) (each use of mails is separate offense), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1035 (1992); United States v. Castillo, 829 F.2d 1194, 1199 (1st Cir. 1987) (wire fraud).

Proof of Mailings and Transmissions

The mailing or wire communication may be proven by circumstantial evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Griffith, 17 F.3d 865, 874 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 149 (1994); United States v. Bowman, 783 F.2d 1192, 1197 (5th Cir. 1986) (mailings performed in the course of the bank's customary practices) (citing United States v. Ledesma, 632 F.2d 670, 675 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 998 (1980)); United States v. Brooks, 748 F.2d 1199, 1202-03 (7th Cir. 1984) (introduction of envelope). But see United States v. Hannigan, 27 F.3d 890, 895 (3d Cir. 1994) (defendant's statement that he received check was insufficient to prove check was sent through the mails).

"To constitute a violation of [§ 1341] . . ., it is not necessary to show that [defendants] actually mailed . . . anything themselves; it is sufficient if they caused it to be done. Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954) (citing 18 U.S.C. (Supp. V) § 2(b)); United States v. Kenofskey, 243 U.S. 440, 443 (1917) ("Cause" is used "in its well-known sense of bringing about . . . ."); accord United States v. Diggs, 613 F.2d 988, 998 (D.C. Cir.) ("One must 'cause' the mails to be used" to satisfy the element of "use of the United States mails 'for the purpose of executing the scheme.'") (quoting United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395, 400 (1974) (quoting Kann v. United States, 323 U.S. 88, 94 (1944), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 982 (1980). The government need show only that the defendant "caused" the mailing by acting "with knowledge that the use of the mails follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended." Pereira, 347 U.S. at 8-9.

"'[I]nnocent' mailings - ones that contain no false information - may supply the mailing element." United States v. Schmuck, 489 U.S. 705, 715 (1989) (citing Parr v. United States, 363 U.S. 370, 390 (1960)). Moreover, the elements of mail fraud may be satisfied where the mailings have been routine. Mailings that may lead to the uncovering of the fraudulent scheme may also supply the mailing element of the mail fraud offense. Id. ("The relevant question at all times is whether the mailing is part of the execution of the scheme as conceived by the perpetrator at the time, regardless of whether the mailing later, through hindsight, may prove to have been counterproductive and return to haunt the perpetrator of the fraud.").

Conspiracy to Violate the Mail Fraud or Wire Fraud Statutes

Where a scheme and artifice to defraud is shared by two or more, it becomes a conspiracy to defraud. The essential elements of conspiracy to commit mail fraud or wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, are (1) an agreement between two or more persons; (2) to commit mail fraud or wire fraud; and (3) an overt act committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. See United States v. Brumley, 79 F.3d 1430, 1442 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Hatch, 926 F.2d 387, 393 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 943 (1991)); United States v. Massey, 827 F.2d 995, 1001 (5th Cir. 1987); United States v. Gordon, 780 F.2d 1165, 1170 (5th Cir. 1986)). "Conspiracy to commit a particular substantive offense cannot exist without at least the degree of criminal intent necessary for the substantive offense." Massey, 827 F.2d at 1001 (quoting Ingram v. United States, 360 U.S. 672, 678 (1959)).

As in any conspiracy, it is sufficient that the defendant knowingly joined the conspiracy in which wire fraud or mail fraud was a foreseeable act in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Leahy, 82 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Basey, 816 F.2d 980, 997 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that once a defendant's knowing participation in a conspiracy has been established, "the defendant is deemed guilty of substantive acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy by any of his criminal partners")).

Venue in Mail Fraud

Generally, 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a) provides that in cases where the offense was begun in one district and completed in another, venue may be laid in any district through which the offense was continued.

Section 1341, however, has its own "built-in" venue provisions. The locus of the offense under section 1341 has been carefully specified; and only the acts of "placing", "taking" and "causing to be delivered" at a specified place have been penalized. Venue should therefore be placed according to the specific prohibitions of section 1341, irrespective of section 3237(a). See Travis v. United States, 364 U.S. 631, 636-37 (1961) ("[V]enue should not be made to depend upon the chance use of the mails, when Congress has so carefully indicated the locus of the crimes."). The locus for mail fraud prosecutions is specifically set forth in section 1341; since Congress has "otherwise expressly provided," section 3237 is inapplicable to mail fraud.

Accordingly, venue must be charged in either (1) the district in which the letter was placed in the mail by the defendant; (2) the district in which the defendant took or received the letter from the mails; or (3) the district in which the defendant knowingly caused a letter to be delivered according to the direction thereon. Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427 (1932)); see also United States v. Turley, 891 F.2d 57, 60 (3d Cir. 1989) (government conceded that section 3237 is not applicable to mail fraud).

Several decisions, citing as authority the provisions of section 3237(a), have held that venue for mail fraud prosecutions also lies in any district through which the count letter passed. Section 3237(a) must, however, be read in light of the constitutional requirements and the explicit provisions of section 1341.

Defenses—Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations for mail fraud and wire fraud prosecutions is five years (18 U.S.C. § 3282), except for mail and wire fraud schemes that affect a financial institution, in which case the statute is ten years (18 U.S.C. § 3293).

COMMENT: Consider that a scheme may extend back beyond the limitations period; the gist of the offense is the use of the mails, and if the prohibited use of the mails was within the period, the prosecution is timely. See O. Obermaier and R. Morvillo, White Collar Crime: Business and Regulatory Offenses, § 9.04[5], at 9-67 (Rel. 2, 1991) (citing cases); cf. United States v. Garfinkel, 29 F.3d 1253, 1259 (8th Cir. 1994) (mail fraud scheme may continue after mailing). That a scheme may extend back beyond the limitation period does not preclude prosecution of an offense committed in furtherance of the scheme within the period.

Defenses—Good Faith

Good faith is recognized as a defense to a charge of mail or wire fraud. See, e.g., United States v. Casperson, 773 F.2d 216, 223 (8th Cir. 1985). For a discussion of the defense of good faith and the entitlement of jury instructions on this issue, see Green v. United States, 474 U.S. 925 (1985); see also Laura A. Eilers & Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 719 (1994) (and cases cited).

Drafting a Mail Fraud and/or Wire Fraud Indictment

The Criminal Division has published a collection of indictment forms, Drafting Indictments most recently updated in March, 1995. These forms can be conveniently accessed and saved as word processing documents using USABook:
Mail Fraud
Mail Fraud Scheme/Artifice

Sufficiency of Indictment—Generally

Generally, Rule 7(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires an indictment to provide "a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged." United States v. Yefsky, 994 F.2d 885, 893 (1st Cir. 1993) ("The Supreme Court has instructed that an indictment is sufficient if it contains the elements of the offense charged, fairly informs the defendant of the charges against which he must defend, and enables him to enter a plea without fear of double jeopardy.") (citing Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974)); see also Collins v. Markley, 346 F.2d 230, 232 (7th Cir.) (en banc) ("The sufficiency of an indictment is to be measured by certain guide lines. First, the indictment standing alone must contain the elements of the offense intended to be charged, and it must be sufficient to apprise the accused of the nature of the offense. Second, after conviction, the record of the case must be sufficient so that the accused can plead the judgment in bar of any subsequent prosecution for the same offense."), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 946 (1965).

Accordingly, a mail fraud or wire fraud indictment should contain a reasonably detailed description of the particular scheme the defendant is charged with devising to ensure that the defendant has sufficient notice of the nature of the offense. See Yefsky, 994 F.2d at 893 ("The indictment may incorporate the words of the statute to set forth the offense, but the statutory language '"must be accompanied with such a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific offense, coming under the general description, with which he is charged."'") (quoting Hamling, 418 U.S. at 117-18 (quoting United States v. Hess, 124 U.S. 483, 487 (1888))); cf. United States v. Nance, 533 F.2d 699, 702 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (noting with approval mail fraud count that specifies misrepresentations); United States v. Curtis, 506 F.2d 985, 990 (10th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted) (dismissing mail fraud indictment that excludes false pretenses).

In Yefsky, the court held that the indictment was defective in that it did not provide the defendant with adequate notice of the charge (conspiracy to commit mail fraud) against him. 994 F.2d at 993 ("Where guilt depends so crucially upon . . . a specific identification of fact, . . . cases have uniformly held that an indictment must do more than simply repeat the language of the criminal statute.") (citing Hamling, 418 U.S. at 118).

In Curtis, the court stated the following in considering the sufficiency of the allegations contained in an indictment charging mail fraud:

Mere evidential matters or detail more appropriate in bills of particular need not be pleaded in an indictment based upon 1341. [citations omitted] But as these cases demonstrate, some substantial indication of the nature or character of any scheme or artifice to defraud, or to obtain money or property by means of false pretenses, representations or promises is requisite. And it is not sufficient in this regard to merely plead the statutory language. [citations omitted] A reference to the cases cited first above will disclose that in each instance the nature of the schemes or artifices is identified or described, including the particular pretenses, representations or promises claimed to have been false.

506 F.2d at 989-90 (holding that the indictment, which pleaded little more than the statutory language without any fair indication of the nature or character of the scheme or artifice relied upon, or the false pretenses, misrepresentations or promises forming a part of it, was fatally defective); see also United States v. Crummer, 151 F.2d 958 (10th Cir. 1945) ("While the particulars of the scheme are matters of substance and therefore must be described with a degree of certainty sufficient to show its existence of character, and fairly to acquaint the defendant with the particular fraudulent scheme charged against him, still the scheme itself need not be pleaded with all the certainty in respect of time, place, and circumstance requisite in charging the mailing of the letter or other matter.") (allegations of the scheme held to be sufficient), cert. denied, 327 U.S. 785 (1946); cf. United States v. Azad, 809 F.2d 291, 295 (6th Cir. 1986) ("What distinguishes this indictment from the indictment found defective in [Curtis], . . . is the clear and specific description of the fraudulent scheme found in the present indictment. The indictment before us does provide some 'substantial indication of the nature or character' of the scheme involved, and 'the scheme itself need not be pleaded with all the certainty in respect of time, place, and circumstance requisite in charging the mailing of the letter or other matter.'" ) (quoting Curtis, 506 F.2d at 990), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1004 (1987); United States v. Adamo, 534 F.2d 31, 35 (3d Cir.) ("The Curtis indictment was so vague that trial might have proceeded upon an entirely different concept of the scheme than that contemplated by the grand jury when it returned the indictment. By contrast, the indictment in this case explicitly outlines the elements of the fraudulent plan."), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 841 (1976).

Sufficiency of Indictment—Victims and Loss

Victims of the fraud do not have to be identified by name in the indictment. United States v. Mizyed, 927 F.2d 979 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 937 (1991). Moreover, actual monetary loss need not be alleged. United States v. Barber, 881 F.2d 345, 348-49 (7th Cir. 1989) ("It is true that the indictment does not allege an actual monetary or economic loss to any insurance company. However, it is not necessary that an indictment charging mail fraud contain such an allegation."), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 922 (1990); see also United States v. Ginsburg, 909 F.2d 982, 988 n. 8 (7th Cir. 1990) ("McNally does not require that actual loss of money or property be alleged in the indictment."); United States v. Bucey, 876 F.2d 1297, 1311 (7th Cir.) ("[S]ince the mail fraud statute punishes the scheme to defraud, this court has reiterated on numerous occasions that the ultimate success of the fraud and the actual defrauding of a victim are not necessary prerequisites to a successful mail fraud prosecution."), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1004 (1989).

Sufficiency of Indictment—Mailings or Transmissions in Furtherance of Scheme

"The Government need not allege the subordinate evidentiary facts by which it intends to prove the 'in furtherance' element of the crime charged, and an indictment setting out the mailings charged and alleging that they were in furtherance of the scheme should not be dismissed as insufficient on its face unless there is no conceivable evidence that the Government could produce at trial to substantiate its 'in furtherance' allegation." United States v. Castor, 558 F.2d 379, 385 (7th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1010 (1978). In Castor, the court observed the following concerning the requirement of alleging that the mailings were in furtherance of the scheme:

The question is not whether the indictment particularly alleges sufficient facts from which a jury could find that the mailings charged were in furtherance of the scheme, but rather whether the Government conceivably could produce evidence at trial showing that the designated mailings were for the purposes of executing the scheme. United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75, 76, 83 S.Ct. 173, 9 L.Ed.2d 136 (1962). The resolution of the question of whether the mailings alleged were in furtherance of the scheme must await trial "unless it so convincingly appears on the face of the indictment that as a matter of law there need be no necessity for such delay." United States v. Feinberg, 50 F. Supp. 976, 977 (E.D.N.Y. 1973), aff'd, 140 F.2d 592 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 322 U.S. 726, 64 S.Ct. 943, 88 L.Ed. 1562 (1944).
Id. at 384-85.

Sufficiency of Indictment—Separate Offenses

Each mailing or transmission in furtherance of the scheme and artifice to defraud is a separate offense. See, e.g., United States v. Pazos, 24 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 1994)(mail fraud); United States v. Rogers, 960 F.2d 1501, 1514 (10th Cir.)(each use of mails is separate offense), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1035 (1992); United States v. Castillo, 829 F.2d 1194, 1199 (1st Cir. 1987)(wire fraud). Accordingly, proper draftsmanship requires that only one mailing or transmission should be alleged in each count. Otherwise, the count may be duplicitous.

Because descriptions of the scheme are frequently quite lengthy, it is suggested that those descriptive paragraphs set out in full in one count be adopted and incorporated into another count by suitable reference pursuant to the provision of Rule 7(c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Sufficiency of the Indictment—Special Considerations

Take care to charge the proper method of violation of the statute! For example, if the letter is mailed to the district of indictment from another district, be sure to charge a taking from the mails, or delivery according to the direction thereon, rather than a placing in the mail. Conversely, charge a placing in the mail in the district of indictment of a letter addressed to someone outside that district. See Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427 (1932) (indictment loosely and inartfully drawn).

Statement of Policy concerning Venue in Mail Fraud Prosecutions

Department of Justice policy opposes mail fraud venue based solely on the mail matter passing through a jurisdiction.

18 U.S.C. Section 1341—Elements of Mail Fraud

"There are two elements in mail fraud: (1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme to defraud (or to perform specified fraudulent acts), and (2) use of the mail for the purpose of executing, or attempting to execute, the scheme (or specified fraudulent acts)." Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 721 n. 10 (1989); see also Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954) ("The elements of the offense of mail fraud under . . . § 1341 are (1) a scheme to defraud, and (2) the mailing of a letter, etc., for the purpose of executing the scheme."); Laura A. Eilers & Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 704 (1994) (cases cited).

Knowingly and Willfully

The prohibition of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 requires that the false statement, concealment or cover up be "knowingly and willfully" done, which means that "The statement must have been made with an intent to deceive, a design to induce belief in the falsity or to mislead, but § 1001 does not require an intent to defraud -- that is, the intent to deprive someone of something by means of deceit." United States v. Lichenstein, 610 F.2d 1272, 1276-77 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 907 (1980). The government may prove that a false statement was made "knowingly and willfully" by offering evidence that defendants acted deliberately and with knowledge that the representation was false. See United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207, 214 (5th Cir. 1990). The jury may conclude from a plan of elaborate lies and half-truths that defendants deliberately conveyed information they knew to be false to the government. Id. at 214-15.

As used in the statute, the term "knowingly" requires only that the defendant acted with knowledge of the falsity. See United States v. Lange, 528 F.2d 1280, 1287-89 (5th Cir. 1976). As in other situations, to commit an act "knowingly" is to do so with knowledge or awareness of the facts or situation, and not because of mistake, accident or some other innocent reason. See Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, § 1.35 (1990). Knowledge of the criminal statute governing the conduct is not required.

The false statement need not be made with an intent to defraud if there is an intent to mislead or to induce belief in its falsity. Reckless disregard of whether a statement is true, or a conscious effort to avoid learning the truth, can be construed as acting "knowingly." United States v. Evans, 559 F.2d 244, 246 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1015 (1978).

A defendant is not relieved of the consequences of a material misrepresentation by lack of knowledge when the means of ascertaining truthfulness are available. In appropriate circumstances, the government may establish the defendant's knowledge of falsity by proving that the defendant either knew the statement was false or acted with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth. See United States v. West, 666 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1981); Lange, 528 F.2d at 1288; United States v. Clearfield, 358 F. Supp. 564, 574 (E.D. Pa. 1973). Proof that the defendant acted with reckless disregard or reckless indifference may therefore satisfy the knowledge requirement, when the defendant makes a false material statement and consciously avoids learning the facts or intends to deceive the government. See United States v. Schaffer, 600 F.2d 1120, 1122 (5th Cir. 1979).

The term "willfully" means no more than that the forbidden act was done deliberately and with knowledge, and does not require proof of evil intent. McClanahan v. United States, 230 F.2d 919, 924 (5th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 824 (1956); McBride v. United States, 225 F.2d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 934 (1956). An act is done "willfully" if done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids. There is no requirement that the government show evil intent on the part of a defendant in order to prove that the act was done "willfully." See generally United States v. Gregg, 612 F.2d 43, 50-51 (2d Cir. 1979); American Surety Company v. Sullivan, 7 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1925)(Hand, J.); United States v. Peltz, 433 F.2d 48, 54-55 (2d Cir. 1970),cert. denied, 401 U.S. 955 (1971) (involving 15 U.S.C. § 32(a). See also 1 E. Devitt, C. Blackmar, M. Wolff & K. O'Malley, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 17.05 (1992).

Obstructing or Impairing Legitimate Government Activity

Under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the fraud or impairment of legitimate government activity may take any of several forms:

Bribery of a government employee, kickbacks to government employees or extortion of money or favors by government employees, misrepresentations of financial capability, alteration or falsification of official records, submission of false documents; and

Obstructing, in any manner, a legitimate governmental function.

18 U.S. Code § 1342 - Fictitious name or address

Whoever, for the purpose of conducting, promoting, or carrying on by means of the Postal Service, any scheme or device mentioned in section 1341 of this title or any other unlawful business, uses or assumes, or requests to be addressed by, any fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address or name other than his own proper name, or takes or receives from any post office or authorized depository of mail matter, any letter, postal card, package, or other mail matter addressed to any such fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address, or name other than his own proper name, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Affecting Justice - Motivation, Rationale and Impossibility of Resolution

DRAFT

The Impossibility of Resolution can be demonstrated. Those who conspired to deny and prevent justice can be held legally responsible for criminal actions, denial of constitutional rights, their negligence in applying the Rule of Law, and obstruction of justice. The IMMUNITIES - Absolute, Qualified, Judicial, Prosecutorial, Witness, Legislative - do not prevent criminal and civil actions against those involved.

This document will attempt to address the general aspects affecting everyone involved. It will be as short as it has to be.

My hope is to provide an outline which will permit deliberate and immediate attention and corrective actions by the people and the organizations involved. I do not anticipate a detailed listing of criminal statues with assignment to the individuals and officials involved. The scope of this document will likely overwhelm any reader.

I know the rationale for the corruption, perversion and denial of justice. I know why they are continuing with the intentional and deliberate negligence and fraud.

I have acted because of necessity in good faith within procedures and law towards a resolution. Survivors of this type of injustice fall into three categories 1) Homeless/Destitute, 2) Incarcerated, 3) Suicide. Those responsible don't care. THEY HAVE DONE THIS TO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE - they know their constitutional rights were denied and ignored without explanation and in contradiction to the applicable law.

I have never acted with malice or aggression towards anyone. I have never attempted to solicit or coerce any action by anyone which would subject them to negative affects due to a perception of having helped me improperly. When help was requested, I was ignored. I begged. I begged everyone.

My documents and personal presentation has always been respectful.

I have been subjected to tremendous disrespect, discourtesy, misinformation, disinformation, deliberate misdirection and misuse of government resources. The actions and efforts involved in the conspiracy to conceal an act of judicial misconduct/injustice prevented it from being addressed/resolved, while spawning unending and ever-expanding activities which attack and destroy every aspect of my life.

Where actions against me were unlawful, and violated my civil and constitutional rights, I make no excuses and do not excuse those who tore my life apart. I did nothing to deserve this. Why are they preventing any exit?

The description in the header of the web site summarizes with precision the experience, the current situation and the action necessary for resolution. It was first posted in 2008. It has only been edited ONCE. In July 2013,recognizing that EVERY failure of legal professionals to act or respond could be attributed to and concealed by one state law - - Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct

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…

NO ONE COULD HELP… until the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6.

Insert Healy v Healy Injustice and Denial of Rights and the Law here.

Healy v Healy Superior Court Fraud here

Attorney General Kathleen Kane
- Rule 521 Constitutional issue
- Secret Court Orders which prevent AG Kane from disclosing investigating or acting

Montgomery County Grand Jury Investigation
Special Prosecutor Carluccio
Is this Grand Jury called to conceal evidence? Emails?

Having Spec Prosecutor Carluccio would prevent him from having to disclose the efforts of the grand jury to suppress evidence which could be used against his wife, Judge Carluccio, who used emails to cancel multiple hearings, who has prevented the appeal of her defective and void order, who has deliberately neglected to address her defective and void order.
- the defective and void order was referred to as an UNAPPEALABLE ORDER
- It was appealable, BUT she blocked it for over a year, the superior court neglects to address the lack of jurisdiction to issue the order, the violation of the law, and the loss of judicial immunity for herself and the prior judges who conspired to deny justice
- Judge Carluccio's retaliatory and void court orders caused irreparable damage to property and showed an abuse of power under color of law with intent to cause emotional distress

- Healy v Healy has been before 20 judges from the Montgomery County Judiciary
- each sacrifices their integrity to conceal the lack of integrity of the prior judges
- immunity is not available to the judges where there orders lacked jurisdiction and the entire matter can be demonstrated to have been a farce of epic cruel proportions.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane prevented from disclosing information

Superior Court Central Legal Staff
Intercept and Fraud to deny appeal
County, State and Federal prosecution for violating PA Law and Constitutional Rights

Healy v Miller Injustice and Denial of Rights and the Law here.
Attorney Liability - failed to provide any real basis in law for dismissal ignoring lack of jurisdiction.

Healy v Miller Superior Court Fraud here

Attorney General Kathleen Kane
- Rule 521 Constitutional issue
- Secret Court Orders which prevent AG Kane from disclosing investigating or acting

Superior Court Central Legal Staff
Intercept and Fraud to deny appeal
County, State and Federal prosecution for violating PA Law and Constitutional Rights

.

PROBLEM:
A law 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 a litigant has been 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.

Where the law affects the substantive rights of a litigant, the state supreme courts were without proper authority to enact the law pursuant to the state constitutions. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is repugnant to the US Constitution, and is a nullity.

For more information: An Overview of the Challenge to Rule 1.6

The problem is national. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information has been enacted in every state... (There are some slight modifications in some states. Contrary to the profound objection of the commission chairman, Robert Kutak, The American Bar Association deliberately removed the 'fraud provisions' from Rule 1.6 before presenting the Model Rules to the states.)

Having Rule 1.6 suspended, removed or declared unconstitutional will restore constitutional rights and equal protection of the law.

Judges, lawyers and legal professionals are not permitted to disclose information which will adversely affect the integrity of the court pursuant to Rule 1.6.

The following public officials are prevented by Rule 1.6 from exposing unconstitutional Rule 1.6 injustice:
State Supreme Court Justices
State Attorneys General
Commonwealth Court Judges
County District Attorneys
Superior Court Judges
Every judge and lawyer in every state

Lawyers in the state senates and legislatures
State Governors who are lawyers
US Senators who are lawyers
US Representatives who are lawyers
They are also permitted/required to act pursuant to Rule 1.6 to prevent unconstitutional Rule 1.6 injustice from being exposed. Their actions may not be disclosed, evwen when they are in the furtherance of the injustice.

The non-lawyer Governors seek advice from their lawyer or the state attorney general - who are not permitted to expose the issue or take any action.

The non-lawyer US Senators seek advice from their lawyers - who are not permitted to expose the issue or take any action.

The non-lawyer US Representative seek advice from their lawyers - who are not permitted to expose the issue or take any action.

Police will not take a complaint of judicial corruption.

County Detectives report to the District Attorneys who are not permitted to expose the issue or take any action.

RULE 1.6 HAS BUILT IN SELF-DEFENSE AND PRESERVATION NON-DISCLOSURE
- preventing disclosure
- preventing any effort to remove the law
- permitting fraud in the effort to maintain confidentiality (with that fraud kept confidential)

The County Sheriff is usually a non-lawyer with authority to enforce every law. After Rule 1.6 was enacted in each state, the sheriffs were informed of a greatly diminished role in law enforcement by the state attorney general, the judiciary and their lawyers. Many states have gone as far as eliminating the position of sheriff. The county sheriff takes no action to address the injustice.

FEDERAL AUTHORITIES - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Marketed as an ethical fix for DOJ prosecutors, the McDade-Murtha Amendment was passed requiring DOJ and all federal government lawyers to follow the ethics rules which are in effect in the location where they are working.

The US Attorney General advised and campaigned against enacting the McDade-Murtha Amendment. Their campaign was somewhat half-hearted though... because Rule 1.6 already prevented them from telling the Congress exactly why it would be "devastatingly bad".

In congressional hearings, there was no testimony that Rule 1.6 made fraud legal when concealing prior fraud, and prevented disclosure or action to rectify the fraud. The state supreme courts had enacted ethics laws which lacked morality, required illegal actions to conceal and prevent exposure of fraud, and mandated non-disclosure/confidentiality of their participation in the fraud.

With the McDade-Murtha Amendment, the Federal Government - Department of Justice - all US Attorneys - and all government attorneys are not permitted to expose the issue, or take any action to expose the issue, or take any action to address the injustice and/or the related denial of constitutionally protected rights in any state.

TAKING THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Letter to Chief Deputy Attorney General

November 15, 2014

Gregory R. Neuhauser
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Litigation Section
15th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120

RE: Your File #3600
With regard to the Notice pursuant to Rule 521.

The Superior Court of PA - Central Legal Staff (CLS) are exposed violating PA Law, and Constitutional Rights. There is no authority for the Central Legal Staff to act alone on matters. They have violated Pennsylvania law, obstructed justice, interfered with the administration of the courts, demonstrated their participation in a conspiracy to deny, prevent and obstruct justice, and committed multiple acts of fraud.

Where these actions demonstrate a denial of constitutionally protected rights, there can be no assertion by CLS that their fraudulent actions can be excused and ignored by asserting Rule 1.6 BECAUSE THAT EXPOSES RULE 1.6 PERMITTING THE DENIAL OF MY CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS. Ergo, Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional.

It is unlikely that any member of the Superior Court Judiciary will come to the aid of the Central Legal Staff with signatures because the level of corruption involved in the lower courts has already demonstrated a lack of judicial independence causing the loss of judicial immunity.

Please review the attached documents filed with the Superior Court.

I wish to have the Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania criminally prosecuted to the fullest extent of state and federal law. Please advise, as PA Law requires I delay seeking civil damages until criminal prosecution has been addressed.

Terance Healy
871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976

Attached:
Notice / Complaint of Unconstitutional Actions
Motion for Reconsideration
Notice of Unavailability of Signed Documents
Motion for Reconsideration of Oral Argument
Motion for Proposed course of Action Towards Resolution
Motion for Production of Documents
Motion for Corrections to The Docket
Motion for the Applicable Rule of Law
ANNOTATED VERSION of unsigned Memorandum

PDF version

Letter to US Attorney Zane Memeger

November 15, 2014

Zane Memeger
U.S. Attorney's Office
615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250
Philadelphia, PA 19106

RE: Complaint Hand Delivered on October 30, 2014

The Superior Court of PA - Central Legal Staff (CLS) are exposed violating PA Law, and Constitutional Rights. There is no authority for the Central Legal Staff to act alone on matters. They have violated Pennsylvania law, obstructed justice, interfered with the administration of the courts, demonstrated their participation in a conspiracy to deny, prevent and obstruct justice, and committed multiple acts of fraud.

Where these actions demonstrate a denial of constitutionally protected rights, there can be no assertion by CLS that their fraudulent actions can be excused and ignored by asserting Rule 1.6 BECAUSE THAT EXPOSES RULE 1.6 PERMITTING THE DENIAL OF MY CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS. Ergo, Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional.

It is unlikely that any member of the Superior Court Judiciary will come to the aid of the Central Legal Staff with signatures because the level of corruption involved in the lower courts has already demonstrated a lack of judicial independence causing the loss of judicial immunity.

Please review the attached documents filed with the Superior Court.

I wish to have the Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania criminally prosecuted to the fullest extent of state and federal law. Please advise, as PA Law requires I delay seeking civil damages until criminal prosecution has been addressed.

Terance Healy
871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976

Attached:
Notice / Complaint of Unconstitutional Actions
Motion for Reconsideration
Notice of Unavailability of Signed Documents
Motion for Reconsideration of Oral Argument
Motion for Proposed course of Action Towards Resolution
Motion for Production of Documents
Motion for Corrections to The Docket
Motion for the Applicable Rule of Law
ANNOTATED VERSION of unsigned Memorandum

PDF version

Sunday, November 9, 2014

To the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Terance Healy, Appellant, appeals to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania from a Memorandum unsigned by any judge filed with the Superior Court on October 27, 2014.

Where a “decision” was rendered without proper consideration of any facts;

Where a “decision” was rendered without submission of briefs;

Where a “decision" was rendered outside of established laws neglecting all procedures within the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure (Title 210) and the Operating Procedures of the Superior Court (Title 65);

Where a “decision” was produced based on fraud
which was intended to conceal the prior fraud of the lower court
which has obstructed, denied and prevented the Appeal
of a deliberately and intentionally procedurally defective and void order issued on May 9, 2011
while denying the constitutional rights of a litigant
terrorized by litigation within the lower court
which can be demonstrated to have been a FARCE
–
an injustice so egregious and incomprehensible that persisted for 7 years demonstrating abuse of power under color of law with intent to cause harm and emotional distress
executed by the entire Judiciary of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas
which FAILED to secure it's only determinable and true objective
- the suicide of a litigant.

GET READY FOR MR HEALY's WILD RIDE!... and the story of a billion dollar lawsuit to be filed as soon as a litigant's constitutional rights are restored

As I told the American Bar Association in 2013.
I KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE DONE.
I AM COMING FOR MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
JUSTICE IS COMING.

I'm bringing the American People with me...
No, they are NOT pleased with what you have done to our country...

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Why do they persist with injustice while sacrificing their integrity?

The latest in convoluted disinformation arrived from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Thirteen pages of a complete disregard for the issue, and absence of facts.

Why do they persist in the foolishness of ignoring the issue. It's no game for me.

Their fraud has corrupted the entire Montgomery County Bench, the Eastern District Court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and revealed a systemic problem throughout every state and federal judiciary regarding fraud.

It has demonstrated the complete failure of every level of state and federal government - politicians and law enforcement - to take ANY action to preserve, protect, defend, support or enforce, the United States Constitution. Responsibility for the Constitutional Crisis in the US rests with the Judicial Branch - undermined and usurped by the American Bar Association.

A problem created when the American Bar Association decided it was ethical to commit fraud and made it illegal to disclose it. Fraud is not ethical, moral or legal. Concealing it from the victim, the courts and law enforcement while obstructing justice is a violation of constitutional rights. Even when somehow the ABA convinced the supreme courts in every state to 'go along'.

The victim of the 'fraud' injustice will end up 1) Homeless/Destitute, 2) Incarcerated, or 3) Suicide.

A deliberately defective order issued without jurisdiction which has been repeatedly enforced and acted upon while the court neglects the fact that the order is defective and void.

That is not something which is going to change. Jurisdiction is not retroactive.

1) The Court quashes the Appeal filed on August 15, 2011.
In doing so, the court has acknowledged the existence of a properly filed and timely appeal which was neglected by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. A VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS.

By their own acknowledgement, Judge Page lacked jurisdiction to issue the order of April 5, 2013 after improperly and ILLEGALLY conducting hearings during a pending appeal. A VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS.

2) The Superior Court neglects with clear intent and disinformation efforts to address the defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

Judge Carolyn Carluccio neglected her lack of jurisdiction. A VIOLATION OF PA LAW.

Judge Carolyn Carluccio neglected to address her clearly defective order. A VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS.

Judge Carolyn Carluccio neglected THE LAW, and the Constitutional rights of a litigant, choosing instead to further victimize the litigant with subsequent corrupt orders in support of her defective one. JUDGES ARE ALLOWED TO BE MALICIOUS.

- -

With the August 2011 Appeal pending, the litigant was left to await the decision.

UNTIL, a petition attempting to enforce the order was filed during the pending appeal.

Enforcement is allowed, BUT IT MUST CONSIDER THE VALID JURISDICTION OF THE ORDER being ENFORCED.
- Angst & Angst neglected to address the multiple failures in jurisdiction. This was a deliberate act to compel the judge to sacrifice his integrity.
- Judge Haaz did not oblige their manipulation.
- Judge Coonahan did not oblige their manipulation.
- Judge Page scheduled the hearing - in spite of the evidence of the pending appeal on the court record.
A VIOLATION OF PA LAW, RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Judge Page then further ruled while COMPLETELY neglecting the evidence of the defective and void order.
- Angst & Angst had presented no evidence in support of jurisdiction, or countering the evidence in the court record of the defect in the order of May 9, 2011. This was a deliberate act to compel the judge to sacrifice his integrity.

JUDGE PAGES ORDER WAS APPEALED AND MOVED FORWARD... THE NEGLECTED ONE STILL PENDING.

In the Appellant Brief it was clearly presented that the May 9, 2011 order was defective and void and that the evidence was presented during the improperly held hearings.

Angst & Angst neglected to address the defective and void order in their Breif, and failed again to counter ANY of the evidence which demonstrated the lack of jurisdiction for the court to issue of May 9, 2011. This was a deliberate act to compel the judges to sacrifice their integrity.

So we have a MEMORANDUM by DONOHUE, J. which neglects the central issue - the defective and void order of May 9, 2011. Neglects to address the denial of due process and the rights of the litigant. OH, and also completely neglects to mention that THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 is based on this matter.

Rule 1.6 is the unconstitutional law which encourages this type of misdirected, disinformed injustice through overwhelming and excessive litigation which results when a lawyer commits a fraud upon the court and attributes it to a client.) and then alleges the information is protected by attorney-client privilege.

The thing is that ALL OF THE DISINFORMATION AND RHETORIC IN THE WORLD is never going to give Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio jurisdiction to issue her defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

FAILURE to address the defective and void order involves all further judges in the conspiracy to commit treason. That is what the crime is called when a judge issues an order without jurisdiction.

The MEMORANDUM by DONOHUE, J. also gets the facts completely wrong. Does that really matter? Not really... BECAUSE the incorrect information is just the disinformation tactic to distract from the fact that they are attempting to enforce a defective and void order issued without jurisidciton...

JUST BECAUSE THE JUDICIARY IGNORES THE LACK OF JURISDICTION does not provide proper jurisdiction. The fly in their disinformation.

Sadly, I filed out of necessity, not any intention to embarass the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. They panel, Donohue, Wecht, and Platt have sacrificed their integrity without provocation.

It's a simple procedure. It was not followed - the reasons being totally malicious and vile - Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio wanted to be a monster.

The problem is, in order for the judge to get away with being a monster, they have to follow procedures.

Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio failed - - perhaps she has a touch of the Downs.

Forcing me to rewrite the terror which I have lived through since 2007 in repeated filings which are ignored is just cruelty. An inescapable cruelty because if I fail to meet their deadlines (and I have not) the facts don't matter.