There have been filings with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania by which they were aware of our effort though dismissals by unsigned per curiam orders offer plausible deniability to their being informed. As petitions had been filed with the court, it would have been inappropriate to communicate with the judiciary at that time.
One persistent Question lingers...
WHY DID THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ENACT THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT INTO LAW?
What was the reason which necessitated their action? You may wonder why the supreme court in EVERY state did the same thing at staggered times from 1984 through 2009.
We have asked for a meeting where the issue can be discussed and those essential questions can be answered.
August 28, 2014
Chief Justice Ron Castille
Justice Max Baer
Justice Michael J. Eakin
Justice Seamus P. McCaffrey
Justice Thomas G. Saylor
Justice Correale F. Stevens
Justice Debra Todd
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Your Honor,
After meetings with Senator Chuck McIlhinney have failed to demonstrate any progress, it is clearly necessary to raise this issue to your attention directly.
The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was made up of lawyers (9 of 12) who heard information from county judges, district attorneys, public defenders and the Judicial Conduct Board. Attributing the blame to “silence, inaction, inexperience, ignorance, fear of retaliation, greed, ambition, carelessness.”, the lawyers on the commission maintained ‘confidentiality of information’ as required by law – Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Their realization was correct – “What good would [reporting] it do?” HOWEVER, the Commission’s report neglected to indicate the reason for the silence (Rule 1.6) and it also neglected to expose the cause (the Rule 1.6 mandate) , and as such their recommended reforms do nothing to prevent a recurrence of the judicial corruption.
Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information where it adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary, the reputation of legal professionals, self-incriminates, or negatively affects their client. Protecting the integrity of a judicial which lacks integrity is foolishness. Mandating it has unconstitutional effects.
The Commission Report and Reform Recommendations amount to fraud – a deliberate effort to conceal the root cause of the failure of the justice system to address judicial misconduct, corruption and injustice.
Far more frightening and perilous, is that the lawyers associated with the Commission have now been ‘educated and trained’ in how to execute and conceal crimes such as those committed by Ciavarella and Conahan – who only went to prison because they had failed at money laundering.
The Supreme Court’s authority to enact law is limited to situations where ‘such rules are consistent with this Constitution [Pennsylvania] and neither abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of any litigant.’
The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who must follow the US Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Rules of Professional Conduct which were enacted by the Supreme Court.
For the Attorney General, the Rule 1.6 mandate of ‘confidentiality of information’ with regard to client information undermines ‘everything’ where an attorney general’s clients include (1) the public, (2) the Pennsylvania government, (3) the Office of the Attorney General, (4) government agencies and departments statewide, (5) personnel within those agencies and departments, (6) and themselves.
The Rules of Professional Conduct enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have substantially affected the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Attorney General preventing and obstructing law enforcement responsibilities when it relates to judicial corruption and injustice within the courts.
The Supreme Court, by the same mandate, has caused a ‘lawful’ requirement within every court and by every lawyer in the commonwealth to ignore injustice and judicial corruption.
Previous Codes of Professional Responsibility (among other titles) have included similar guidelines, BUT once enacted into ‘law’ in 1987 ignoring injustice and judicial corruption ceased being discretionary and was MANDATED BY LAW.
The result, the Rules of Professional Conduct collaterally affect and negate ‘the substantive rights of the litigant’. Specifically, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality causes a mandatory conspiracy of silence within the courts which ignores the damage and harm caused to litigants and further hinders and prevents any resolution.
The substantive rights of the children and families of Luzerne County were clearly ignored.
The Supreme Court lacked authority to enact Rule 1.6 into law as the substantive rights of the People have been ‘abridged’, ‘modified’, denied and ignored.
Additionally, the role of the Sheriff as Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the county has been negated and minimized by judicial decisions. Constitutionally, the Sheriff has the lawful authority and resources to enforce the law within the county.
Failing to act because the judiciary has convinced them of a greatly diminished role, the non-lawyer Sheriffs (reluctantly) defer authority to the county District Attorney who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.6. A necessity to prevent prosecution. District Attorneys take no action to investigate and prosecute the injustice and judicial corruption. Related crimes against the victims of injustice are ignored leaving the litigant with no protection under the law.
The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct were rolled out to the states and enacted into law nationwide without the involvement of the state legislatures, the signature of the governors or any constitutional review.
“What is right is not always the same as what is legal.” was offered by Edward Snowden as an explanation for his actions revealing unconstitutional activity. This statement may also apply to the failure of attorneys general, judges, district attorneys and lawyers to address the unconstitutional actions made ‘legal’ which have undermined justice over the last 25 years.
It is the responsibility of the Governor to represent the People, to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution and the state Constitution, and to recognize that collaterally Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional to the People.
The act of sedition which enacted Rule 1.6 and mandated the silent participation of all legal professionals, perverted the judiciary, sacrificed the personal integrity of every judge, and undermined justice can no longer be ignored and excused because of the intimidation and threats of disciplinary action by the corrupt who have deliberately violated the public trust.
The Commission on Juvenile Justice have not done what was requested of them. They have participated in concealing the truth. They have endorsed and enabled continuing injustice.
You, the members of the Legislature and the Judiciary who assembled the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice must review their report findings and recommendations. The deliberate knowledgeable failure of those lawyers to indicate the root cause of the problem in Luzerne County, which also less publicly affects every court in the Commonwealth, was caused by Rule 1.6 - An unconstitutional and repugnant law which has been improperly enacted by the state Supreme Court without proper review of its affect on constitutional rights.
You attention to this matter of statewide importance is appreciated. A meeting to discuss the issue would be greatly appreciated.
Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim
PDF version
Attachment - Letters sent to other government officials
