Showing posts with label counsel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label counsel. Show all posts

Monday, September 8, 2014

McDade-Murtha: Prevents US Attorney from addressing UnConstitutionality

With 90% of the state supreme courts having inexplicably enacted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct into law, in 1998, using the distraction of 'No Contact' situations, McDade-Murtha appears to be a critical point in the effort to make certain that federal authorities could not prosecute / investigate / expose judicial crimes within any state.

The Model Rules - and specifically the much-referenced Rule 1.6 Confidentiality - were applicable to all lawyers within the state, and all federal lawyers working in the state. The conspiracy of silence was secured by an unconstitutional state law, a memo from US Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, and a federal law requiring the US Attorney to be complicit and silent. Clearly, a great deal of effort went into every action which would prevent recognition and revelation that the Judicial branch at the state AND federal levels had been compromised, judicial independence undermined, and lack of jurisdiction for the court to act was being ignored - by lawlessness which persisted through state law, federal law and the US Constitution.

CK-Tyranny-Hands-Tied-with-FlagAfter McDade-Murtha, there could be no federal intervention when a state judge violated your constitutional rights. The 1983 abuse of power claims already had their prepared scripts which enabled dismissal when filed against judges. There is no indication that the complete lack of any constitutional review of the law by the states before enacting the Model Rules was ever mentioned.

McDade-Murtha 'doubled-down' using a federal law which obligated federal authorities to follow a state law which had had no constitutional review, no proper construction by the legislature, no signature of a governor, and had collateral effect of denying, obstructing and preventing constitutional rights. The unavailability of constitutional protections overwhelms every aspect of the target's life.

Responding to the corruption which decimated Cook County Courthouse (Operation Greylord), judges had secured a lawful ability to commit judicial corruption, injustice, denial of constitutional rights, and ignore the law within their courtrooms without ANY accountability. Judicial immunity covered decisions and was necessitated by judicial independence. BUT, this absolute above-the-law and unaccountable to any law, conduct board or authority, demonstrated a loss of judicial independence which undermined jurisdiction and nullified judicial immunity.

The reasoning for judicial immunity, or absolute immunity, was no longer applicable when the court's actions to ignore the constitutional rights of litigants deliberately lacked lawful authority and violated the US Constitution - the supreme law of the land. As the state judiciary had undermined their own authority, immunity should NOT be applicable for their deliberate corrupt actions.



The Federal law was referred to as the CITIZENS PROTECTION ACT and HOFFA's REVENGE. Many scoffed at the contradiction of referring to the law as the Citizen's Protection Act - it was designed to hinder, prevent or undermine any federal prosecution effort. The Model Rules enacted into state law prevented prosecution of judges within the state by prohibiting attorneys, district attorneys and attorneys general from action which would adversely affect the integrity of the courts.

While protecting the integrity of the courts is essential, the convoluted and twisted logic of protecting integrity by sacrificing the integrity of the entire judiciary and the entire legal profession to conceal massive crimes of the corrupt is more than simply wrong. It is evil - a crime against humanity.

This has been demonstrated by Kids for Cash affecting thousands of children and families. This has been demonstrated by the MILLIONS of families affected by fraudulent foreclosures nationwide. This has been demonstrated by the destructive actions of 'family court' judges. The Kids for Cash judges went to jail for tax evasion, NOT their obvious offense. These three types of corruption CONTINUE to occur daily in the American courts. There is no law in America to stop or prevent judicial corruption and denial of basic constitutional and human rights. THIS IS EVIL, PROTECTED BY LAW.

McDade was successful in his efforts to ensure DOJ attorneys adhere to state bar ethics standards. The text of the statutory change he authored, commonly referred to as the "McDade Amendment," is as follows:

(a) An attorney for the Government shall be subject to State laws and rules, and local Federal court rules, governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages in that attorney’s duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.
(b) The Attorney General shall make and amend rules of the Department of Justice to assure compliance with this section.
(c) As used in this section, the term “attorney for the Government” includes any attorney described in section 77.2(a) of part 77 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations and also includes any independent counsel, or employee of such a counsel, appointed under chapter 40.

The McDade Amendment principally applies to DOJ lawyers but is also applicable to attorneys from other federal government departments and agencies working with the DOJ.




The McDade-Murtha Amendment, 28 U.S.C. 530B, requires federal prosecutors to follow state and federal rules of professional responsibility in effect in the states where they conduct their activities.

It also continues in place the sixty year old directive that federal prosecutors follow the ethics rules promulgated by the states in which they are licensed to practice.

Proponents claim the change will confirm that federal prosecutors must follow the same ethical rules as other lawyers and will enhance the prospect of some protection against wayward federal prosecutors.

Opponents charge that it will implicitly undermine the Attorney General's authority to preempt state laws that conflict with federal law enforcement interests
AND
that in doing so it will jeopardize the use of undercover techniques against terrorists, drug kingpins and child predators because of possible interpretations of the so-called no contact rule.


The Pennsylvania connection is evident in EVERY effort relating to undermining the state and federal judiciary AND the impossibility of the victim surviving the overwhelming effect.

Dick Thornburgh, Joseph McDade, and John Murtha were all from Pennsylvania.

I assure you, EVERY US Attorney was contacted.

Reference:
Jimmy Hoffas Revenge- White-Collar Rights Under the McDade Amendment

The Effect of State Ethics Rules on Federal Law Enforcement
The McDade Amendment principally applies to DOJ lawyers but is also applicable to attorneys from other federal government departments and agencies working with the DOJ. See Memorandum for Command Counsels, Office of Command Counsel Newsletter (U.S. Army Material Command, Office of the Command Counsel, Ft. Belvoir, Va.), Dec. 1999, at 52–53.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

BACKGROUND – THE NECESSITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALENGE

( relating to Healy v Healy )

1. Since 2007, after years of seeking assistance from local, state and federal law enforcement and being summarily disregarded; and after years of requests seeking local, state and federal government involvement were completely ignored; and after years of filing documents exposing the deliberate injustice which were summarily dismissed without review or explanation. The failure of everyone in a position to address or resolve any legal issue was absolute and the failure to provide any explanation was unacceptable.

2. Those who were ignoring the clear and well-documented reports of the injustice were concealing the matter and enabling and causing further injustice.

3. Those who were deliberately failing to follow state law and documented court procedure excused their own misconduct without consequence and never explained, justified or addressed their actions.

4. The state court absolved without penalty the failure of others to follow court orders; to follow state law; and to follow court procedures. This 'courtesy' was not granted to plaintiff, Terance Healy. Never. Ever. EVERY false allegation against plaintiff, Terance Healy, was scheduled with the state court for immediate review and was required to be disproved. Plaintiff, Terance Healy, followed every state court order issued in the matter whether the order was valid, invalid, unjust, void, voidable, within or outside the jurisdiction of the court. Even where the order was unconstitutional. Even where the court order caused irreparable harm.

5. Plaintiff, Terance Healy, petitioned the state court to address and correct their improper, unlawful and unjust actions. The state court ignored and dismissed those pleadings. As a result of diligence and perseverance, the injustice is well-documented on the state court record.

6. Everyone acting, or not acting, in any regard failed to remedy or resolve any issue and each believed their actions were lawful.

7. Since 2007, a lack of jurisdiction was the most frequent reason given for inaction by law enforcement even where the law clearly indicated their proper jurisdiction for the situation.

8. Since 2007, no explanation was provided for the injustice of the state court. Eighteen judges have been assigned to the divorce matter. None have explained the injustice. Each subsequent judge sacrifices their integrity to deny, conceal and endorse the lack of integrity of the prior judges in the matter.

9. The injustice was inescapable. Any order could be raised in any court at any time by any party to cause an additional injustice which the court would not explain or justify. Appeals filed timely and served properly were prevented from being transmitted to the appellate court. The law, the truth, court procedures and jurisdiction were not a necessity or a concern to the state court.

10. It was necessary to determine the cause of the complete breakdown of the legal system and the state judiciary, and why each level of law enforcement and the judiciary believed their actions were lawful.

11. It was necessary to find, define, document and address a law that made deliberate injustice 'lawful'.

12. Rule 1.6 is the unconstitutional law which mandates deliberate injustice.

13. Rule 1.6 must be followed by legal professionals, lawyers, law professors, district attorneys, attorneys general, the judiciary, a majority of each state legislature, a majority of the United States Congress, employees of the United States Department of Justice, the legal counsel consulted by law enforcement agencies, the legal counsel who advise the media, and many others.

14. Since 2007, every person and court to whom plaintiff, Terance Healy, pleaded for assistance and relief was mandated to follow Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information. Non-legal professionals were advised to ignore the injustice by their legal counsel who is mandated to follow Rule 1.6. The mandated 'confidentiality' extends to any explanation for actions or inaction.

Monday, October 21, 2013

Motion For Indication of Intention to Default filed October 21, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA











Terance Healy)
Todd M. Krautheim)
in the name of the United States) Civil Action No# 13-4614
)
v.)
Kathleen Kane)
Pennsylvania Attorney General;)
and)
The Attorneys General of the United States)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT


1. A Complaint Constitutional Challenge was filed on August 8, 20913 with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

2. Deputy Clerk Patricia A. Jones issued a Summons which was delivered to the Plaintiffs for service to the Attorneys General.

3. All Attorneys General were served the initial pleading, summons, and notice on August 13, 2013.

4. A Certificate os Service was filed on September 6, 2013 with copis of signature cards indicating receipt of documents by each of the Attorneys General.

ATTORNEY GENERAL

5. A Response has not been received or filed with the clerk of courts from the above-named Attorney General.

6. There is no record of a praecipe filed with the Clerk of Courts regarding appearance of counsel for the above-named Attorney General.

7. There is no record of representation entered into the Electronic Case Filing ("ECF"), or request to be excused from using the ECF for the above-named Attorney General.

8. The record indicates no representation for the Attorney General to receive documents filed with and issued by the Court which utilizes ECF as a device for service to parties.

9. The records contain no indication that the above-named Attorney General has been informed or has any awareness of pleadings, responses, motions and rulings in this ongoing matter.

INDICATION OF INTENT TO DEFAULT

10. Plaintiffs respectfully request clarification if it is the intention of the Attorney General to not respond and to accept the default ruling in this matter.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to Order the above-named Attorney General; to provoide an indication of their intention, an appearance by their representative counsel, an indication of awareness of this ongoing matter by motion or a response to the initial pleading filed on August 8, 2013.

Respectfully,





Terance HealyTodd M. Krautheim
871 Mustang Road207 Woodspring Circle
Warrington, PA 18976Doylestown, PA 18901




MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (ALABAMA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (ALASKA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (AMERICAN SAMOA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (ARIZONA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (ARKANSAS)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (CALIFORNIA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (COLORADO)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (CONNECTICUT)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (DELAWARE)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (FLORIDA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (GEORGIA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (GUAM)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (HAWAII)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (IDAHO)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (ILLINOIS)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (INDIANA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (IOWA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (KANSAS)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (KENTUCKY)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (LOUISIANA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MAINE)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MARYLAND)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MASSACHUSETTS)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MICHIGAN)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MINNESOTA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MISSISSIPPI)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MISSOURI)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MONTANA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NEBRASKA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NEVADA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NEW HAMPSHIRE)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NEW JERSEY)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NEW MEXICO)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NEW YORK)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NORTH CAROLINA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NORTH DAKOTA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (OHIO)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (OKLAHOMA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (OREGON)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (PUERTO RICO)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (RHODE ISLAND)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (SOUTH CAROLINA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (SOUTH DAKOTA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (TENNESSEE)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (TEXAS)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (UTAH)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (VERMONT)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (VIRGIN ISLANDS)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (VIRGINIA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (WASHINGTON)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (WEST VIRGINIA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (WISCONSIN)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (WYOMING)

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Response from Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General

A Response to the Initial Pleading was filed on behalf of Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General by Randall J. Henzes, Deputy Attorney General and Gregory R. Heuhauser, Chief Deputy Attorney General.

One might hope that they represent the Attorney General better than they misrepresent the Plaintiffs.

A boilerplate dismissal was expected and delivered couched inside their request for more time to respond to the initial filing, with some confusion regarding their activity - unrequested? usurped? - to assume responsibility for every defendant in the matter and requesting waivers - again acting without request - on jurisdictional necessities.

Initial appearance that this contradicts their proposal of financial and judicial economy as there is no authorization to act on behalf of the other defendants. The failure of the waivers to come from each defendant additionally provide basis for an appeal by any of the defendants prevented from participation by usurped authority of the attorneys for the PA Attorney General, or by order of the Court granting such authority to the attorneys for the PA Attorney General. 55 appeals going to the US Court of Appeals would not be financially economical or judicially practical. Each Attorney Generals' responsibility to respond is a necessity which cannot be usurped or subverted by courteous offers requesting waivers and representation by the counsel representing Kathleen Kane.

Where ALL 56 Attorneys General have been properly served with the Constitutional Challenge, it would be reasonable to expect their timely response to the pleading.

[gview file="http://work2bdone.com/live/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Response20130906a.pdf"]

[gview file="http://work2bdone.com/live/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Response20130906b.pdf"]

[gview file="http://work2bdone.com/live/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Response20130906c.pdf"]