Freedom is IMPORTANT. Constitutional rights are IMPORTANT.
If your solution violates either My Freedom or the US Constitution, then YOU have some more work to do.
Freedoms and Rights can coexist.
Once permitted to infringe upon each other, it is a slippery slope.
(OY! I hate cliche's but no better choice there.)I am grateful for the effort by the founders of the US, because in today's 140 char or less environment they would never have been allowed to think in a broad sense which permits freedom and rights to co-exist.
Their archived papers and documents explained the basis for their decisions, and the aspects which they wrestled with to come to the decision. They exerted considerably more thought while founding the American Government than people expect. It was not haphazard. Decisions were not reached by exhausting the person who did not agree. Only one known and argued issue seems to have been conceded while it left the government at risk.
One issue which was a necessity left a loophole in the separation of powers. They did foresee the problem, but did not imagine that it would ever occur. They got it wrong. Very wrong.
By permitting the Judicial branch to self-police, the administration of justice, and the independence of the judiciary and the reasons which necessitated absolute judicial immunity all pivoted on one point of failure - THE PUBLIC TRUST.
The Public Trust in the judiciary is mandated by law. Respect towards the judicial branch is mandated by law.
The courts were open rooms in the centers of towns. Justice was transparent and open to the public. The public could witness proceedings. When necessary, where the trust placed in the judiciary was violated, the public would remove a judge from office. Occasionally by hanging. Justice was swift. Violations of the Public Trust could not be permitted to continue and erode the entire system of justice and government..
It was this type of violation of the public trust which endorsed and enabled apartheid to persist in South Africa. Their judiciary jailed the outspoken without regard for their own injustice.
When South Africa wrote their new Constitution in the 90's, they made certain that the judicial branch was accountable to the people and the Executive and Legislative branches of government, and not just to the judicial branch. They recognized the problem which existed in the US, once corrupted the judiciary find justice in permitting injustice to continue.
THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT
(because trust, honor and respect is mandated by law)The judiciary did not recognize Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION for the pervasive corruption it would permit, cause, enable and conceal.
Once under the control of Rule 1.6, with the leverage of exposing the violation of the public trust concealed by the judiciary, the American Bar Association had effectively usurped the authority and independence of the judiciary. The ABA then manipulated the authority of the courts over lawyers and legal professionals, even in other branches of government. Where Rule 1.6 expanded to affect federal lawyers, Rule 1.6 undermined the jurisdiction and authority of the Federal Government to act to address corruption within the state. Rule 1.6 required active participation in the conspiracy and the injustice.
The McDade Murtha Amendment which prevents the exposure of Rule 1.6 by government lawyers was enacted against the objections of several US Attorneys General, and DOJ officials. It would have been so simple had they only informed the Congress of the central issue. Applying the ethical standard enacted within the state to all government lawyers would cause considerable damage to the government.
The Rules of Professional Conduct lacked ethics, permitted fraud and the efforts to conceal fraud and prevent resolution. The US Congress never checked to see if the state ethics laws were ethical. Pennsylvania describes the Rules as a minimal ethical standard. Minimal is none. Points for not lying about the law which would require their silence about the corruption it would cause.
Did the state law, Rule 1.6 prevent exposing that state ethics laws lacked ethics? even where the country was about to mandate all government attorneys to follow the 'Rules' within the respective state where they were investigating and working? even where it denied constitutionally protected rights?
Apparently, the lawyers who foreclosed upon over 48 million homes using fraudulent and forged robo-signed documents were confident that their corruption of the authority of the judiciary had been successful.
The big injustices, the little injustices all combine to create a sense of national urgency. Injustice is occurring across the country. The US Constitution is being ignored. One law enacted in every state affects every case secretly, confidentially. Promotion to law was begun in 1984, generations of lawyers find this 'acceptable' because they were mandated to conceal the problem if they discovered it. Trained to perceive Rule 1.6 as attorney-client privilege, and neglecting the affect on the law, justice and the judiciary.... even while it undermined and usurped the authority of the other branches of government.
When recognized by PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane, an unconstitutional law would not be effective to silence her, The courts issues several secret court orders. AG Kane is silenced while those corrupt orders are under appeal.... and while it undermines the constitutional rights of every American.
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 removes an unconstitutional law and restores justice to the entire country. Discovered by victims of injustice with standing to address the unconstitutional effect of the 'law'. Without the assistance, or cooperation, of any legal professional or member of the American Bar Association and affiliated organizations formed in every jurisdiction at every level of state and federal courts.
Hindered from the effort by legal professionals within the state and federal government mandated to follow the unconstitutional law, the government lawyers knew better and cannot be excused from damages and repartations for their participation in the denial of the rule of law and prevention of rights secures by the US Constitution.
Did those secret court orders require Kathleen Kane to file for divorce in an attempt to secure her personal assets? Is that why those lawyers are representing 'the person' Kathleen Kane (and not the Office of the Attorneyh General)?
The laws work when not prevented by an unconstitutional requirement to conceal injustice in every state and federally.
If your solution violates either My Freedom or the US Constitution, then you have some more work to do.
If their defense is that they were following the law, then they need to recall that an unconstitutional law is no law, a nullity, as if it never existed. It can no longer be obstructed by an unconstitutional law mandating non-disclosure and confidentiality and participation in a conspiracy to deny constitutional rights.
A nullity cannot conceal a nullity.
A nullity cannot justify or excuse a nullity.
PEEK-a-Boo... JUSTICE IS COMING.
Peek-a-boo Pennsylvania!
Governor Wolf and the Legislature can act now, or after a federal lawsuit is filed against them?
Those who know better ought to know better than to continue their participation in a conspiracy to deny the constitutional rights of every American in every state. EVERY PERSON MATTERS.
Pwennsylvania, whatcha gonna do?
The word out of Oklahoma this week is the introduction of a Bill in their Legislature to prevent prosecution for abuse of power by limiting the ability to prosecute exclusively to the state Attorney General.. to the exclusion of the District Attorneys.
Only the attorney general could file those criminal cases, if House Bill 2206 becomes law.
Granted, most of the political class is already de facto above the law to begin with.
I am not falling for your bullshit, all of the deceptions have been tried and have failed.
By our own necessity, and on behalf of the People of the United States of America,
Pay attention Frank Fina.
Politely and respectfully use the following paragraphs as a guideline to alerting the court of your knowledge of the loss of constitutionally protected rights in your case.