Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Governors Informed of Constitutional Challenge

The following Governors have received the package which describes the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 and the affect it has on law enforcement in their state.

They are NOT lawyers obligated to follow Rule 1.6. As such, they are not involved in the conspiracy to prevent this issue from being presented. Additionally, these Governors have the power to lawfully address the situation and take immediate action in their state.

NonLawyerGov
Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama
Governor Lolo Letalu Matalasi Moliga
Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona
Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado
Governor Jack Markell of Delaware
Governor Eddie Baza Calvo of Guam
Governor Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii
Governor C.L. Butch Otter of Idaho
Governor Terry Branstad of Iowa
Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana
Governor Paul LePage of Maine
Governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland
Governor Mark Dayton of Minnesota
Governor Phil Bryant of Mississippi
Governor Dave Heineman of Nebraska
Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina
Governor Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota
Governor Eloy Inos of Northern Mariana Islands
Governor John Kasich of Ohio
Governor Mary Fallin of Oklahoma
Governor John Kitzhaber of Oregon
Governor Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island
Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina
Governor Bill Haslam of Tennessee
Governor Rick Perry of Texas
Governor Gary Herbert of Utah
Governor Peter Shumlin of Vermont
Governor John deJongh, Jr of the US Virgin Islands
Governor Earl Ray Tomblin of West Virginia
Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin


The following Governors are lawyers OBLIGATED under Rule 1.6 to ignore the Constitutional Rights of citizens while ignoring judicial corruption, crimes and misconduct, and the failure to prosecute crimes of the judiciary and of the legal professionals who might implicate the judiciary.

Governor Sean Parnell of Alaska (Puget Sound School of Law)
Governor Mike Beebe of Arkansas (University of Arkansas)
Governor Jerry Brown of California (Yale)
Governor Dan Malloy of Connecticut (Boston College)
Governor Rick Scott of Florida (Southern Methodist University)
Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia (Walter F. George School of Law)
Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois (Northwestern University)
Governor Mike Pence of Indiana (Indiana University)
Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas (University of Kansas)
Governor Steven L. Beshear of Kentucky (University of Kentucky)
Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts (Harvard)
Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan (University of Michigan)
Governor Jeremiah W. Nixon of Missouri (University of Missouri)
Governor Steve Bullock of Montana (Columbia University)
Governor Bruce Sandoval of Nevada ( )
Governor Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire (Northeastern School of Law)
Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey (Seton Hall University)
Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico ( )
Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York (Albany Law School)
Governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania (St Mary's University School of Law)
Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla of Puerto Rico (Interamerican University)
Governor Denis Daugaard of South Dakota (Northwestern University)
Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia (Regent University)
Governor Jay Inslee of Washington (Willamette University)
Governor Matt Mead of Wyoming (University of Wyoming)

Having a lawyer for a governor places a state under the control of the American Bar Association's Rule 1.6 with all branches of the state government - executive, legislative and judiciary - under the mandate of Rule 1.6 - Confidentiality of Information.
It makes the unconstitutionality of the rule IMPOSSIBLE to lawfully address.
It makes judicial crimes and corruption ILLEGAL to lawfully address. BUT ONLY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO DO IT AND HAVE TAKEN AN OATH TO THAT EFFECT.
It may even get them disbarred if they download it here...    or here...    or here.

November 1, 2013: ALL GOVERNORS HAVE RECEIVED THE PACKAGE. Non-lawyers and lawyers alike.

Media Package - Updated

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information
of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

1. Overview
2. Affect
3. Challenge Filed in Federal Court #13-4614
4. Scope
5. Response to their 'Motion to Dismiss'
6. Memorandum Supporting Response
7. Quotes

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

Challenge13-4614

kafka

This package has been delivered personally to television, newspaper, radio, and magazines. NOT ONE MEDIA OUTLET HAS CARRIED THE STORY. Their lawyers have instructed them to prevent exposure and to have no contact which could suggest involvement. The sedition and treason involved in overthrowing every state government is powerful enough to cover up their crimes. Only the Federal Court and one other individual can possibly intervene. Most likely they have misinformed that individual to think otherwise.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

AG Martha Coakley doesn't care about Constitutionally Protected Rights

Attorney General Martha Coakley is currently in a race for Governor of Massachusetts. Does Massachusetts really want a Governor who 'lawfully' denied people of their constitutional rights? CCI10302013_0000

I was surprised to see her response to a federal court filing asking her if it was her intent to default - which would quietly have restored the rights of the citizens of Massachusetts.

"It appears you are seeking clarification as to why Attorney General Martha Coakley has not filed a response to your federal complaint. Among other reasons, a clear reason is that she is not required to respond, per order of the Hon. Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr., filed September 16, 2013."

The Response from Martha Coakley was due 9/5/2013.
The Extension in time was requested on 9/6/2013 - by Kathleen Kane of PA.
Yes, Judge O'Neill did grant THAT extension request on 9/16/2013.
But, why did Martha know that would happen? or that it was even in the works? A clear reason would be she has incredible hindsight because the non-answer doesn't quite fit.

If she had read the filing, 'AMONG OTHER REASONS' may have explained her reason for missing the deadline for response.
OR, 'AMONG OTHER REASONS' explained her reason for failing to reply and NOT asking the court for an extension.
OR, 'AMONG OTHER REASONS' includes her reason for not assigning herself or another attorney to handle the case and receive notifications.
OR, 'AMONG OTHER REASONS' her reason for not responding while waiting for the judge to grant the extension.
OR, 'AMONG OTHER REASONS' means she has no idea how to get out of being exposed as a party to the mandatory corruption and injustice which Rule 1.6 'lawfully' causes at the expense of individual citizens constitutionally protected rights, among other things like family, occupation, liberty, freedon, credibility, ... LIFE.
The-First-Rule-is-fight-club-8474492-600-759
Instead Martha Coakley simply ignored the Challenge and failed to address anything about it. Among other reasons - a MOST LIKELY REASON is that Martha Coakley is an attorney who under Rule 1.6 cannot lawfully address her failure to respond any issue surrounding Rule 1.6.

Yes, Rule 1.6 may be akin to the first 2 rules of 'Fight Club'. BUT, RULE 1.6 IS NOT STRONGER THAN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.


Thomas Ball lit himself on fire in nearby New Hampshire in 2011 because he mysteriously lost his rights and NO ONE DID ANYTHING TO HELP.

Rule 1.6... Among other reasons.

Click Here for PDF Versions of the Challenge and Response Docs.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Come on Kathleen... Release the Constitution on them.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane has issued a press release regarding a call for her impeachment.

Don't let them use rhetoric to attempt to impeach you, Kathleen. Show some power. Flex some law. Unleash some Third Grade Civics on their pathetic attacks. Get lawful. Get Constitutional!

""I have been, and always will be, committed to protecting, obeying and defending the Constitution of the United States and of Pennsylvania. I will continue to be the independent watchdog over state government to provide checks and balances on the power of those who seek to fulfill their own agenda. Public corruption and waste will not be tolerated. And I will act as the Commonwealth's attorney, pursuant to the rules of Professional Responsibility."
Why issue a powerful statement couched and nullified in the contrary RULES OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY??? Every time Kathleen refers to the Constitution and the State Law she undermines her statement with the Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1.6 is a lawyer's kryptonite. BUT, It's like the first rule of "Fight Club".


Snap out of the politics, Kathleen. Your destiny is here.

Release the Constitution on their asses.



Kathleen Kane is the only US Attorney General to make any effort to thwart the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. If she is acting solely to hold back the repercussions until a plan is formed for JUSTICE after Rule 1.6, then I over estimated her. A rational and reasonable approach can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion. The "THWARTer" becomes the "THWARTee" - that's Pennsylvania politics. Don't play politics with my civil rights and liberties.

Injustice continues while the CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE is delayed. People lose hope when their civil rights and liberties are denied. People are committing suicide. Families are being destroyed. Communities are being ripped apart.

The other Attorneys General defaulted. The only Attorney General standing in the way of JUSTICE is Kathleen Kane.
The only Attorney General standing in the way of the US Constitution is Kathleen Kane.
kath


http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=7251

"These people round here wear beaten down eyes shrunk in smoke dried faces so resigned to what their fate is."
BUT NOT US. NO, NOT US. WE ARE FAR TOO YOUNG AND CLEVER.
TOO-RA-LOO-RA TOO-RA-LOO-RYE-AY
Come on, Kathleen!

Defendants Response to the Ejectment

They filed 65 pages of complete HORSESHITE.

They never even attempt to produce a valid document granting them the title to the home.

They say that since they are in my home they get to keep it.

AND of the 5 original pages they filed, they file them twice. Once number and once not numbered.


See for yourself. (PDF)

Monday, October 21, 2013

Motion for Corrections to the Docket for this Matter

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 CORRECTIONS TO THE DOCKET FOR THIS MATTER


1. Plaintiffs' have been presented with discrepancies in the Docket for this matter and have been denied and prevented from addressing any necessary corrections or modifications.

2. A copy of the docket which was provided on October 18, 2013 by the Clerk of Courts is attached as Exhibit A.

3. Docket entries have been made in paragraph form containing multiple documents, as such the content of the docket entries are misleading.

4. There are fifty eight named parties to this matter, in the interest of clarity for all parties ivolved, an accurate representation of documents filed and docketed by the Clerk of COurts is essential.

5. A copy of the Plaintiffs' issues and proposed corre3ctions is attached as Exhibit B.

As such, Plaintiffs resptctfully request the Court to order the Clerk of Courts to address the misleading entries to accurately and properly reflect the matter to the satisfaction of the parties.

Respectfully,




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


MOTION FOR CORRECTIONS TO THE DOCKET FOR THIS MATTER (PDF Version)

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)

We the People

The Constitutional Challenge
of
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information
of
The Rules of Professional Conduct



  • Not Lawfully Enacted

  • Violates Separation of Powers

  • Prevents prosecution of judicial misconduct and corruption

  • Results in a complete denial of Constitutionally protected rights and liberties


  • 2009LincolnCommemObvLineArt copy

    “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” - Abraham Lincoln


     



    The Challenge presents circumstances where the States have demonstrated their inability to take action to prosecute judicial corruption and misconduct.

    Filed on their own behalf, and also for others – as a large portion of the citizenry of the United States have been placed at risk while the Attorneys General have ‘lawfully’ failed to take action to address or restore the lost rights and civil liberties of the People.

    How was the Judiciary permitted to usurp the power of the Legislatures, and the Governors, enacting a law mandating judicial corruption and misconduct be ignored and excused while obstructing justice and denying Constitutionally protected liberties.

    Rule 1.6 is authored, updated, edited, promoted, maintained, managed, directed and scripted by The American Bar Association.

    How did the American Bar Association come to be responsible for this unconstitutional and improperly enacted law in EVERY state? The people demand an explanation.

    wethepeople

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Dude, What is this concerning?

facebook-logoThe following is a dialogue from Facebook:































Terance HealyPermit me to explain how you lost your rights, what happened to the US Constitution, and how it happened.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - - - (PDF Version)

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

T.J. PalazzoloWhat is this in regards to specifically Terance??
Terance HealyYou may have noticed that people seem to think the constitution is dead, and can't quite get anyone to address the issues. Turns out, I found the needle in the haystack. I had to. The injustice I experienced was not gonna end... so I had no choice but to find the cause and fix it. And when I found it, it was way bigger than the old buddy - good ole boy type network people discuss. THIS WAS DELIBERATE. Take 5 and read the post. It explains the story for everyone. I assure you I never imagined I'd file a case against EVERY Attorney General in the USA.
Terance Healyhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/ChallengeRule1.6/
Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
T.J. PalazzoloDude...I'm better than half way through it and still don't know what the case is concerning!!! Just answer the question!!!
Terance HealyThe Supreme Court in every state has enacted a law - without the legislature - without the governor. It prevents prosecution for judicial corruption and crimes. Because they do not get prosecuted, the victims of their injustice are doomed to be terrorized without escape.
Terance HealyJudges and lawyers are not only above the law, they usurped the power to enact law, and to enforce law.
Terance HealyThey did it in every State. Same Law. Same name. Same injustice results. OH, and it was written by the American Bar Asssociation so the word sedition comes to mind.
Terance HealyThink Foreclosure Crisis. An act of misconduct by an attorney - like a robo-signed deed, results in the injustice of a family losing their home. It wasn't the bankers behind it - so they bankers didn't go to jail. The lawyers and judges were behind it, and avoided any prosecution.
Terance HealySeriously, did I over answer, or under answer?
T.J. PalazzoloO.K. I got it now....all that reading is making some sense!!! That shit has been going on for years!!!
T.J. PalazzoloYou did great ...once you started to answer it!!!
Terance HealyYES, current lawwyers have no idea WHY it is this way, they just know that it is. 1987 in PA. It rolled out across the country over 15 years.
T.J. Palazzolo :)
Terance HealyThanks. Keep my answers sharp.
T.J. PalazzoloSo as it stands now what's goin' on with it??
Terance HealyIt is in Federal Court in Philadelphia. Case #13-4614. This doc was filed yesterday with the Court. Now we await 55 more of them from every state.
Terance HealyThen we get to the pre-hearing phase.
Terance HealyIf the AGs are honorable, they will default and restore the Constitution Nationwide. It is truly the best thing they could do. BUT, there's gonna be alot of pissed off people. Better to deal with the repercussions than continue the injustice.
T.J. PalazzoloSo slow and steady and stay the course is the plan??
Terance HealyWe are at the pace of the Federal Court in Philly. BUT, if they turn me down, the Appeal goes to the US Supreme Court in Washington. And maybe by then two guys from rural Pennsylvania will get some media attention for uncovering the overthrow of every state government by the Bar Association.
Terance HealyIt has been steady... I'm no lawyer, and I do not want to be, or pretend to be one. IF I WAS, I COULD NOT LAWFULLY ADDRESS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LAW. Rule 1.6 makes that unlawful for lawyers.
T.J. PalazzoloOh boy!!! These idiots have it all fucked up don't they???
Terance HealyAs soon as it was enacted, albeit illegally, it was unlawful to address it. Like The Terminator and Judgment Day.
Terance HealyUnlawful to address, UNLESS YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER.
T.J. PalazzoloWell I'm glad you stepped up to the plate brother!!!
Terance HealyThanks for the dialogue. I am sure it will help others understand it as well.
Terance HealyJUSTICE IS COMING.
T.J. PalazzoloThat's what patriots do!!!
Terance HealyLooking forward to the day I can sing this song with pride again.


Lee Greenwood - God Bless the USA (Live in 1985)
If tomorrow all the things were gone,
I'd worked for all my life.
And I had to start again,
without my children and my wife.

I'd thank my lucky stars,
to be livin here today.
‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can't take that away.

And I'm proud to be an American,
where at least I know I'm free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

From the lakes of Minnesota,
to the hills of Tennessee.
Across the plains of Texas,
From sea to shining sea.

From Detroit down to Houston,
and New York to L.A.
Well there's pride in every American heart,
and its time we stand and say.

That I'm proud to be an American,
where at least I know I'm free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

And I'm proud to be and American,
where at least I know I'm free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

JUSTICE IS COMING.



Filed October 18, 2013 in US District Court

Filed on October 18, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
(PDF version)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

(PDF Version)

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS UNDER RULE 36
(PDF version)

Certificate of Service (PDF version)



The Federal Docket



300px-US_Eastern_Pennsylvania_District_Court

There seems to be NUMEROUS issues relating to the Federal Court Docket for Case# 13-4614.

Not only where items have been docketed improperly in paragraph form, but where they have been entered incorrectly resulting in necessary documents being concealed from view.

There is also the issue of the entire case docket being concealed from view in the PACER system.

The Federal Docket should read as follows:
































08/08/20131COMPLAINT - CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE filed by Terance Healy, Todd M. Krautheim;
and
Filing Fee $400 receipt number PPE0086455;
and
Civil Cover Sheet;
and
Case Management Track Designation Form;
08/08/2013SUMMONS ISSUED TO GREG ABBOTT, American Samoa Attorney General, LUIS SÁNCHEZ BETANCES, JOSEPH R. “BEAU” BIDEN, III, PAM BONDI, JON BRUNING, JAMES D. “BUDDY” CALDWELL, MARTHA COAKLEY, JACK CONWAY, ROBERT E. COOPER, JR., ROY COOPER, KEN CUCCINELLI, MIKE DEWINE, BOB FERGUSON, JOSEPH A. FOSTER, TIM FOX, VINCENT FRAZER, DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, MICHAEL GERAGHTY, KAMALA HARRIS, JOHN JAY HOFFMAN, JIM HOOD, TOM HORNE, MARTY J. JACKLEY, GEORGE JEPSEN, KATHLEEN KANE, PETER KILMARTIN, GARY KING, CHRIS KOSTER, DAVID LOUIE, LISA MADIGAN, CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, DUSTIN MCDANIEL, PETER K. MICHAEL, TOM MILLER, JANET T. MILLS, PATRICK MORRISEY, IRVIN NATHAN, SAM OLENS, SCOTT PRUITT, LENNY RAPADAS, ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM, JOEY PATRICK SAN NICOLAS, DEREK SCHMIDT, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, BILL SCHUETTE, WILLIAM H. SORRELL, WAYNE STENEHJEM, LUTHER STRANGE, JOHN SUTHERS, JOHN SWALLOW, LORI SWANSON, J.B. VAN HOLLEN, LAWRENCE WASDEN, ALAN WILSON, GREG ZOELLER.
Forwarded to Pro Se on 8/9/13
08/08/2013Special Case Management Track
09/06/20132PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE AND FOR WAIVER OF PRO HAC VICE REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-PENNSYLVANIA DEFENDANTS;
and
PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF THE RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE AND WAIVER OF PRO HAC VICE REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-PENNSYLVANIA DEFENDANTS;
and
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.
Modified on 9/9/2013
09/06/20133
NOTICE of request for ECF filing;
and
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FOR INITIAL FILING.
Entered on 9/9/2013
09/09/20134Letter dated 9/6/2013 from Terance Healy, Todd M. Krautheim re: Request for ECF Filing.
Entered on 09/09/2013
09/11/20135PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE AND FOR WAIVER OF PRO HAC VICE REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-PENNSYLVANIA DEFENDANTS;
and
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.
Entered 09/11/2013
09/16/20136ORDER
"AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 2013, upon consideration of Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane's request for extension of the responsive pleading deadline and waiver of the pro hac vice requirements for non-Pennsylvania defendants, and plaintiffs' response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the request is GRANTED. The non-Pennsylvania defendants shall not be required to file a responsive pleading to plaintiff's pro se complaint until thirty days after the Court rules on Attorney General Kathleen Kanes's notion to dismiss the complaint. It is further ORDERED that if the non-Pennsylvania defendants are required to file a responsive pleading, the pro hac vice requirements for the non-Pennsylvania defendants are waived. Plaintiffs do not oppose this waiver." Signed by Honorable Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr on 09/16/2013.
Entered on 09/17/2013
09/27/20137ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE's MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT;
and
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .
Entered on 09/27/2013
10/18/20138PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
and
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
and
PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS UNDER RULE 36;
and
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE;
and
MOTION FOR ECF FILING
and
AFFIDAVIT FOR ENTRY OF CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS PREVIOUSLY FILED AND DOCKETED on September 6, 2013 as CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.

Friday, October 18, 2013

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

(PDF Version)
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)


MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT


STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Plaintiffs have filed this Constitutional Challenge on behalf of themselves and in the name of the United States and properly served it upon Attorneys General of the United States challenging the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

2. Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct as the rule causes the complete denial of constitutionally protected rights while subverting justice and corrupting the judiciary. (Initial Pleading August 8, 2013, #5 Statement of Claim)

LAWFUL ACTION

3. Plaintiffs are subject to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States of America.

4. The Attorneys General are subject to the laws of their respective states and the United States of America. The Attorneys General, as attorneys, are required to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct.

5. Plaintiffs have stated that they are NOT BOUND by the Rules of Professional Conduct and, as such, are lawfully permitted to take this action to address the unlawfully enacted, improperly constructed, unjust and unconstitutional law.

6. Pursuant to Rule 1.6, the Attorneys General cannot lawfully take any action to address the constitutionality, the lack of enforcement, and the judicial corruption which mandates a loss of judicial integrity. Paradoxically, the continued injustice for the victims denied their rights and liberties is an indirect result of Rule 1.6.

7. The fifty six (56) Attorneys General of the United States, have yet to file a responsive pleading to the August 8, 2013 Challenge with any defenses, admissions or denials of the allegations or the substance of the constitutional issue.

RESPONSIBILITY

8. The Attorneys General have a responsibility and jurisdiction to address the constitutionality of laws in their respective states, as such Plaintiffs have served the Attorney General with the Constitutional Challenge pursuant to Rule 5.1(a)(2).

9. Attorney General Kane’s Motion to Dismiss is approaching this challenge as a §1983 complaint and citing case law which does not apply to a Constitutional Challenge, or to the Plaintiffs who have taken on the role usually presented by an Attorney General.

10. There is no case law, precedent or citations available which addresses the lawful, but unconstitutional, overthrow of every state government where the Judiciary usurps the power of the Governor and the Legislature and prevents prosecution for sedition and treason against the person(s) or organization involved..

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” - Abraham Lincoln ¹

1. “At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” – Abraham Lincoln

(from “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions: Address Before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois” January 27, 1838)

11. Article III of the Constitution grants the Judicial Branch authority to adjudicate cases and controversies. Plaintiffs have presented their case, controversies and injuries in their initial pleading, and specifically in paragraphs #5, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, and 75. The Plaintiffs’ have a direct stake in the matters which are redressable by this Federal Court.

12. The Constitutional Challenge (#13-4614) filed on August 8, 2013 is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety, and specifically for the paragraphs above mentioned.

13. Attorney General Kane’s statement regarding the constitutionality of the law having no effect on the plaintiffs is a gross misstatement. Rule 1.6 mandates those who are bound by the rule to conceal injustice; ignore corruption; dismiss crime; endorse judicial misconduct; and deny any lawful ability or jurisdiction to enforce the law. These types of neglectful actions have had an effect on the Plaintiffs, and the entire country.

14. Attorney General Kane has publicly stated that
“The Attorney General has a multitude of duties. The first is to protect and defend and obey the Constitution of the United States and of Pennsylvania. The oath that I took on January 15 said exactly that.”

“One of the other duties is to enforce all of the laws of the Commonwealth until such time as a court tells you otherwise. I will do just that.”

“Another one of the Attorney General duties is to act as the lawyer for all of the state agencies including the Governor and the Secretary of Health.”

“ I am protecting and defending the Constitution as I see fit. I will enforce all of the laws of the Commonwealth.”

“As a lawyer, I am a lawyer first. I must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
- Face the State, Sunday August 18, 2013 ²

2. Face The State with Robb Hanrahan, CBS, 21 News, August 18, 2013 (Edited without affecting context)


15. As a lawyer, who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6 has overruled the Law, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the Constitution of the United States, while preventing the Attorney General – the top law enforcement officer in the state - from lawful action.

16. Rule 1.6 has additionally enabled County District Attorneys to usurp law enforcement power from the County Sheriff – the highest law enforcement officer in the county.

17. Where all law enforcement activity (investigation and prosecution) must be authorized by the County District Attorney or the Attorney General – both of whom MUST be attorneys who MUST follow the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6 effectively denies victims of any course of action to address judicial misconduct, judicial corruption, or any criminal action which will expose judicial misconduct or corruption, or criminal activities which are endorsed by a member of the judiciary.

PLAINTIFFS CLAIM AND STANDING FOR RELIEF

18. The settled rule in the Third Circuit, as in all Federal Courts, is that “dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate only if it is beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” To make this determination the court must “accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom.”

19. Statements in documents filed in this Court by Attorney General Kane support and confirm the validity and truth of Plaintiff’s allegations regarding (1) the failure to enforce the law ³, (2) the responsibility for the law ³ and (3) the ignorance of the damages caused as a result of the law ³.

3. Pennsylvania Attorney General Kane’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Extension of the Responsive Pleading Deadline and Waiver of the Pro Hac Vice Requirements for Non-Pennsylvania Defendants filed September 6, 2013.

3. Attorney General Kane’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Her Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed September 27, 2013.


20. Attorney General Kathleen Kane has ignored and denied the Plaintiffs any opportunity to present their case and their loss of rights and liberties. This has also been the case with predecessors Linda Kelly and Tom Corbett.

21. The Attorney General has lawfully (pursuant to Rule 1.6) denied the Plaintiffs any remedy to their continued denial of constitutionally protected rights and liberties.

22. The allegations in the Challenge indicate denial of access to the courts for redress of grievances. Plaintiffs will clearly demonstrate the denial to have their cases heard by an unbiased tribunal; with notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it; with opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken; the right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses; the right to know opposing evidence; the right to cross examine adverse witnesses; a decision based on the evidence presented; the requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of evidence presented; the requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

23. Plaintiffs are requesting the constitutional determination of this court and requesting such preventive relief for a permanent resolution which is necessary to restore their constitutionally protected rights and liberties as citizens of the United States.

24. Standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute is accurate where the statute would otherwise deprive a party of a right or a privilege even where the statute itself does not apply to them.

CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES

25. Attorney General Kane has correctly indicated that Rule 1.6 was enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania without benefit of statutory review and construction by the Legislature or proper signature of the Governor.

26. Pennsylvania Chapter 19 Sub B §1925 – Constitutional Construction of Statutes
“The provisions of every statute shall be severable. If any provision of any statute or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the statute, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby, unless the court finds that the void provisions of the statute are so essentially and inseparably connected with, and so depend upon, the void provision or application, that it cannot be presumed the General Assembly would have enacted the remaining valid provisions without the void one; or unless the court finds that the remaining valid provisions, standing alone, are incomplete and are incapable of being executed in accordance with legislative intent.”

27. Rule 1.6 is severable without affecting the remaining provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

28. Rule 1.6 was not enacted with benefit of the General Assembly and, as such, it cannot be assumed nor ascertained to be an essential part of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

29. Rule 1.6 was not enacted by the General Assembly and, as such, without benefit of the legislative intent controls §1921(a), (b), (c) and the presumptions in ascertaining legislative intent §1922.

30. The Attorney General’s reference to Article V, Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not authorize the Supreme Court the ability to construct and enact laws which usurp enforcement power and mandate confidentiality to conceal and prevent prosecution of criminal actions by legal professionals.

ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES

31. Plaintiffs will present circumstances where the Attorneys General have demonstrated their inability to take action which exposes judicial misconduct, not only for the named plaintiffs, but also for those on whose behalf the plaintiffs have filed – where a large portion of the citizenry have been placed at risk and the Attorneys General have ‘lawfully’ failed to take action to investigate or prosecute.

32. Plaintiffs additionally offer the extreme examples of crimes committed against the citizens of Pennsylvania and the United States which involve actions relating to attorney or judicial misconduct including Cash for Kids (Luzerne County, PA), Foreclosure Crisis (Nationwide), Penn State University Scandal (State College, PA).

33. In each additional example, the crimes were permitted to continue where any investigation/prosecution would have resulted in the exposure of crimes and misconduct where Rule 1.6 mandated confidentiality of information and prevented lawful action by a District Attorney, an Attorney General or any officer of the court.

34. Attorney General Kane will need to further explain how the declaration of a law being UNCONSTITUTIONAL has no effect, or will have no effect on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as stated in her Motion to Dismiss (B).

35. Plaintiffs have not filed this as a personal claim against Attorney General Kathleen Kane seeking damages.

36. Attorney General Kane has been served with the Challenge as the Attorney General is the appropriate person with whom the issue of constitutionality of a state law must be addressed within the state pursuant to Rule 5.1(a)(2), as the other Attorneys General are similarly positioned within their state governments and have been similarly served with the challenge.

37. Plaintiffs have filed a Constitutional Challenge with The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and served it upon the Attorneys General of each state seeking a determination that Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional which will restore the constitutional rights of litigants while restoring the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession and delivering to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.

STANDARDS FOR DEFENSES BY MOTION

38. The standard for subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) has been presented and met by the Plaintiffs.

39. When deciding a 12(b)(1) motion, “dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not appropriate merely because the legal theory alleged is probably false, but only because the right claimed is ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of the Supreme Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.’” Kulick v. Pocono Downs Racing Association 816 F.2d 895, 899 (3d Cir. 1987) (quoting Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666, 94 S. Ct 772, 776, (1974)).

40. The ‘irreducable constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact – an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Id. Internal citations omitted). A particularized injury in one which affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way. Id. At n.1. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the issue complained of. (citing Simon, 426 U.S. at 41). Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. (citing Simon, 426 U.S. at 38).

41. The standard for personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) has been presented and met by the Plaintiffs.

42. The standard for venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) is properly placed in The United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for a civil action:
- where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred;
- where plaintiffs are residents of the judicial district;
- where defendant is an officer of the state acting in official capacity or under color of legal authority.

43. The standard for process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(4) having been commenced on August 8, 2013 with the filing of the Challenge with the District Court; and the US Clerks docketing and issuance of the Summons and Notice.

44. The standard for service of process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) having been accomplished by the direct service of the initial pleading, summons and notice to each Attorney General via United States Postal Service Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested on August 13, 2013. A Certificate of Service including signed receipts from each Attorney General was filed with the District Court Clerk on September 6, 2013.

45. The standard for stating a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) has been presented and met by the Plaintiffs.

46. When deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, a dismissal may only be granted where the allegations fail to state any claim upon which relief can be granted. See Morse v. Lower Merion School District, 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). A court must view all facts, and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); see also Markowitz v. Northeast Land Co., 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1990). However, the Court will construe a pro se Plaintiff’s complaint more liberally and hold it to a less stringent standard than a pleading drafted by an attorney. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 292 (10976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521, 92 S. Ct. 594, 5965 (1972).

47. The general rules of pleading still require only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, not detailed factual allegations. Phillips, 515 F.3d at 231.

48. The Court must “determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Pinkerton v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d Cir 2002).

49. Pro se plaintiffs are often unfamiliar with the formalities of pleading requirements. Recognizing this, the Supreme Court has instructed the district courts to construe pro se complaints liberally and to apply a more flexible standard in determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint than they would in reviewing a pleading submitted by counsel.” (See e.g., Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10, 101 S.Ct. 173, 175-76, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.)

CONCLUSION

50. Plaintiffs represent that while affected by Rule 1.6, they are NOT bound by Rule 1.6 and as such Plaintiffs are in the unique position to be acting lawfully with proper standing while having valid cause for relief in the proper forum for the matter to be addressed.

51. Plaintiffs request that Attorney General Kane’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) be DENIED with prejudice.

52. In the interest of continuing with the stated goal of a “just, speedy and inexpensive determination“ of this action, Plaintiffs request that the Motion to Dismiss be DENIED with prejudice so that the court will not be inundated with 55 further motions for dismissal raising these same standard procedural defenses by the Attorneys General, however DENIED without prejudice to raise the issue in their responsive pleadings to the challenge.

Respectfully,




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

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS UNDER RULE 36

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)


REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS UNDER RULE 36


The plaintiffs ask the Attorneys General to respond within 30 days to these requests by admitting, for purposes of this action only and subject to objections to admissibility at trial:

1. The genuineness of the following documents, copies of which are attached.

a) Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Norristown, PA Docket# 2007-12477
b) The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA Docket# 1330 EDA 2013
c) The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA Docket# 155 MM 2013
d) Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Norristown PA Docket# 2013-29976
e) Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, Doylestown, PA Docket# 2011-00193
f) Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, Doylestown, PA Docket# 2012-05546
g) Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, Doylestown, PA Docket# 2013-07214






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


EXHIBIT A
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas
Norristown, PA
Docket# 2007-12477

EXHIBIT B
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA
Docket# 1330 EDA 2013

EXHIBIT C
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Harrisburg, PA
Docket# 155 MM 2013

EXHIBIT D
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas
Norristown PA
Docket# 2013-29976

EXHIBIT E
Bucks County Court of Common Pleas
Doylestown, PA
Docket# 2011-00193

EXHIBIT F
Bucks County Court of Common Pleas
Doylestown, PA
Docket# 2012-05546

EXHIBIT G
Bucks County Court of Common Pleas
Doylestown, PA
Docket# 2013-07214

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

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)


PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT


1. Plaintiffs request that Attorney General Kane’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) be DENIED with prejudice.

2. In the interest of continuing with the stated goal of a “just, speedy and inexpensive determination“ of this action, Plaintiffs request that the Motion to Dismiss be DENIED with prejudice so that the court will not be inundated with 55 further motions for dismissal raising these same standard procedural defenses by the Attorneys General, however DENIED without prejudice to raise the issue in their responsive pleadings to the challenge.

3. In support of this request, Plaintiffs present the attached Memorandum of Law.

NOT LAWFULLY ENACTED

4. Attorney General Kane has additionally indicated in her filings with the Court on this matter that the law being challenged was enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and not enacted through the legislature, nor signed by a governor.

5. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania through Rule 1.6 has given itself power over lawyers - which include the Governor, the Attorney General and a majority of the legislature - without due process.

6. All power to lawfully address the improperly enacted law has been removed from those responsible for lawmaking, the legislature and the Governor, and usurped by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. This is a clear violation of separation of powers.

7. Attorney General Kane has indicated a lack of jurisdiction, and having no ability to enforce the law being challenged. The power of enforcement unlawfully rests exclusively with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

8. Rule 1.6 is authored, updated, edited, promoted, maintained, managed, directed and scripted by the American Bar Association. It is reasonable to question if the American Bar Association has effectively usurped the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and each state where Rule 1.6 has been enacted.

9. Rule 1.6 denies litigants of the constitutionally protected right to petition the government for redress of grievances, denies a litigant of life, liberty and/or property without due process of law, and usurps the power of the government to address the issue by placing all power in one branch of government – the judiciary.

10. Rule 1.6 is unlawful and unconstitutional in every location where it has been enacted. Lawful action to challenge the law can only be done by those who are not required to follow it:
“Pro Se litigants with proper standing and a cause for relief - the restoration of rights and liberties protected by the U.S. Constitution.”

On behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiffs affirm their proper lawful standing to challenge the constitutionality of this improperly enacted law in every State, the District of Columbia and the US Virgin Islands.

Where Rule 1.6 has not been enacted into law, Attorneys General are on notice of this Constitutional Challenge and the impact the Rule can have on the civil rights and liberties of the People.

Respectfully,





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

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Warrington Township Police

Chief James Miller,

I have just been advised that my mother was visited by a patrol car at her home today at 871 Mustang Road.

My mother is an 80 year old woman living alone with health issues. While unintentional, the visit from your officer frightened her. the officer asked about my whereabouts, what car i drove, and how often I driove her car. I am sure you can understand her fright.

Your officer was relaying a message from a Montgomery Township Police Officer after she received repeated calls from him today. I have responded to officer Ruchkin by fax. I include that fax for your reference.

I would like to know what allegations were made that caused Warrington Police to pay a courtesy call to learn my whereabouts and what car I drove. This is a genuine request for information.

The matter in Montgomery Township is a civil matter being litigates in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. I am seeking to assert my lawful and legal ownership of property illegally and fraudulently conveyed to the Millers - a lawyer and real estate agent. Judge Coonahan has been notified of the threat against me made by Montgomery Township Police via a court filing this evening.

Thank You,

Terance Healy

Montgomery Township Police Department

Cheif Scott Bendig,
Officer John Rushin,

regarding the repeated calls to my mother's home today, please stop that.

Attached are copies of documents relating to the civil litigation regarding the fraudulent conveyance of my property and residence at 110 Banbury Avenue, North Wales, PA 19454

Copies of:
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Docket #2013-29976 (1 page)
Complaint in Ejectment (29 pages)
Emergency Praecipe for immediate Eviction/Order of Possession (1 page)
Emergency Praecipe for immediate Eviction/Order of Possession (Addendum) (1 page)

Please accept these documents as a Criminal Tresspass Complaint against David & Jennifer Miller in this regard. If this format is not acceptable for a foprmal complaint, please forward the proper complaint forms to the address below.

While it was not my intention to file a criminal complaint at this time, the threat to my liberty mandates a response.

Terance Healy

Saving America from Suicide

"At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." - Abraham Lincoln

(from "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions: Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois" January 27, 1838)

lincoln-memorial-flickr


"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." - Abraham Lincoln



 
Lincoln had incredible vision.

 
 

Emergency Praecipe for Immediate Eviction/Order of Possession (Addendum)

( PDF )

IN THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NORRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA







Terance Healy:
 : #2013-29976
v.:
 :
David R. Miller:
Jennifer K. Miller:


Emergency Praecipe for Immediate Eviction/Order of Possession (Addendum)


1. After service of the EMERGENCY PRAECIPE file with this Court on October 15, 2013, Plaintiff's 80-year old mother was contacted by telephone multiple times by the Montgomery Township Police Department.

2. Montgomery Township Police Office Ruchkin has threatened the plaintiff with arrest if he approached his own property at 110 Banbury Avenue North Wales, PA 19454.

3. Plaintiff has taken no aggressive or violent action against the Defendants and as such, the threats to his freedom from Montgomery Township are unwarranted, unnecessary and unlawful.

4. Defendants have misrepresented ownership to Montgomery Township Police and have manipulated them into actions which are clearly an abuse of power under color of law.

5. As the Plaintiff is unaware of any allegation of criminal charges, the Montgomery Townnship Police have no jurisdiction in this civil matter.

6. THREATS TO THE SAFETY AND LIBERTY OF THE PLAINTIFF WARRANT THI COURTS IMMEDIATE ATTENTION.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff respectfully requests this honorable Court issue an EX PARTE ORDER FOR POSSESSION authorizing the Sheriff's Department to take immediate action to remove, eject and prevent the Defendants from occupying the property and residence.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy



CASE DOCUMENTS
Civil Complaint – Action in Ejectment ( PDF )

Emergency Praecipe for Immediate Eviction / Order of Possession( PDF )

Emergency Praecipe for Immediate Eviction/Order of Possession (Addendum)( PDF )

Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and Defendant’s Memorandum of Law ( PDF )

Plaintiff Responds to Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and Defendant’s Memorandum of Law
( PDF )

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

18 Pa.C.S. § 507: Use of force for the protection of property

18 Pa.C.S. § 507: Use of force for the protection of property



(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of property.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:
(1) to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property, if such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or
(2) to effect an entry or reentry upon land or to retake tangible movable property, if:
(i) the actor believes that he or the person by whose authority he acts or a person from whom he or such other person derives title was unlawfully dispossessed of such land or movable property and is entitled to possession; and
(ii) (A) the force is used immediately or on fresh pursuit after such dispossession; or
(B) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to the possession of the property and, in the case of land, the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would be an exceptional hardship to postpone the entry or reentry until a court order is obtained.



(b) Meaning of possession.--For the purpose of subsection (a) of this section:
(1) A person who has parted with the custody of property to another who refuses to restore it to him is no longer in possession, unless the property is movable and was and still is located on land in his possession.
(2) A person who has been dispossessed of land does not regain possession thereof merely by setting foot thereon.
(3) A person who has a license to use or occupy real property is deemed to be in possession thereof except against the licensor acting under claim of right.



(c) Limitations on justifiable use of force.--
(1) The use of force is justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor believes that:
(i) such request would be useless;
(ii) it would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request; or
(iii) substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made.
(2) The use of force to prevent or terminate a trespass is not justifiable under this section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.
(3) The use of force to prevent an entry or reentry upon land or the recaption of movable property is not justifiable under this section, although the actor believes that such reentry or caption is unlawful, if:
(i) the reentry or recaption is made by or on behalf of a person who was actually dispossessed of the property; and
(ii) it is otherwise justifiable under subsection (a)(2).
(4) (i) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if:
(A) there has been an entry into the actor's dwelling;
(B) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that the entry is lawful; and
(C) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that force less than deadly force would be adequate to terminate the entry.
(ii) If the conditions of justification provided in subparagraph (i) have not been met, the use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that:
(A) the person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(B) such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.



(d) Use of confinement as protective force.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he can do so with safety to the property, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.



(e) Use of device to protect property.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of a device for the purpose of protecting property only if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury;
(2) the use of the particular device to protect the property from entry or trespass is reasonable under the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be; and
(3) the device is one customarily used for such a purpose or reasonable care is taken to make known to probable intruders the fact that it is used.



(f) Use of force to pass wrongful obstructor.--The use of force to pass a person whom the actor believes to be intentionally or knowingly and unjustifiably obstructing the actor from going to a place to which he may lawfully go is justifiable, if:
(1) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to obstruct the actor;
(2) the actor is not being obstructed from entry or movement on land which he knows to be in the possession or custody of the person obstructing him, or in the possession or custody of another person by whose authority the obstructor acts, unless the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would not be reasonable to postpone the entry or movement on such land until a court order is obtained; and
(3) the force used is not greater than it would be justifiable if the person obstructing the actor were using force against him to prevent his passage.

Emergency Praecipe for Immediate Eviction / Order of Possession

( PDF )

IN THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NORRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA







Terance Healy:
 : #2013-29976
v.:
 :
David R. Miller:
Jennifer K. Miller:


Emergency Praecipe for Immediate Eviction / Order of Possession


1. Plaintiff respectfully requests the immediate action of this court to remove the defendant's from his home and property and restore possession to the rightful, proper and legal owner of the home.

2. The evidence of fraud and deception in every document and activity relating to the conveyance of the property warrants immediate action.

3. There is reason to believe that the property and residence will be irreparably damaged or destroyed as: the fraudulent conveyance of the title is evident and the defendants cannot demonstrate or present any valid or correct title or deed or right to possession of the property and residence.

4. Defendants have been served with NOTICE, and the property posted, regarding trespassing on July 26, 2013.

5. Defendants have been served the Civil Complaint filed in this matter on October 3, 2013. This is confirmed by signed certified receipt from the US Post Office on October 4, 2013.

6. plaintiff has presented in the Civil Complaint the documents which demonstrate his rightful, lawful ownership of the property and residence.

WHEREAS, plaintiff respectfully requests this honorable Court issue an Ex Parte Order for Possession authorizing the Sheriff's Department to take immediate action to remove, eject and prevent the Defendants from occupying the property and residence.

Respectfully

Terance Healy





CASE DOCUMENTS
Civil Complaint – Action in Ejectment ( PDF )

Emergency Praecipe for Immediate Eviction / Order of Possession( PDF )

Emergency Praecipe for Immediate Eviction/Order of Possession (Addendum)( PDF )

Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and Defendant’s Memorandum of Law ( PDF )

Plaintiff Responds to Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and Defendant’s Memorandum of Law
( PDF )

Monday, October 14, 2013

Sign the Petition...

... a multifaceted approach. Sign the petition to restore judicial integrity and the rights of the People.

Sign the Petition!


652513232_XHhwc-L


The Petition can have no legal effect, BUT it will inform our government that we are aware of what happened and demand their full cooperation and support.

And if they are lawyers... choosing to stand in our way is repugnant to OUR CONSTITUTION... they best get out of the way! JUSTICE IS COMING.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Resurrect the Constitution. Rule 1.6 causes injustice and defies the Constitution.

The victims experienced the loss of the Constitution first. But no one would listen. Everyone who hears the wide spread stories of the death of the Constitution know the feeling, but are unsure of how it could have happened.

How can so many people ignore the loss of constitutionally protected rights and liberties. How can the government lawfully fail to investigate. How does this deliberate and intentional neglect to recognize the loss of rights HAPPEN IN AMERICA?

It was necessary to find the answer, the cause, the reason. Everyone felt their neglectful actions were lawful. There was that, and ONE OTHE THING which they ALL had in common.

RULE 1.6. Caused it... and kept it secret. MANDATED THE SECRECY. PREVENTING ANY RESOLUTION.

RULE 1.6 Confidentiality of Information punished any who dared make any attempt to expose the sedition caused by this law. This law illegally enacted by the judiciary which prevented prosecution of judicial misconduct - judicial crime - judicial retaliation.

The author of the RULE, the American Bar Association, became the largest and most corrupt racketeering organization in the history of the United States. And their lawyers are preventing the media from carrying this story.
FEMA_-_5628_-_Photograph_by_Bri_Rodriguez_taken_on_09-27-2001_in_New_York-1

They took our homes. They took our children. They took our families. They took our friends. They took our liberty.

... with Liberty and Justice for all. JUSTICE IS COMING!

Notify your representatives, your senators, your governor, your federal officials... tell them about the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules Of Professional Conduct. (YES, THE SAME EXACT NAME IN EVERY STATE. REALLY.) Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional, destructive, and unjust. Americans demand the restoration of your civil rights and liberties!

JUSTICE IS COMING! PROCLAIM LIBERTY AND JUSTICE THROUGHOUT THE LAND! JUSTICE IS COMING!

Resurrect the Constitution. Rule 1.6 causes injustice and defies the Constitution. NO MORE!

The victims experienced the loss of the Constitution first. But no one would listen. Everyone who hears the wide spread stories of the death of the Constitution know the feeling, but are unsure of how it could have happened.

How can so many people ignore the loss of constitutionally protected rights and liberties. How can the government lawfully fail to investigate. How does this deliberate and intentional neglect to recognize the loss of rights HAPPEN IN AMERICA?

It was necessary to find the answer, the cause, the reason. Everyone felt their neglectful actions were lawful. There was that, and ONE OTHE THING which they ALL had in common.

RULE 1.6. Caused it... and kept it secret. MANDATED THE SECRECY. PREVENTING ANY RESOLUTION.

RULE 1.6 Confidentiality of Information punished any who dared make any attempt to expose the sedition caused by this law. This law illegally enacted by the judiciary which prevented prosecution of judicial misconduct - judicial crime - judicial retaliation.

The author of the RULE, the American Bar Association, became the largest and most corrupt racketeering organization in the history of the United States. And their lawyers are preventing the media from carrying this story.
FEMA_-_5628_-_Photograph_by_Bri_Rodriguez_taken_on_09-27-2001_in_New_York-1

They took our homes. They took our children. They took our families. They took our friends. They took our liberty.

... with Liberty and Justice for all. JUSTICE IS COMING!

Notify your representatives, your senators, your governor, your federal officials... tell them about the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules Of Professional Conduct. (YES, THE SAME EXACT NAME IN EVERY STATE. REALLY.) Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional, destructive, and unjust. Americans demand the restoration of your civil rights and liberties!

JUSTICE IS COMING! PROCLAIM LIBERTY AND JUSTICE THROUGHOUT THE LAND! JUSTICE IS COMING!

Blurbs regarding the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6

For reading, posting or reposting.



The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. With a cause for relief and standing to address the issue, filed and served every state – lawfully acting to expose a law which obstructed justice and mandated corruption leaving Americans without basic rights and liberties. https://www.facebook.com/groups/ChallengeRule1.6/



RULE 1.6. No Governor. No Legislature. NO KIDDING. No Law. Enacted in EVERY US STATE. Causing the denial of Constitutional rights and liberties. http://work2bdone.com/live/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/CCF08082013_0000.pdf



They’ve got men everywhere waiting to put me down. I know how this usually plays out. I’m not like the other guys. It matters who I am. Inside. I am a good person. If I am strong. They took my life, my job, my house, my children, my family. They think this is killing me. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 www.facebook.com/groups/ChallengeRule1.6/



“The longer you deprive people of something — certainly a constitutional right — the more anxious they’re going to be to exercise that right,” JB Van Hollen said.

In 1987 the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania enacted a law which denied people of their constitutionally protected rights and liberties… caused extreme injustice and prevented any measure to address judicial corruption, malice and retaliation... NO ONE QUESTIONED IT. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed on August 8, 2013



The needle in the legal haystack. The SOLUTION has been found to restore the Constitution, judicial integrity and restore civil rights. Lawfully - but denied any media attention. Filed 8-8-2013 in Philadelphia. http://work2bdone.com/live/2013/10/the-constitutional-challenge-of-rule-1-6-status-update/



“The longer you deprive people of something — certainly a constitutional right — the more anxious they’re going to be to exercise that right,” JB Van Hollen said. http://ChallengeRule16.blogspot.com



“The longer you deprive people of something — certainly a constitutional right — the more anxious they’re going to be to exercise that right,” JB Van Hollen said. http://work2bdone.com/live/2013/10/the-constitutional-challenge-of-rule-1-6-status-update/

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Tactics Escalate - Signs of Progress

I discovered the hacks to my computer. AGAIN. I've resigned to the fact that the best I can accomplish alone is to maintain some functionality with the knowledge that the capabilities which can be used to prevent the story being presented by the media, or to other victims , is much stronger and better staffed than one man in the burbs of Philadelphia.

The fake phone calls and messages from people pretending to need help. They always reveal themselves. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but they always reveal themselves.

The auto-attendant fake phone calls... which steal your time. Force you to use their automatic system and waste your time pressing buttons only to never get thru. And an hour later they call again. Time wasted. CONSTANTLY.

The fake bill collectors when I have no bills. WHY CALL EVERY HOUR? Because it interrupts. It interrupts constantly.

The hosting company cron job which runs without reason, or explanation. THEY REFUSE TO OFFER ANY INFORMATION ABOUT IT. OF TO INVESTIGATE. And their repreated interest in opening a specific pdf file. Is someone at Host Gator getting married in Montgomery County PA? And using my site to obtain that info instead of going to the Montgomery County web site? Strange behavior... unless you know that code could be hidden in the file and executed remotely via a cron, or to set up the next cron. Could that be what is blocking this site from so many people?

The support exchange with the hosting company today was incomprehensible. Apparently, there is a higher power at work here preventing access to information ABOUT MY OWN ACCOUNT. Last time it was hacked I had to have a subpoena issued to find out the person behind it. That took 6 months to accomplish. Looks like there are strong indications of another hacker who has covered his tracks with an illegal court order. Pretenders. Private Investigators pretending to be FBI interfering with my life, and preventing the Rule 1.6 Challenge from being visible. I wonder who hired them?


If I was not on the right path, they wouldn't persist in their tactics and their attacks. It has been a productive week... major developments, and more in the pipeline. The retaliatory actions always increase at these times. Recall, I have been at this since 2007... the patterns are clear.

If I was not destined for success they would put this story on the news. Instead some girl who loses her wedding ring gets 24 hour coverage for 3 days. Seriously.

When the Governor, the Attorney General, and the Legislature is made of of members who are BOUND TO UPHOLD THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION... it is clear who the largest racketeering organization in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is... and evidently the entire country.

Perhaps it is time for me to escalate and ask why the FBI has not investigated the ABA's sedition and overthrow of every stste government?

The situation they created could only lawfully be addressed by someone who was not a lawyer finding the needle in the haystack after enduring enough terror to expose their terroristic actions, and to have survived their terror. And having to bring the terror to them each time begging for relief... only to receive further injustice.

FBI... How many Americans will die from this domestic form of judicial and litigious terror.
terror-alert-280x300