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?

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.

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.