A Notice of Appeal was timely filed December 2, 2013 regarding the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
There was no choice but to appeal the matter. We were Rule 1.6'd. It was anticipated that the matter would likely need to be decided at a higher level of Federal Court which handles more broader issues and nationally visible cases.
It was quickly very clear that the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was not immune from Rule 1.6 misconduct and the the injustice once the act of misconduct which involves the judge.
Did those behind it realize? Were they taking one last stab at Rule 1.6-ing before it would become unconstitutuional and justice would be restored to the people. Judicial integrity would no longer be compromised. Last Call.
Did they realize that they were using it against people who understood it?
Did they realize they would be acting in Federal Court, with a nationwide audience of 56 Attorneys General particpating. Yes. As such, they would require assist from the Clerk of Courts.
Did those behind it realize that we had anticipated interference and not only were we paying attention, we had also called in resources to safeguard the process, and were getting feedback from every person involved.
Backing into the Docket... The way to see where Rule 1.6 was triggered. Where did things go 'wrong'? Where did procedure and law no longer matter.
Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Reconsider. A Strange necessity.
Motion to Reconsider - Judge applies Wrong Rule.
Dismissal - Unsupported, unsubstantiated and incorrect. Wrong Conclusion.
Intention to Default - Suppressed. Illogical that the court does not want any participation of the Defendants.
Corrections to Docket - Denied. Illogical that the Court is not interested in an accurate court record.
ECF Filing - Delayed. Delayed. Granted.
Kane's Request for Extension - untimely, unsubstantiated, not authorized. Granted. Further Prevents Defendants Involvement - but never authorized. (Docket Modification - without a Court Order that's not done.)
SERVICE - Answers due dates not entered.
Constitutional Challenge filed.
| Defendant Attorneys General - Why are you not getting ANY information about this matter? Why have they all been TERMINATED from the case? Why after you had defaulted, without any entry of appearance, without any responsive pleading, were you removed from notices in the matter? Why does the Clerk of Courts have Randall Henzes as representing all 56 Attorneys General? Resulting in him being the ONLY one to get any notices in this matter? |
When the Request for Extension is filed on September 6, 2013, Rule 1.6 is triggered. In play causing incorrect rulings. In play failing to resolve issues. In play on the docket. In play removing the Attorneys General from information notices or any involvment.
The Rule 1.6 monkeywrench is Randall Henzes.
He waited until Attorney General Kathleen Kane defaults, and begins to ACT NOT ONLY FOR HER BUT somehow OBTAINS "LEAD ATTORNEY" status which permits the EXCLUSION of All other AGs. By the time anyone notices the judge has been tricked into error, Kathleen Kane cannot reveal his actions, and the emails are not sent out by the Clerk of Courts.
Randall does not understand that his expectation of dismissal is not realistic. The double sided 1983 dismissal tools are the best he's got. They worked for decades. They don't apply. They don't support dismissal. So, he uses all of them. But, they don't quite fit.
The judge is floundering at the DISMISSAL. The judge's integrity is at stake. When asked to reconsider, he loses more integrity when he DENIES applying the wrong rule. ( I opened the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in July for the first time. The judge has been using it for decades.) The judge is not stupid. The judge is sacrificing his integrity.
No Attorney General responds. Once Rule 1.6 has been invoked, the only way to preserve your integrity is to do nothing.
The one thing they still have not recognized. THEY KNOW NOTHING. Short-sighted bullies robbing an 85 year old judge of his integrity.
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 petition can be filed everyday for all eternity... they failed to recognize that whole the injustice of Rule 1.6 could end now, or tomorrow, or net week, next month, or next year.
DISMISSAL by judicial logical fallacy indicates JUSTICE WINS.
JUSTICE IS COMING. It will allow integrity of the judiciary, not sacrifice it.
No comments:
Post a Comment