What if you discovered there was a law which mandated injustice? preventing prosecution of those responsible? and that it was illegal to annul or strike the law? where the result was people lost their rights and the judiciary lost integrity.
No District Attorney could prosecute the injustice. No Attorney General could request an investigation by Federal authorities - the law made that unlawful.
The Supreme Court which enacted the law is precluded from removing it.
The only lawful way to remove the law is for a person to have been denied their rights by that law, suffered damages, had standing and a cause for relief and filed in federal court. No lawyer would be permitted to handle the case. THAT would not be lawful. The only lawful approach is by non-lawyers.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6. (Filed August 8, 2013)
Responsible Attorneys General, not lawfully permitted to take any action which would expose the corrupt law, would permit a default to occur and thus restore the constitutional rights of the people.
A Judge loses his integrity by issuing contradictory statements which do not support his decision.
A Judge refuses to reconsider his application of incorrect rules and procedures.
THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (Filed December 2, 2013)
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 ...
JUSTICE IS COMING.
No comments:
Post a Comment