(1) an “injury in fact”;
The Court acknowledged the Plaintiffs injury in the Memorandum of the Court dated October 29, 2013.
“[Plaintiffs] assert, inter alia, that Rule 1.6 denies a Pro Se litigant of an opportunity to petition the government for redress of grievances, denies a Pro Se litigant of life, liberty and or property without due process of law; causes a denial of constitutionally protected rights by the State and as such is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.”
(2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of – the injury had to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.
From Appellee Breif page 14.
“Attorney General Kathleen Kane has never has anything to do with Healy or Krautheim themselves, or with their previous litigation efforts (in which they allegedly were injured)”
Attorney General Kane acknowledges the failure to take any action to address the injuries to the Plaintiffs, to investigate the extensive reports of the judicial misconduct and corruption, and the damage caused to the plaintiffs because of the failure of the Attorney General to enforce the laws of the commonwealth.
The Pennsylvania Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The office has the responsibility for the prosecution of crime prosecuted by the commonwealth, including organized crime, public corruption, and consumer protection. The Attorney General represents the commonwealth in all actions brought by or against the commonwealth, reviews all proposed rules and regulations by commonwealth agencies.
The failure of the Attorney General to enforce the laws of the commonwealth, and also the Attorney General's failure to follow the law, directly caused the resultant injury to the plaintiffs.
The Attorney General's inaction in the matter further causes the inescapable injustice to the plaintiffs which continued for years.
Once an act of misconduct occurred within a courtroom, the failure of the Attorney General to enforce the law and to address the injustice and resultant public corruption sacrificed the integrity of the judiciary and caused the plaintiffs situation to worsen without any possibility for resolution.
(3) A showing that it 'be likely, as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable outcome.
A ruling that Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL resolves the matter for the plaintiffs and returns them to the state with their previously denied rights and liberties available with equal protection under the law.
A ruling that Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL permits the Attorney General to perform the law enforcement responsibilities required of the office of Attorney General.
A ruling that Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL permits the judiciary to acknowledge address and resolve matters before their courts without a mandate to ignore and deny injustice, judicial misconduct and public corruption.
A ruling that Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL permits the legislature to resume responsible management of the laws of the commonwealth
No comments:
Post a Comment