Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 - Reply Brief

REPLY BRIEF
Appeal to
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
from the Order and Memorandum entered in
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
on the 29th day of October. 2013


Plaintiffs Terance Healy and Todd M. Krautheim filed this Constitutional Challenge on August 8, 2013 and served it upon Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane and the Attorneys General of the United States challenging the Constitutionality of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Plaintiffs are seeking to restore their constitutional rights; restore the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession; and to return to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Case and Controversy before the Court

Article III Requirements are met

Rooker – Feldman Doctrine

Younger Abstention

Article V Section 10 (c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution

Article V – The Attorney General

Article V – The Supreme Court

Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information

Jurisdiction for the Constitutional Question

National Issue

Summary of Case

The Controversy Before The Court - Summary Of Argument

Attorney General Kathleen Kane's DOMA Decision

CONCLUSION Oral Argument is requested


Addendum – Misinformation in the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Brief
- Statement of Jurisdiction
- Statement of Issues
- Statement of the Case

Addendum – Plaintiffs Questions/Issues