| Terance Healy | |
| Todd M. Krautheim | #13-4591 |
| on behalf of the United States | |
| v. | |
| Kathleen Kane | |
| Pennsylvania Attorney General | |
| and | |
| The Attorneys General of the United States | |
1. An Opinion in this matter before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was filed on April 14, 2014, Terance Healy and Todd M. Krautheim respectfully request a Hearing or Rehearing En Banc.
2. The Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc is timely pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1) Petition for Panel Rehearing – Time To File.
Plaintiffs hereby express their belief that this matter is of exceptional importance and based on a reasoned and studied review, that the panel decision is contrary to decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit or the Supreme Court of the United States, and that consideration by the full court is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of decisions of this court.
3. The Per Curiam Opinion filed neglects to address the factual information presented in the Appellant Brief, the Appellee Response and the Appellant Reply Brief.
4. The Opinion fails to accurately address the matter of the Appellants standing including (1) the case and controversy before the court, (2) Article III requirements, (3) proper application of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, (4) proper application of the Younger Abstention, and (5) improper removal of jurisdiction according to Pa. Constitution Article V Section 10(c).
5. Jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of a state law is properly placed in the Federal Court as the law being challenged is prevented by law from review by the Pennsylvania Courts with regard to validity or constitutionality.
6. The matter before the Court is a national issue of exceptional importance as the litigants are challenging the constitutionality of a law which has been enacted in every state.
7. The tone and language of the Per Curiam Opinion demonstrates the Court's failure to “accept as true plaintiffs' material allegations and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to them[.]” Baldwin v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med Ctr., 636 F.3d 69, 73-74(3d Cir. 2011)
8. The Per Curiam Opinion fails
- to indicate the unexplained untimeliness of the Pennsylvania Attorney General's motion notifying the District Court of the intent to file a motion to dismiss;
- the indication in the motion that the Pennsylvania Attorney General was NOT representing the fifty-five (55) other Attorneys General;
- the failure of the Pennsylvania Attorney General to notify the fifty-five (55) other Attorneys General of her motion;
- the failure of the Pennsylvania Attorney General to file and serve her motion upon the fifty-five (55) other Attorneys General;
- the failure of the fifty-five (55) other Attorneys General to provide a timely, or untimely, answer to the Summons and Challenge properly served upon each;
- the failure of fifty-five 955) other Attorneys General to file an appearance or register for electronic filing.
9. The Per Curiam Opinion fails to address, or excuse, the failure of fifty-five (55) Attorneys General to file any Appearance or timely Answer to the Constitutional Challenge where the non-Pennsylvania Attorneys General were not served or notified of the motion filed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General.
10. The District Court decision on the Pennsylvania Attorney General's motion was not entered until after the time period for Answers had passed. The district court refused to address that fifty-five (55) Attorneys General had not been served with the motion for extension, and failed to file a timely Answer to the Summons and Challenge.
11. The Appellants complaint, and briefs, present the elements of standing required by Article III. The court has ignored the information provided.
12. The court indicates that Plaintiffs “do not explain how [they were injured] except to offer conclusory and fanciful assertions that the rule has prevented them from obtaining appellate review or otherwise seeking redress from unspecified judicial misconduct.” The court indicates awareness of this issue which is sufficient according to Rule 8(d). Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice. Rule 8(e). However, the court ignores the information.
13. The Younger Abstention does not apply and require dismissal of the matter. This is acknowledged by the Pennsylvania Attorney General and dismissal under Younger Doctrine is not justified in light of the recent Supreme Court decision. Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S Ct. 584 (2013)
14. The district court indicated in the Memorandum of the Court dated October 29, 2013, page 8. “To the extent that the plaintiffs do 'not, [in their complaint] complain of injuries caused by a state court decision,” and instead raise “a direct challenge to the constitutionality” of Rule 1.6, their complaint is “not subject to dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.” Gray v Yavil, 513 F. App'x 210, 212 (3d Cir. 2013)
15. The Court incorrectly indicates in the Opinion that the “Plaintiffs raise three arguments on appeal” and then selectively misrepresent the information regarding even those select issues, and the applicable law.
16. Certification. The court neglected to certify the Constitutional Challenge with each Attorney General, or state Supreme Court. This is typically handled by the Court ordering the state Attorney General to respond to a direct question, ie. “Does Rule 1.6 result in the denial of rights and liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution?”
17. Had Certification been attempted by the Court, the Attorneys General and state Supreme Courts would have recognized that they could not lawfully and truthfully answer the question pursuant to Rule 1.6.
18. The Certification response would affect the integrity of the judiciary; would affect the reputation of the legal profession; would self-incriminate; would violate confidentiality of information regarding the Attorney General's clients – who include the Public (and the plaintiffs), the state government as a whole, the branch of government in which they are employed, a particular agency or department, responsible officers who make decisions with an agency or department.
19. Intervention. The district court neglected to served the summons and Constitutional Challenge to the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, for the purpose of intervention. The Intervention documents were served to the US Attorneys Office after the filing of the Notice of Appeal regarding the dismissal by the district court.
20. Plaintiffs named and served the Constitutional Challenge upon the Attorneys General of the United States in accordance with Rule 5.1 and seek to address the loss of constitutionally protected rights and privileges with the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in each state.
21. The Opinion neglects to consider the following as indicative of intention to default
- the failure of the Attorneys General to answer the Summons and Complaint;
- the failure of the Attorneys General to file an appearance in the matter;
- the failure of the Attorneys General to register for electronic filing and notices;
- the failure of the Attorneys General to respond to any motions filed in this matter; and
- the inaction and deliberate neglect of the Attorneys General with regard to the entire matter.
22. The Opinion incorrectly misinforms where the Plaintiff's did mention the District Court's order denying reconsideration in their notice of appeal.
23. The Opinions statement that “The District Court thus may have erred in relying on a local rule that conflicts with the Federal Rules, see In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig, 221 F.3d 449, 459 (3d Cir 2000), but any such error was harmless.” neglects to consider the harm caused by the continued loss of constitutionally protected rights of the plaintiffs and the court's failure to address the situation.
24. Plaintiffs respectfully disagree with the Courts indication that the error was harmless. The Appeal to the Third Circuit has cost the Plaintiffs $ 505.00 in fees, required additional effort, research, preparation and submission of briefs to the Third Circuit Court and delayed the restoration of the constitutionally protected rights of the plaintiffs and other victims of injustice nationwide.
25. Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to indicate if the members of this Court are mandated by Rule 1.6, or any similar derivative of law which would prevent or hinder the ability of this Honorable Court to hear, consider, address and resolve the constitutional matter here petitioned.
26. Plaintiffs respectfully suggest that it is not in the interests of any party in this matter to compel the sacrifice of the integrity of this court and the Third Circuit Judiciary, or to maintain a conspiracy which permits the continued existence of an unconstitutional law which mandates the denial of the constitutional rights of any person.
27. Plaintiffs respectfully request a hearing or rehearing en banc to address the incorrect information documented and contained in the Honorable Court's Opinion.
28. The unsigned Opinion which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by the facts of the matter and filed on the record in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals represents an overt act in a conspiracy to obstruct justice and to perpetuate and maintain the denial of the constitutionally protected rights of the plaintiffs.
29. Where this Court has jurisdiction but may lack the 'lawful' ability to address the constitutionality of the matter presented, The Plaintiffs respectfully request the matter be forwarded in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with the recommendation of this Court for Certiori of the matter for hearing/review by the Supreme Court of the United States.
30. Where the Supreme Court of the United States is similarly affected and prevented from 'lawful' action to address the constitutionality of Rule 1.6, a 'law' enacted by every state Supreme Court in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Plaintiffs respectfully request the matter remain active within this Court and that the matter be forwarded to the United States Attorney General, as the US Attorney General cannot be hindered or prevented from addressing any law.
31. Plaintiffs request that the United States Congress be notified as an Act of Congress may be required to lawfully address the affect of this situation and to restore the authority of the Judiciary to act in regard to all civil actions and proceedings within the United States courts.
Respectfully Submitted,
Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim
[FILED April 28, 2014]
No comments:
Post a Comment