Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice

Arrogant, self-serving and pretentious demonstrations of judicial theater lends neither sincerity or credibility to a commission which neglects their mandate and avoids objectives.

The Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandate confidentiality of information where the information - would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary, - would reveal misconduct of their own office, - would expose individual liability, - would adversely affect their client.

Rule 1.6 collaterally denies and prevents rights and privileges protected by the United States Constitution; prevents equal protection of the law; and obstructs justice and any resolution of the matters where the mandated confidentiality prevents an independent review of facts.

The victim is NOT MANDATED to silence by the Rules of Professional Conduct; however, the 'system' personnel - judges, lawyers, district attorneys, attorneys general, prosecutors, public defenders, etc - are MANDATED by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information and face aggressive disciplinary action (including sanctions, suspension, and disbarrment) where confidentiality is breached.

Best demonstrated by the disciplinary actions against Judge Ann Lokuta after she requested the FBI investigation. Ann Lokuta was removed from the bench and may never hold any judicial office again. The Commission neglected to interview her for their report.

A Commission of judges and legal professionals failed to recognize that their MANDATED confidentiality was the reason for the silence and the cause of the breakdown of justice.

Statements by the Commission chairman in October and November of 2009 include the following... annotated in the boxes below the each statement to include and reinforce information which the Commission failed to report.

---

October 14, 2009

It is our intention to shine light onto some very dark days of the Pennsylvania judiciary – days that have disrupted the lives of children and their families; brought shame to an entire community; and sewn seeds of distrust throughout the legal system.

The deliberate failure of the commission to assign responsibility for the failure of the justice system to the one 'law' which enabled it and prevented any justice or actions to address the judicial corruption and injustice fertilizes the "seeds of distrust" and strikes at the sincerity and integrity of the commission.

Our concern, however, is not only the action of two Luzerne County judges. Our concern is also the inaction of others. Inaction by judges, prosecutors, public defenders, the defense bar, public officials and private citizens -- those who knew but failed to speak; those who saw but failed to act.

The commission fails to see themselves among "those who knew but failed to speak; those who saw but failed to act." The commission fails to address their silence, while misdirecting blame to include public officials and private citizens who did speak and were ignored; who did act and were dismissed.

[ Inaction includes the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania who ignored and dismissed Kings Bench Petitions regarding the corruption and injustice without consideration or review. ]

All of those involved -- whether by action, inaction or silence -- whether by willful choice or benign ignorance -- engaged in an assault on the fairness and impartiality of our legal system. It was an assault on the very rule of law.

Only those persons mandated by the Rules of Professional Conduct were denied any willful choice or benign ignorance while forced to participate in the conspiracy which undermined justice, the law and the US Constitution.

This is a serious matter indeed, because an attack on the rule of law is an attack on
democracy itself. The sense of community that underlies democratic government is sustained by the sure faith that law will be applied uniformly and fairly, without fear or favor, or corruption.

A very dramatic statement. Judicial theater which suggests high moral values yet performed to conceal the cause of malicious injustice and judicial corruption demonstrates a profound lack of sincerity and integrity.

Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys serve as officers of the court, servants of the high calling of the pursuit of justice. When that noble service is diverted to improper ends, however, we all suffer the consequences.

Those who accept the HIGH CALLING OF THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE have a mandate which shamefully requires them to ignore corruption, injustice, equal protection of the law, and the US Constitution, EVERYONE SUFFERS THE CONSEQUENCES of their participation in the crimes.

But, we must remember it is not only members of the Bar who are called to pursue justice. Every citizen bears that burden, every citizen shares that responsibility, because in a democracy the pursuit of justice is the essence of civic obligation.

The members of the Bar have undermined and usurped the authority of the judiciary in every level of the courts, concealed it in a mandate of confidentiality, and prevent, obstruct and deny the citizens any opportunity to present or resolve the loss of their constitutional rights. The commission is again assigning blame to the citizens who did act, only to have their efforts suppressed, ignored and dismissed.

[ The arrogant failure of the commission and the courts to address the citizens reports of injustice and corruption absolves the public of any blame or responsibility where those reports were subsequently ignored by the broken judicial system. ]



November 9, 2009

Our focus is on what happened in the juvenile justice system – what went wrong and what can be done about it.

The SILENCE was wrong. The mandated confidentiality can be removed.

The practical reality is that those who may be motivated by greed and the drive for power are not likely to be deterred by any laws, rules or regulations that we recommend or which may ultimately be adopted. That is the nature of criminality.

The Judiciary acting criminally in defiance of law, and ignoring the constitutional rights of the people ENACTED THE MANDATE OF CONFIDENTIALITY WHICH CONCEALED THEIR CORRUPTION AND INJUSTICE. Any new law or reform will be moot while the mandated Rule 1.6 confidentiality remains.

None of us should hold any illusions that the recommendations of one more commission, or the creation of one more regulatory agency, or the enactment of one more law, or the adoption of one more rule of court will prevent this from ever happening again. The fact is that there were laws, and rules of juvenile procedure, and administrative regulations already in
place that could have stopped or prevented these abuses.

The United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution are the laws which discourage the judiciary from corruption, injustice and abuses of power. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court does not have the authority to enact any 'law' which causes substantive rights protected by the US Constitution or Pennsylvania Constitution to be abridged, modified or denied. In October 1987, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court enacted the Rules of Professional Conduct into 'law'. Rule 1.6 - Confidentiality of Information can subject a person to a collateral denial of substantive rights and privileges protected by the US Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution with the resultant injustice not permitted to be addressed and resolved by any court. Any effort or actions to remove Rule 1.6 would expose the error by the Supreme Court adversely affecting the integrity of the judiciary and is not lawful when mandated by the Rules of Professional Conduct.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 was filed on August 8, 2013 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and served on fifty six state attorneys general.. The federal courts have improperly denied jurisdiction. The matter is being prepared for submission to the Supreme Court of the United States and concurrently to the United States Congress seeking a constitutional amendment.

How do we create a system in which those who see corruption call the police?

Direct police to accept criminal reports against judges by removing the RULE 1.6 mandate for the District Attorney to ignore the crime.

How do we create a system in which prosecutors who see a judge flagrantly disregard the law make a report to the Judicial Conduct Board?

Remove the Rule 1.6 mandate requiring confidentiality where the information will adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. Judicial corruption and injustice will ALWAYS adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. A conspiracy which conceals the judge's crime will ALWAYS adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. JUSTICE NEVER ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY.

How do we create a system in which the Judicial Conduct Board can respond quickly and effectively to allegations of misconduct?

Direct the Judicial Conduct Board to review every allegation of misconduct. The policy of dismissing ANY report of misconduct while purporting a necessity of judicial integrity demonstrates flawed logic. The judiciary has demonstrated a complete and absolute lack of integrity, ethics or morals with regard to their deliberate abuse of power under color of law. Judicial integrity cannot be repaired by concealing that it may not even exist.

How can we develop a system in which we select and educate our juvenile court judges so that glib sloganeering -- and using phrases like “zero tolerance” -- is not mistaken for thoughtful judicial reflection?

Remove Rule 1.6. Then, review matters independently and deliver Justice in accordance with the law.

How do we create a system in which lawyers, whose unique role it is to advance justice and protect liberty, actually uphold the great traditions of an honored profession?

Remove Rule 1.6. A mandatory participation in a conspiracy which denies and obstructs justice in the furtherance of judicial corruption IS NOT AN GREAT TRADITION. It does NOT advance justice. It does NOT protect liberty.

We have asked ourselves whether it is possible that people can persuade themselves there is nothing they can do to correct what they know to be wrong.

When the court enacts the law which leaves a person with nothing they can do to correct what they know to be wrong, the courts actions could reasonably be interpreted as persuasive. Seriously??? The commission insults the thousands of victims of the judicial corruption and injustice ignored by the courts and every level of law enforcement CAUSED BY AND CONCEALED BY an improperly enacted state law which mandates that legal professionals take no action which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary under threat of aggressive disciplinary action. Is it possible that judges can persuade themselves that there is nothing they can do to correct what they know to be wrong? Any judge, attorney general, district attorney or lawyer could have acted to expose the unconstitutional injustice and corruption of the judiciary. Protected by the full might of the US Constitution, Rule 1.6 - repugnant to the US Constitution is a nullity. There can be no law which requires anyone to violate the rights and privileges of the People which are secured and protected by the US Constitution. EVERY Judge knows this. EVERY Lawyer knows this. The justice system IS broken. The judiciary has shown an insecurity to accept responsibility and resolve matters where the integrity of a judge would be adversely affected. The judiciary neglects consideration or recognition of responsibility for the harm and irreparable damage to the litigant caused by a denial of constitutional rights, a failure to follow the rule of law, and the resultant injustice. The judiciary shirks their responsibility with the knowledge that on appeal, their ruling will be affirmed and affect the integrity of the appeals court and continue the injustice. The judiciary fails to recognize that injustice does not end injustice. It extends it. Once the matter has been perverted by injustice, the rule of law, procedure, case law or precedent can be manipulated and misrepresented to substantiate any decision by the higher court while masking if any review of the issues presented on appeal had occurred. Rule 1.6 has been unconstitutionally enacted by the state supreme courts without any review of the impact on constitutional rights of litigants. Rule 1.6 shows that judicial independence once undermined continues to be undermined without any lawful ability for a litigant to address the bias of the court. The American Bar Association has undermined the authority of state and federal courts and has demonstrated the ability to control courts and judges so insecure about their lack of integrity that they will sadistically continue to perpetuate an injustice upon a litigant whom they have wronged and treated unfairly. When the American Bar Association provided the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to each state judiciary to carelessly promulgate and enact without review, the mechanism by which they gained control of each insecure state judiciary was a mandate of confidentiality to protect the integrity of the undermined judiciary. Simultaneously concealing the ABA conspiracy to undermine and usurp the authority of the judiciary in every court in the nation and to aggressively enforce every breach of confidentiality thus concealing their sedition of the judiciary at every state and federal level.

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT TERANCE HEALY PERSUADED HIMSELF THAT THERE IS NOTHING HE CAN TO TO CORRECT WHAT HE KNOWS TO BE WRONG. Review his experience in the following paragraphs. PERSEVERANCE. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 demonstrates the deliberate judicial corruption and injustice which terrorized ONE LITIGANT for over 8 years appearing before 20 judges of the Montgomery County Pennsylvania Judiciary where the integrity of each subsequent judge was sacrificed to conceal the corruption and injustice of the prior judges... - where an order issued by a judge, the head of the family court division, who had never been assigned to the matter and had never conducted any proceeding in the matter, was prevented from the defendant and kept in a confidential file apart from the actual case file... - where the existence of the order was not known to the defendant and was prevented from him, the 'secret'order was used to further leverage favorable rulings with subsequent judges while avoiding compliance with every court order without fear of sanction or any negative affect for the plaintiff's failure and the continued failure to follow every court, which the court neglected to enforce at any time. This was in strong contradiction and contrast to the aggressive and meticulously detailed enforcement of every court order which required action by the defendant even where the court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order and neglected to address the lack of jurisdiction when challenged... - where that order had been fraudulently misrepresented to the police during the commission of a burglary of the residence, in violation of exclusive use and occupancy clause of an Agreed Order signed by the Court, where police permitted the theft to continue after being summoned to the residence by neighbors suspicious of the 20 people and 12 trucks and SUVs who descended upon the residence when the defendant had left for the evening... - where that order had been presented to the Court during a short list conference where the Defendant was denied the opportunity to read, review or obtain a copy of the document, and where the judge failed to correct the issue when brought to his immediate attention... - where the existence of the document had been denied when requested in discovery requests, discovery motions, hearings regarding motions to compel production of documents... - where in August 2010, a clerk in the Prothonotary, upon request by the defendant for the file for the matter, inadvertently offered a folder never previously provided which included among other documents, an 'original' court order signed by Judge Rhonda Daniele where the document lacked any markings indicating proper recording on the docket and filing with the Prothonotary, and where the document lacked any markings indicating proper distribution to the parties, and where the document accurately matched the description by the police of the document presented during the burglary of the residence years before, and further presented to police to mislead, misinform and slander the defendant's effort to enforce custody orders. - where defendant had been denied and prevented from any proceeding to address custody and visitation, based on the deliberate actions of court personnel who were aware of the 'secret' order and maintained confidentiality to protect the integrity of the judiciary while denying a father from any contact with his sons and any ability to arrange for custody and/or visitation... Defendant was prevented from any relationship with his sons based on a 'secret' order issued without a hearing which slandered his character and reputation and was issued without the proper jurisdiction of the court. - where, when the conspiracy, corruption and leveraged extortion were documented and presented, the court acted in furtherance of the injustice towards the defendant to the court. - where the court acted to further deny any lawful process or procedure by cancelling hearings on outstanding petitions to enforce plaintiff's compliance with prior court orders; and acting with malicious forethought and intent by issuing a deliberately void order which demonstrated an extreme bias and tremendous disdain towards the defendant for persevering, documenting and surviving the unjustified and unexplained annihilation of every aspect of his life - personally professionally and financially. - where Judge Carolyn Carluccio had deliberately issued a void order with the knowledge that any appeal could be made problematic through misinformation; with the knowledge that a judge would not strike her void order adversely affecting the integrity of the judiciary; knowing that irreparable harm and destruction of property would occur while the defendant would be denied any opportunity to address the court or prevent the damage; knowing that all county personnel would enforce the void order as if it was valid and ignore the lack of jurisdiction to issue the order; knowing that her prior employment with the United States Attorneys office would undermine and/or prevent any federal investigation into her deliberate corrupt actions; knowing that as President of the Montgomery County Bar Association the defendant's continued lack of legal representation was assured; - where with arrogant neglect and deliberate haste the court has failed to adhere to Pennsylvania law and the Divorce Code which causes a procedural defect which denies the court of the lawful authority and jurisdiction to issue the order, the order is void ab initio; and every subsequent order based on or derived derived from the procedurally defective and void is similarly without lawful authority and jurisdiction, and void ab initio, serving only to demonstrate the deliberate aggressive malice of a biased and corrupt judiciary retaliating against a litigant for surviving injustice and judicial corruption from which there could be no escape while rights and privileges protected by the US CONSTITUTION and the Pennsyolvania Constitution were being collaterally denied and prevented by an aggressively MANDATED confidentiality of information pursuant to an improperly enacted unconstitutional 'law' - Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct. WHERE three concurrent appeals now exist in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania - and two of those appeals address actions by the court without jurisdiction while the appeal remained before the Superior Court... - where the appeal of a procedurally defective and void order which ignored Pennsylvania law and was deliberately and intentionally written with the intent to deny any opportunity for appeal of the order while continuing the injustice and creating a liability for all those who would act without assessing the courts lack of jurisdiction and to perpetuate the injustice and corruption. The continued threat to the life liberty and freedom of Terance Healy necessitated finding the explanation which could apply to the years of inaction, misinformation and the failure of EVERYONE in law enforcement and every level of government to HELP.

We have asked ourselves whether it is possible that people can get so used to a culture of corruption that corruption loses its meaning.

Rule 1.6 mandated inaction and silence.

What we don’t know, and what we hope to find out today and in future hearings, is what it would have taken to encourage people to act.

Rule 1.6 mandated inaction.

We know people in this community did not consciously choose to stand on the side of injustice at the expense of children. But what was it that made it so hard to do the right thing?

Rule 1.6 mandated inaction and confidentiality of information which is aggressively enforced.

Were people afraid? And, if so, afraid of what? What repercussions? What retributions? Where they intimidated? By whom? And how?

Rule 1.6 mandated inaction and confidentiality of information which is aggressively enforced with sanctions, suspensions and disbarrment...

What protections would they have wanted? Where would they have wanted to take the information they had?

Rule 1.6 mandated confidentiality causes a failure as those to whom information must be provided were additionally mandated to silence.

Did they have confidence that their supervisors, or county officials, or law enforcement, or the Judicial Conduct Board or the attorney Disciplinary Board would have acted professionally?

It could be suggested that following the Rules of Professional Conduct assured that people were acting professionally but mandated by Rule 1.6 to participate in the corruption of the court.

In the end, it is the collective responsibility of all of us to uphold the rule of law that binds us together in a democracy.

Rule 1.6 caused the failure of the rule of law and trumped rights and privileges protected by the US Constitution.

The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice

CONTACT:
Darren Breslin, Esq
Commission Counsel
Special Projects Advisor
1515 Market Street
Suite 1414
Philadelphia, PA 19102
p. 215-560-6300

Support:
Nicholene DiPasquale
Stuart Ditzen
Thomas B. Darr

REPRESENTATION:
Arthur H. Stroyd, Esq.
William S. Stickmanm IV, Esq.

Investigative Services:
William Fisher, Esq


Honorable John M. Cleland, Chair
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Kane, Pa.

Tod C. Allen
former Police Officer
Director of Court Advocacy
Crime Victim Center of Erie County
Erie, Pa.

Valerie Bender
Senior Research Associate
National Center for Juvenile Justice
Pittsburgh, Pa.

Honorable James A. Gibbons
former Assistant United States Attorney
Magisterial District Court
Lackawanna County
Chinchilla, Pa.

Kenneth J. Horoho, Jr., Esq.
a Pittsburgh attorney and former President of the Pennsylvania Bar Association;
member of the HOUSE OF DELEGATES for 20 years;
Adjunct Law Professor;
Goldberg, Gruener, Gentile, Horoho & Avalli, P.C.
Pittsburgh, Pa.

Jason J. Legg, Esq.
District Attorney
Susquehanna County District Attorney's Office
Montrose, Pa.

Robert L. Listenbee, Esq.
Chief, Juvenile Unit
Defender Association of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, Pa.

George D. Mosee, Jr., Esq.
Deputy District Attorney, Juvenile Division
Philadelphia District Attorney's Office
Philadelphia, Pa.

Honorable John C. Uhler
Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of York County, and former President Judge of the Court;
former Assistant United States Attorney;
former District Attorney of York County
Court of Common Pleas of York County
York, Pa.

Ronald P. Williams
Regional Director, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
Lake Winola, Pa.

Honorable Dwayne D. Woodruff
Juvenile court judge from Allegheny County;
Pittsburgh Steelers SuperBowl XIV.
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Pittsburgh, Pa.

O'Reilly thinks American Media is "Corrupt" and "Biased"

Bill O'Reilly finds that American media is corrupt and biased because it has not provided what he considers enough time to certain issues. I'll agree.

In a passionate lecture, he showed clear and undeniable evidence of the media’s bias towards Christie’s “Bridgegate” scandal and its virtual silence on the IRS and VA scandals. All Americans need to be exposed to ALL the news.

What O'Reilly fails to see how HIS divisive accusations - which fault liberals and President Obama - only serve to misdirect from the very story he wishes to bring to our attention?

Still O'Reilly doesn't offer the realization that he is a part of an American media which is FULLY CONTROLLED and MANAGED.

Truthful and accurate information without an exaggerated bias is not currently available in the American media. Every news story contains an indicator of a political, religious or other target demographic which causes people to either embrace or ignore the information. I've been wondering if anyone really cares about the truth without the demographic. This harms the country. It harms Americans. The divisiveness subverts our democracy.

The American Media has become ridiculously lazy. Most stories fail to include the basics - who, what , where, when, why and how. Omissions which my children would never have gotten away with when turning in a report for grade school... yet, they are missing from the major networks and national news media outlets.

When the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed in August 2013 in Philadelphia. Copies of the document filed and an overview explanation was hand delivered to 3 (CBS), 6 (ABC), 10 (NBC), 12 (Public), & 29 (FOX) - with contact information. There was no coverage.

Every newspaper in the Philadelphia area was also contacted and provided the same documents. There was no coverage of the litigation. All of the national television programs were contacted and provided copies. There was no coverage. ONLY ONE had the courtesy of contacting us to indicate they were instructed to ignore the story.

On a trip to New York, I attempted to deliver copies to each major television network and national newspaper. I was redirected by each to deliver the documents to another address. I learned that ALL NEWS producers in New York City were gathered together in two buildings and were NOT in their respective network offices. NBC was the exception.

Suddenly, it became very apparent how easily the news media is controlled and managed in America. The reception people in these buildings were not permitted to take any documents, and were not permitted to allow me access to the offices. Where the network folks had instructed me to leave the documents with reception for their producers attention, I was called a liar by the receptionist who refused to accept any package. It was ridiculous.

---

As the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 proceeded thru the federal district court and on to the third circuit appeals court, the news media continued their unanimous disinterest in the case.

The newsworthiness of two individuals challenging constitutionality of a law in every state. A law with the same name, the same number and the same title. The challenge documents filed and served upon fifty-six state attorneys general to address a national problem caused by this unconstitutional state law.

The 'Law' had NOT been written by any legislature, NOR signed by any Governor. The 'Law' had been enacted by each state supreme court without any constitutional review.

Each state supreme court was further not lawfully permitted to repeal the law because it would adversely affect the judiciary.

The state Attorney General was not lawfully permitted to reveal the state supreme courts' mistake.

Every lawyer in the state was not lawfully permitted to reveal the state supreme courts' mistake.

The challenged 'Law' is contained within the Rules Of Professional Conduct which lawyers, judges and law enforcement officials must follow.

The challenged 'Law' is Rule 1.6 - Confidentiality of Information.

The Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandate confidentiality of information where the information - would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary, - would reveal misconduct of their own office, - would expose individual liability, - would adversely affect their client.

The very law which MANDATES the confidentiality of the legal community has undermined the constitutional rights of Americans.

The victims who lose their rights know they were being mistreated, misdirected and denied justice... while denied any explanation. Unfortunately, no one will listen. Their issues are ignored. They are dismissed as 'sore losers'. No one helps.

Pursuant to Rule 1.6, Judges and lawyers are not permitted to address it, explain it or correct the injustice caused by the 'law'. EVEN WHERE A PERSONS BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE DENIED LEAVING THEM WITHOUT THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW.

Pursuant to Rule 1.6, another court or another judge, is not permitted to address the injustice, or to explain it or to correct it. Most higher courts and Appeals courts ignore the injustice and all evidence relating to the injustice entirely by writing deliberately flawed and misleading opinions which only continue the injustice.

As the courts must safeguard the integrity of the judiciary, there is no court within each state which can address the deliberate injustice. Perseverance through each level of the state courts is necessary and futile. Rule 1.6 affects every level of the state judiciary. The integrity of every court is sacrificed to conceal the lack of integrity of the prior judge(s) in the matter.

The state Attorney General ignores all complaints citing a lack of jurisdiction. THIS IS A LIE. The state Attorney General has jurisdiction to address the injustice, BUT lacks a lawful ability to do so pursuant to Rule 1.6.

Only when viewed from the perspective of the public does the unconstitutional affect become very clear and visible.

Federal Investigators refuse complaints unless submitted by a lawyer or judge, or requested by a District Attorney or Attorney General - all of whom are prevented by Rule 1.6 from making the request.

Any violation of Rule 1.6 is addressed by swift disciplinary action to the violator.

Where the law fails, the loophole is promptly addressed by the state's Supreme Court. The modification of the Rules of Professional Conduct by the state supreme court leaves a trail of activity which can be used to evaluate and demonstrate the intent of the 'law'.

The Federal Courts do not address the 'abuse of power' demonstrated by the state judiciary and will not review an order/opinion decided in the state courts citing dismissal by Rooker-Feldman and Younger doctrines. Where the doctrines do not warrant dismissal, the federal court will ignore facts and law, and misapply the doctrine and dismiss the matter anyway.

The victim is left with no ability to address the deliberate error and the resulting injustice. Frustration grows with each deliberate improper action by the judiciary without regard for facts, or proper procedure or the rule of law. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandates the courts sacrifice their credibility and integrity to conceal the injustice.


THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6

When the Constitutional Challenge was filed on August 8, 2013, the litigants acted with the forethought to avoid the standard dismissal routines in federal court. The challenge was filed requesting a preemptive review of the constitutionality of the law based on their experience in the state courts.
The challenge was NOT seeking to reverse a state decision.
The challenge was NOT seeking a decision on a matter currently before the state court.
The challenge was NOT filed as an abuse of power under color of law complaint against the state judiciary.

Their litigation in the state courts is the evidentiary support which demonstrates how Rule 1.6 causes and results in the denial of constitutional rights.

Plaintiffs requested that the federal court find the state 'law' unconstitutional and return them to their matters in the state courts where the state judiciary would no longer have a Rule 1.6 mandate for injustice which ignores rights and privileges protected by the US Constitution.

Though the fifty six state Attorneys General all failed to file any document, appearance or answer before their assigned deadlines, the district court ignored their deliberate default and subsequently dismissed the challenge without any basis in facts or substantiation of any doctrine which would support dismissal.

Clearly, the district court was not yet ready to address the constitutional crisis caused by Rule 1.6.

On Appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court decision by issuing an unsigned per curiam order and opinion which neglects to review the facts, and fails to address the issues raised on appeal.

A Petition for Rehearing /Rehearing en Banc was denied. Unsigned Order and Opinion providing 'plausible deniability' for a judiciary which has acted to deny the US Constitution.

The Third Circuit Court was not yet ready to address the constitutional crisis - and were further denying the litigants of any venue to address the constitutional challenge.

The Constitutional Challenge will next be submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States with a concurrent submission to the United States Congress.

Prompt action by the US Congress would permit the Supreme Court Judiciary to maintain some integrity in a matter which has now demonstrated a failure of integrity at every level of the state and federal courts.

---

It has been noticed that the media frequently fails to completely report issues in politics or government. In cases of injustice and judicial corruption, Rule 1.6 can affect the media's presentation of the facts, and conceal the cause of the situation while preventing any explanation.

The confidentiality mandated by Rule 1.6 was further concealing that Rule 1.6 was the problem.

---

The corruption known as KIDS FOR CASH went on for years in the Luzerne County Courthouse, Rule 1.6 kept it CONFIDENTIAL. Lawyers, Judges, District Attorneys, Prosecutors, and Public Defenders all mandated to silence while people were victimized.

The conspiracy of silence by the judiciary, law enforcement and legal professionals of Luzerne County prevented the injustice and judicial corruption from being exposed, addressed and corrected and further allowed the crime to continue.

When one judge broke the silence and contacted federal authorities, she was disciplined and removed from the bench for adversely affecting the integrity of the judiciary in violation of Rule 1.6.

The disciplinary actions towards Judge Ann Lokuta by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the Court of Judicial Discipline demonstrate the aggressive methods used to attack and silence those who act in a moral and ethical manner for the greater good.

---

When the INTERBRANCH COMMISSION ON JUVENILE JUSTICE produced their report on the scandal, they concluded accurately 'What good would [reporting] it do."

The lawyers and judges on the Commission neglected to disclose that Rule 1.6 mandates they not reveal even where Rule 1.6 had caused the breakdown in the justice system.

As stated by Act 32, the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was to determine how the Luzerne County juvenile justice system failed, to restore public confidence in the administration of justice and to prevent similar events from occurring in Luzerne County or elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

The Commission's failure to identify Rule 1.6 as the cause demonstrates a conspiracy of silence which undermined the assigned purpose of the commission.

Reporting the injustice and judicial corruption involved in the scandal was futile because the courts, the disciplinary boards, the judicial conduct board were also obligated under Rule 1.6 Confidentiality and would take no action.

By deliberately concealing how and why the system failed, the Commission ignored their instructions pursuant to Act 32 in defiance of the Governor, the unanimous Legislature and a clear violation of the public trust. The Commission report is a deliberate fraud which attempts to conceal the truth.

Neglecting to address the failure caused by Rule 1.6 undermines each of the recommendations which the commission proposes. Each recommendation can have no true affect or impact where Rule 1.6 Confidentiality remains to continue to conceal the failure of the system.

The failure of the Commission concealed by the ineffective recommendations and their conspiracy of silence further serves as an endorsement of the corruption enabling and encouraging the repetition, or continuation, of judicial corruption and injustice which places the entire public in jeopardy.

---

When delivering "The Sandusky Report", Attorney General Kathleen Kane neglected to inform the public that Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information.

The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, the Attorney General’s office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers.

The Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandate confidentiality of client information where the information
- would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary,
- would reveal the misconduct of their own office,
- would expose individual liability,
- would adversely affect their client.

---

During the campaign for Attorney General, Attorney General Kathleen Kane indicated she would investigate to determine if Attorney General Tom Corbett had delayed or stalled the Sandusky investigation during his run for Governor.

Currently, Governor Tom Corbett is a client of Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

Rule 1.6 prevents the Attorney General from revealing information which would adversely affect the Governor, or that would reveal the misconduct of the Attorney General's office.

---

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court enacted multiple modifications to the Rules of Professional Conduct with attention to the proper legal handling of email by lawyers and admissibility as evidence in a proceeding.
- on April 3, 2009
- on May 2, 2009
- on April 9, 2012
- on April 18, 2012
- on June 16, 2012
- on July 4, 2012
- on November 21, 2013

While the Sandusky report indicates the loss of email correspondence, efforts to retrieve the data, and the subsequent successful restoration of some emails relating to the progress of the investigation by the Office of the Attorney General.

Rule 1.6 requires that the Attorney General maintain any information as confidential where activity of the Supreme Court modifying the Rules of Professional Conduct presented concurrently with email issues encountered during the Sandusky investigation might adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.

---

Attorney General Kane contracted with an attorney to prepare the Sandusky report. Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information to protect his client from any liability.

A Possible Disclaimer relating to Rule 1.6 and the Sandusky Report is available to review here.

---

The Rules of Professional Conduct were enacted into law by the state supreme court with the clear and deliberate intent to conceal and prevent judges from being prosecuted for judicial corruption and injustice.

Where judicial corruption and injustice has occurred, the integrity of the judiciary is neither preserved nor protected by mandating the participation of judges and lawyers in a conspiracy of silence which ignores the crime and causes further injustice upon the victim.

---

The largest abuse which can be attributed to Rule 1.6 is the Foreclosure Crisis Nationwide.

Foreclosures affected millions of individuals and families nationwide and represent the most pervasive, malicious and destructively deliberate abuse of judicial authority in reckless violation of the US Constitution, federal and state laws, with an arrogant and shameful assault against the public trust of the entire nation.

The Foreclosure Crisis would not have occurred had the judiciary not been undermined by Rule 1.6.

A Lack of proper lawful standing caused by a fraudulent deed, a robo-signed document, an unidentified or non-existent plaintiff, false or non-existent paperwork, etc... Once initiated and accepted by the court the failure to follow law and procedure results in an injustice which the court then refuses to address, correct or resolve in accordance with the law.

The Rule 1.6 mandate of confidentiality then further prevents the courts and the lawyers from addressing the injustice. These actions include denial of elements of due process and procedure, the negligence of the court to address the rights of the litigant where property is concerned, and denial of equal protection of the law.

The injustice overwhelms the litigant personally, professionally and financially requiring an excessive effort to continually provide the facts to the court.

Millions of people lost their homes based on false allegations, bad information, and facts which the court neglected to consider during the course of overwhelming chaotic litigation.

The courts failed to address the loss of the litigants civil, constitutional and human rights caused by Rule 1.6 confidentiality and the foreclosure crisis swept across the entire nation.

Where Rule 1.6 prevented a lawyer from lawfully petitioning the court to address the injustice caused by Rule 1.6, the injustice, corruption and the destruction of judicial integrity has persisted for years awaiting the realization that the loss of constitutional rights was caused to non-lawyers collaterally by a law concealed within the Rules of Professional Conduct.


INSURRECTION

The litigant, acting in good faith, is unaware that the court is no longer acting with necessary judicial independence neutrally deciding a case by interpreting the law and applying it to the facts and then rendering a final and binding judgment.

Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just. Due process is violated if a practice or rule “offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.”

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality undermines judicial independence and further undermines due process for the litigant with the result being a lack of jurisdiction for the court to render a final and binding judgment.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 brings the case within the statute where a right or
immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States is an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff ’s cause of action. . . . The First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

The right or immunity must be such that it will be supported if the Constitution or laws of the United States are given one construction or effect, and defeated if they receive another.

"It is entirely unimportant, what may be the subject of controversy. Be it what it may, these parties have a constitutional right to come into the Courts of the Union.”
  - 19 U.S. at 378. See Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 368 U.S. 71, 79–80 (1961); Texas v. New Jersey, 379 U.S. 674, 677 (1965); Pennsylvania v. New York, 407 U.S. 206 (1972).

A genuine and present controversy, not merely a possible or conjectural one, must exist with reference thereto. The Challenge presents denial of rights and privileges protected by the Constitution of the United States which are collaterally denied as a result of an improperly enacted state law.

First Amendment to the Constitution

The Judiciary by failing to conduct the proper review petitioned in the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is denying the litigants of their right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Fifth Amendment to the Constitution

The Judiciary by failing to conduct the proper review petitioned in the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is depriving the litigants of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution

The Judiciary by failing to conduct a proper review petitioned in the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is ignoring where the State has made and enforced a law which abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; and further the State is depriving persons of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and further the State id denying persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Judiciary having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and having deliberately acted to deny and abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States are engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution and further abusing the authority of their office under color of law in violation of the public trust.

The Good Behavior Clause reminds the other branches that the judiciary is truly independent, it also reminds judges that life tenure is not a license for the wanton or the corrupt. It is in this sense both a shield and a sword—an affirmation of judicial independence and a reservation for judicial removal.

The courts are assured independence through good-behavior tenure and security of compensation, and the judges through judicial review will check the other two branches. The impeachment power gives to Congress the authority to root out corruption and abuse of power in
the other two branches.

---

THIS INFORMATION IS LEADING DOWN A PATH WHERE I WOULD PREFER NOT TO VENTURE

Having undermined their judicial independence, a fundamental element of the jurisdiction by which they are empowered, the insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution by the judiciary requires the United States Congress to commence impeachment proceedings regarding the seditious activities which have usurped and undermined the government of the United States.

The conspiracy to conceal and continue their corrupt and unconstitutional actions in furtherance of their denial of constitutional rights and obstruction of justice demonstrates the courts unwillingness to take responsibility or demonstrate any sense of remorse for their abuse of power in an arrogant violation of the public trust.

Clearly, the judiciary was aware of the United States Constitution and the law while continuing unconstitutional and abusive actions in violation of the public trust.

Rule 1.6 injustice and corruption exists in civil, family and criminal courts.

---

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information was not always a law.

The state Supreme Courts began enacting the Rules of Professional Conduct into law in the mid-80's. Prior to being enacted into LAW, the Rules were discretionary.

Once enacted into law, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information became a mandate which caused an unresolvable injustice which was inescapable.

The victim was required to petition the court to address the injustice;
while the court was mandated to ignore the injustice;
to sacrifice the integrity of the judge;
to dismiss the rights of the litigant;
and to ignore proper procedure and the law;
all in the interest of protecting the integrity of the judiciary.

You cannot protect the integrity of the judiciary by sacrificing the integrity of the judiciary.

---

Insurrection and Sedition to Undermine the Judiciary by the American Bar Association

The impetus for the state Supreme Courts to enact the Rules of Professional Conduct into law was the response of the American Bar Association to the FBI's decimation of the Cook County Courthouse in Operation Greylord.

To address the corruption of the judiciary, the American Bar Association sought to make it illegal to prosecute a judge within a state by making it unlawful for an Attorney General or a District Attorney to take any action to prosecute judicial corruption and injustice as it would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.

This was a deliberate action by the American Bar Association which successfully undermined the judicial branch at every level of the judiciary in every state. It further extends into the federal courts.

The Judicial branch has abused it's power at the behest of the American Bar Association.
The Judicial branch has conspired to conceal the sedition by the American Bar Association.
The Judicial branch has had their authority usurped by the American Bar Association.

When South Africa wrote their Constitution in the 90's, they recognized that the judiciary was the power behind apartheid. The critics of the apartheid system were victimized and incarcerated through the courts. South Africa recognized the opportunity for abuse and witnessed the abuse of power occurring in the United States judiciary. They acted to prevent the abuse of judicial power.

It is necessary that the US Congress take constitutional action with regard to sedition and usurpation by the American Bar Association.

The American Bar Association has a full organization structure similar to a government with a hierarchy of elected governors and elected delegates.

The American Bar Association's secret usurpation of the authority of the judicial branch denied the people from the protections of the United States Constitution .

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality demonstrates the relationship between the membership and concealing the truth from the American People even where the rights and privileges provided by the US Constitution have been denied to a large segment of the population.

The American Bar Association of and by its organization and actions to usurp the authority of the judiciary and undermine the United States Government represents a government within the government which has demonstrated successful attempts to control the legitimate government.

The American Bar Association is hereby requested to cease and desist their existence as an organization; to take immediate actions to cease operations and close every office and building belonging to the organization and any associated and related organizations in states, cities, towns and counties nationwide; shut down their internet presence; hold no further meetings of its membership; conduct no further training of its members; cease publication and dissemination of any documents; sell all assets belonging to the organization with proceeds to be secured to permit compensation to victims who have suffered harm and damages resulting from the American Bar Associations actions to undermine and usurp the authority of the Judicial Branch.


A CALL FOR VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION OF ABA MEMBERS IN GOVERNMENT

Senators and Representatives in Congress, holders of office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States have participated in insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution and the People of the United States abusing the authority of their office in violation of the public trust.

A Call For Elections to replace the membership of the American Bar Association currently holding positions of authority within the United States Government.


REBOOT THE US CONSTITUTION

Time to REBOOT the US Constitution - with one change. It is not logical to permit the judiciary to manage the laws under which it operates as they have demonstrated their failure in that regard.

AG Kathleen Kane demonstrates Rule 1.6 Confidentiality

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane neglected to include the following disclaimer in the Sandusky Report. This DISCLAIMER would have eliminated the questions raised by the report.

D I S C L A I M E R

The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, the Attorney General's office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers. The Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandate confidentiality of client information where the information - would affect the integrity of the judiciary, - would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office, - would expose individual liability, - would adversely affect their client.

AS SUCH...

The Report to the Attorney General in the Investigation of Gerald Sandusky may not legally present - anything which exposes a negative impact of the judiciary - anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Tom Corbett - anything which exposes misconduct of Governor Tom Corbett - anything which exposes misconduct of Acting Attorney General William H. Ryan, Jr - anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Linda Kelly - anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Kathleen Kane - anything which exposes misconduct of the Attorney General's office - anything which exposes misconduct of Frank Fina - anything which exposes misconduct the Commonwealth - anything which exposes misconduct of any state agency - anything which exposes misconduct, participation or acts of obstruction by any of the above in their individual capacity, or as a conspiracy - anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 3, 2009 - anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on May 2, 2009 - anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 9, 2012 - anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 18, 2012 - anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on June 16, 2012 - anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on July 4, 2012 - anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on November 21, 2013 - anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to create, modify or fine tune any "LAW" regarding the Confidentiality of Email concealed within the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Further, acting as Attorney General, I have contracted the creation of the report to Widener University law professor and former federal prosecutor H. Geoffrey Moulton. ( You might say "I am his client." and that the Rules of Professional Conduct mandate his confidentiality for my protection. ) Because, I AM. and IT DOES.

The Report additionally will not contain any information regarding the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 - CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION which was filed in federal court on August 8, 2013 (by two men who do not have to maintain confidentiality so we do it for them) seeking to restore the constitutional rights of litigants while restoring the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession and to deliver to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.

The Challenge now approaches the United States Supreme Court and the United States Congress where every level of the state and federal judiciary has ignored the clear evidence of the Courts' denial of constitutional rights and demonstrated their own actions to prevent resolution of the matter which was served to fifty-six states attorneys general - all of whom defaulted on the matter... YET, THE COURT IGNORED THEIR DELIBERATE DEFAULT.

P.S.

Yes, I shot my mouth off during my campaign for Attorney General of Pennsylvania, AND I promised to investigate Attorney General Tom Corbett's mishandling of the Sandusky case, AND I believed Corbett to be stalling the case so it would not impact his run for Governor, AND I was elected to the position of Attorney General, AND I have an obligation to the People of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, BUT, as Attorney General, these corrupt and incompetent horses asses are NOW my clients, my boss, and my staff... The RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT mandate confidentiality.

With regard to the non-participation of the Pennsylvania State Police in the preparation and assembly of this report.... Did someone tell the PSP that we wouldn't publish anything they might have to say because of our confidentiality mandate? Their participation would have potentially require a great deal of redaction and editing.

The Pennsylvania State Police do NOT have a Confidentiality Mandate. If they were to issue a report, I imagine it would be different.



1.6 Confidentiality of Information - While the Model Rule 1.6(a) duty of confidentiality is closely related to the attorney-client privilege, it is broader in scope than the attorney-client privilege, “which is a rule of evidence,” or “the work product immunity which is a rule of procedure.”

Rule 1.6 causes a mandated confidentiality of information regarding injustice and judicial corruption.

This was demonstrated in Luzerne County where Kids For Cash was IGNORED by every judge, district attorney, prosecutor and lawyer... until Judge Ann Lokuta violated the law and called the FBI to report Ciavarella et al. Ann Lokuta was disciplined and removed from the bench for her violations of Rule 1.6.

The Foreclosure Crisis nationwide was caused similarly by an ACT OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT resulting in the loss of constitutional rights and the loss of homes to fraudulent actions filed by lawyers (and judges) MANDATED to maintain confidentiality.

THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS LET THIS HAPPEN TO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.
THEY. LET. IT. HAPPEN.

Rule 1.6 mandates that an Attorney General ignore judicial corruption and injustice
- without regard for the number of children improperly incarcerated by a judge,
- without regard for the number of homes foreclosed upon using fraudulent documents,
- without regard for basic constitutional, civil and human rights,
- without regard for the denial of equal protection of the law,
- without regard for the law,
- without regard for an oath of office,
- without regard for ethics or morality, and
- without mercy for the victims overwhelmed, destitute and pushed to their limits who commit suicide.

Rule 1.6 DELIBERATELY PREVENTS LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL...

MANDATORY Judicial Corruption is NOT FUNNY

The tag line of this new television sitcom is UPHOLDING THE RULES BY DAY. BREAKING THEM BY NIGHT.

There is a major flaw in that line. The courts are NOT upholding any rules. The American judicial system is broken. There is nothing funny about the injustice in America.

The American courts are NOT upholding the rules, laws, procedures or constitutions. The arrogance and disdain of the judges who don't even pretend to follow law, ethics, morals, etc... The judges need not be concerned... their injustice will be ignored on appeal and escalation. The judges can 'make shit up' and violate every procedure to prevent their crime from being exposed.

The essence of the judiciary is their integrity and reputation.
Judicial integrity is mandated.
Judicial integrity may not be corrupted or adversely affected.
That is LAW.
A law the judges wrote for themselves.
The People want and expect a judiciary with integrity.
You do not obtain integrity
- by ignoring the judiciary's complete lack of integrity.
- by law that the integrity of the courts may not be impeached.
- by enacting laws which prevent exposure or prosecution of judicial corruption
- by creative interpretation of the US Constitution,
- by making people call judges 'YOUR HONOR' when truthfully they lack honor and have no shame in demonstrating it.

The judiciary is fully self-aware and informed YET continues to ignore the constitutional mandate of the judicial branch. A court majority is impervious to arguments about its proper behavior.

The American courts are in a tailspin in every state... yet, no one is doing anything except watching and pointing it out.

KIDS FOR CASH: A judge denied constitutionally protected rights of children, sent the kids to jail in a kickback scheme, destroyed their young lives, crushed their families, while the lawyers and district attorney and public defenders and attorneys general DID NOTHING. Further, THEY FAILED TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY WERE UNABLE TO DO ANYTHING. THIS WENT ON FOR YEARS AND YEARS AFFECTING THOUSANDS.

THE REASON: A law which mandates CONFIDENTIALITY also mandated confidentiality of the application of the law. The Rule is called CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. Same rule. Same number 1.6 Same title. EVERY STATE. Rolled out over 20 years, starting in the mid-80's.

Once a litigant was the victim of judicial injustice, their basic rights were lost. They did NOT have equal protection under the law. There was no liberty and justice. There is no escaping further injustice.

FORECLOSURES: MILLIONS of people discovered the loss of their rights through unlawful and fraudulent foreclosure actions. They still are losing their homes every day. Once the injustice starts, the courts just ruin you without mercy. Suicide is the more humane option when facing this type of terroristic attack on every aspect of your life through fraudulent litigation and deliberate injustice.

No one has been prosecuted in the Foreclosure Crisis. WHY? Confidentiality of Information requires the corruption and injustice delivered by the courts to be suppressed and ignored without explanation.

The robo-signed and fake deeds presented to the court; the false business names utilized by lawyers who refused to identify their client (a plaintiff without standing), THE FRAUD UPON THE COURT which lead to the loss of family homes nationwide by the millions was NOT addressed by any court. The law was ignored in the courts and on appeal. The Courts failure to address their injustice caused the cases to grow exponentially. Any lawyer who wanted to steal ANY house only needed to file with the courts. It did not even matter if the victim had no mortgage. The judiciary became so complacent that they ignored facts, crimes, misleading financial information, fraud, etc...

When the judges recognized that their integrity was suffering because of their injustice, the Legislatures created a mandatory mediation process to prevent the cases from getting before a court. The lawyers could now terrorize people and steal homes without involving the court and hurting the integrity of the court.

The court did not respect the victim, the victim's rights or the law. The court did not respect itself demonstrating a failure of ethics, morality and any humanity or empathy. The court addressed their integrity issue - while taking no action which could increase their integrity. The courts removed themselves allowing the foreclosures to continue through outside mediation where facts were still a non-essential element.

The courts permitted the lawyers to cause financial havoc by foreclosure fraud in the courtroom, outside the courtroom, while denying equal protection of the law, and obstructing and preventing prosecution of the crime because of a mandate to protect the integrity of the courts. No one ever explained it. There is a reason no one was prosecuted for the fraud. The MANDATE for CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION had been silently concealing injustice and corruption since the mid-80's. The number of victims had grown to the point where the tactic of isolation by poverty was no longer effective. The mandate of silence continued to protect the integrity of a judiciary which failed the American people. Judicial arrogance without shame. The only believer in justice was the victim who had no choice but to hope and not to despair.

The judiciary violated the public trust, ignored the US Constitution and state constitutions and MANDATED the silent participation of every judge, every lawyer, every court.

The lawyers in the US Congress and the state legislatures must remain silent, too.
The non-lawyers speak out about the injustices and nothing ever gets fixed.
The non-Lawyers informed about the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 are instructed by the lawyers to SHUT UP. They further suggest that the revelation of the judiciary's sedition would undermine American society. The continued abuse of judicial authority undermines the American government every day.

Continuing the crime and injustice of the judiciary undermines American society and the human and civil rights of every American. It was NOT always this way... there used to be the proverbial 'good ole boys' network that ignored the occasional corruption in a discretionary manner.

RULE 1.6 IS A MANDATE ENACTED BY THE COURTS
WHICH IS AGGRESSIVELY ENFORCED BY THE COURTS
WHICH REQUIRES THE PARTICIPATION OF EVERY COURT
AND EVERY LEVEL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT - Lawyers, District Attorneys, Attorneys General

The court addressed their responsibility for the shift from a discretionary participation to a MANDATORY participation in their injustice? Further injustice and denial of rights. Financial ruin. Destroying their victim because their victim survives and MUST return to the court for justice. There can be no denying the deliberate motivation and intent of the judiciary when the actions of the court defy law, procedure or explanation.

The court cannot tell you why THEY are mistreating you and addressing your survival of their injustice with contempt because THE COURT MANDATED IT TO BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. Your lawyer is also obligated NOT to inform you. Your lawyer may NOT take any action to address the courts denial of your constitutional rights without facing disciplinary action. If you sue your lawyer, the courts will cover for the lawyer who was covering for the court. The courts have no integrity - to console themselves they destroy other people's integrity. Broken, right?

This deliberate and intentional law designed to corrupt, usurp and undermine the american government through the judicial branch is undeniable. The malice and terror inflicted on the victims of judicial injustice is unspeakable - because the courts won't listen, and they have mandated everyone in law enforcement to silence. Any lawyer who attempts to reveal the issue is swiftly disciplined, suspended or disbarred... AND, they take Rule 1.6 to the grave and beyond.

For proof that the courts are acting with malice aforethought and deliberate intent to undermine the US Constitution, the actions of the courts to diminish the authority of the only Law Enforcement Authority who is NOT required to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. The participation of the county District Attorney, the usurper of the constitutional authority of the sheriff, misleads, distracts obstructs and prevents the sheriff from enforcing the law. Case law is application/misapplication of law by the court. CASE LAW IS NOT LAW.

The necessity of misleading the sheriffs out of their constitutional authority.

There is no doubt that we live today under an altered constitutional regime, where the rules are no longer supplied by a written document but by courts defining the powers of government ad hoc, through their own case law.

This profound change from our previous order of government is hidden by political and judicial rhetoric that give honor to and even cites the written constitution. It is further obscured by the fact that this new regime was not ratified by amendment or constitutional convention.

Where a real constitutional right of one person is being violated with the unanimous apathy of the rest of the United States, that right must be vindicated. No amount or length of majority inertia can legitimate what the courts are doing to that right.

JUSTICE IS COMING. EVERY. PERSON. MATTERS

HOW TO... Unconstitutional Corruption and Injustice

The constitution is very clear and concise about the authority of the sheriff.

The problem arose when the Rules of Professional Conduct were enacted into law by the court, without the legislature and or the governor.

Efffective 4-1-88, there was no lawful way to prosecute injustice or judicial misconduct in Pennsylvania. The rules made it unlawful for a District Attorney or Attorney General to do so. This was intentional and deliberate - protecting the integrity of the court by mandating a conspiracy of confidentiality and ignoring their crimes.

It was made very clear in KIDS FOR CASH - when no one stopped the judge and everyone knew what he was doing was wrong. The immorality and lack of ethics demonstrated by judges and lawyers was shameful.

A fly in the ointment. The sheriff had constitutional authority to prosecute AND was not required to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. SO... the judges and lawyers and courts diminished the authority of the sheriffs through litigation and case law. Basically removing all of the sheriffs constitutional power, BUT not doing it in the Constitution where people would notice.

The sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer in the county. NOT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY who usurped the power.

from the Pennsylvania Sheriffs Association

The Sheriff is empowered to appoint deputies, and the deputies have the same powers as the Sheriff when performing their duties. the Sheriff is also invested with the power of the "posse comitatus" (the power or force of the county), which is the power to call upon "the entire population of the county above the age of fifteen, which the Sheriff may summon to his assistance in certain cases, to aid him in keeping the peace, and in pursuing and arresting felons." Today, the Sheriff, like all law enforcement officers, is faced with unprecedented challenges. However, if history is a guide, there is little question that the Office of Sheriff will adapt, grow, and change to meet the needs of modern law enforcement. The Office of Sheriff is an integral part of the American law enforcement system; a descendant of an ancient and honorable tradition. Office of Sheriff in Pennsylvania The office of the sheriff was recognized in the earliest reports of English law. Throughout history, the sheriff was recognized as the chief law enforcement officer in his shire or county. This status remains today, unless it has been changed by statutory law. The sheriff is also given authority to appoint deputies which are necessary in order to properly transact the business of his office. The requirement for training of deputy sheriffs is specifically provided by stature, i.e., the Deputy Sheriffs' Education and Training Act (1984 P.L. 3 No.2). However, based upon a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, a deputy sheriff needs training similar to police officers to enable a deputy sheriff to enforce specific laws of Pennsylvania. A review of statutory law provides little guidance in addressing the issue of the duties, power, and authority of a sheriff. THE PA CONSTITUTION refers to the Sheriff as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the County. Case law provides that, although a sheriff's primary responsibilities are to the courts, the sheriff retains all arrest powers he/she had at common investigation of crime. CASE LAW is NOT law. It is how the courts have applied the law. It can be proven that the courts acted to diminish the authority of the sheriff to avoid their own arrest for sedition, undermining the state and federal governments, abusing the power of their office under color of law, in a conspiracy where they have denied and prevented the constitutional rights of the people. More importantly, since the sheriff retains all arrest powers he/she had at common law, he/she has the authority to enforce the criminal laws as well as the vehicle laws of Pennsylvania.

The Rules of Professional Conduct once made law included a major problem... when victimized by an injustice, the target has no escape, no equal protection under the law, and no recourse. Returning to the courts to address the court's injustice is an exercise in futility. Unfortunately, the victim must exhaust the state courts and be further victimized until being able to file in the federal courts... where the same failure of ethics and integrity requires appeal and escalation. It is understandable that these matters usually end in homelessness, prison or suicide. It was designed to be corrupt by the American Bar Association.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is a case which is doing just that. The sacrifice of judicial integrity is embarrassing to the judicial branch of government in the state and the federal levels. They just spew back stupidity by making false, irrelevant and unsubstantiated and unsupported statements. And the next level of accountability does the same.

The issue is fully documented on the court record. Common Pleas Court. Superior Court. PA Supreme Court. Eastern District Court. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Even a cursory review of the Challenge and the supporting cases demonstrate the problem AND THE DELIBERATE FAILURE OF THE COURTS TO ADDRESS THE INJUSTICE WITHIN THE JUDICIARY.

The victim has no choice but to persevere and continue to pursue the case in higher courts... with each court shamefully acting by embarrassing itself in their opinions and briefs. The courts clearly demonstrate their lack of any ethics, morals or integrity and their complete disdain for the US Constitution.

The Challenge is now heading before the US Supreme Court and the US Congress. The ABA undermined the judiciary and usurped the power of the legislatures in every state and federally. JUSTICE IS COMING

If you want to do something evil, do it inside something boring

"If you want to do something evil, do it inside something boring." - John Oliver


How many people have read the Rules of Professional Conduct?


How many NON-LAWYERS have read the Rules of Professional Conduct?


The Rules of Professional Conduct directly apply only to lawyers and legal professionals, but collaterally some of the laws are unconstitutional. Once a person is affected by the unconstitutional aspect, they lose their rights.

No Constitutional protections. No equal protection under the law.

Oh, and your lawyer is not allowed to tell you about it, or explain it, or fight against it. They would be disciplined or disbarred.

NO HELP. NO ESCAPE. NO HOPE ... until you find out why.

Every lawyer is required to follow Rule 1.6 even after their death. So even a retired lawyer, or a disbarred lawyer, is not lawfully allowed to present the issue. What better way to conceal deliberate crime, judicial corruption and terroristic legal actions - like foreclosure based on fraud, child trafficking, financial ruin by false litigation, false incarceration....

The 90+ pages of laws enacted by the state supreme courts which undermine justice and make judicial misconduct and corruption impossible to expose and prosecute within the state, and further avoids attention unless someone violates the RULES and asks for federal intervention.

Even when the report of corruption is investigated and prosecuted by the federal government, the person who reported it is disciplined for violating the Rules.

A review of the Rules requires more than a cursory review of the rules. Each rule contains comments which are fully incorporated into the rules and explain how each rule is to be applied and interpreted. Most of the comments further refer to another rule by cross reference.

The needle in the injustice haystack... Rule 1.6 - CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

The unconstitutional aspect is buried in a book of laws you do not have to follow,...
inside a rule which every lawyer understands to be attorney-client privilege, ...
where on the surface the rule requires all misconduct, or the appearance of misconduct to be reported,...
but, in the comments section every requirement to report the misconduct is excused...
and there is a MANDATE to conceal anything which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary or the legal profession.

The American Bar Association has demonstrated their knowledge that IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING EVIL, DO IT INSIDE SOMETHING BORING.

And if you dare to survive to expose their crime,
every aspect of your life will be destroyed...
EVERY ASPECT...
to conceal their crime.

When CAROLYN TORNETTA CARLUCCIO learned that the corruption of the judiciary was documented and on the court record, she issued a deliberately defective and void court order where she lacked jurisdiction - throwing me out of my home, selling it illegally, disposing of EVERYTHING I owned.
She knew her order was defective and void.
She knew her actions were not part of her judicial immunity.
She knew other judges would not expose her crime.
She knew her actions would negate the judicial immunity for the entire matter.
The matter has been before 20 judges of the Montgomery County Judiciary.
Their terror and injustice is documented on the court record since 2007.
The matter has been stalled on Appeal in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
The county judges know they have committed treason.
The county judges know the Appeals Court will become involved in concealing their treason.
At the time she issued her MALICIOUS defective and void order and subsequent orders designed to cause desperation and suicide, Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio was the President of the Montgomery County Bar Association.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio's prior employment in the US Attorneys Office grants her an exemption from any investigation by that office.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio believes herself to be untouchable.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio brags about her breach of ethics in Real Estate dealings where she has had a clear conflict of interest.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio is a carefully and deliberately constructed judicial sociopath, and to hear her floundering from the bench MAKING INCREDIBLE SHIT UP you discover she is completely stupid.

The crimes remain unprosecuted because District Attorney Risa Ferman can't prosecute a judge.
The crimes remain unprosecuted because Attorney General Kathleen Kane can't prosecute a judge.
The crimes remain unprosecuted because Attorney General Linda Kelly couldn't prosecute a judge.
The crimes remain unprosecuted because Attorney General Tom Corbett couldn't prosecute a judge.
The crimes remain unprosecuted because the FBI will not enter a jurisdiction without an invitation from the District Attorney or the Attorney General.
The crimes continue.

There are now three Appeals before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania... each being prevented and obstructed by the judges... Carluccio, Page and Weilheimer.
The appeals court judges will become involved in the treason of the lower court judges.

The Federal Court judges have demonstrated their corruption, treason and conspiracy to conceal the matter.

Their terror has not stopped. I face it every minute of every hour of every day... since 2007. They won't stop. There is no incentive for them to stop. They believe themselves to be untouchable. There is no relief. There is no escape...

It became necessary to find out why... and I found Rule 1.6 which undermined every court in the United States. Written by the American Bar Association to deliberately undermine JUSTICE. They have succeeded in undermining and nullifying the entire Judicial Branch of he American government.

Sedition... by an Organization... Conspiracy of CONFIDENTIALITY.

It could have been resolved at any time by judges and lawyers who recognized the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.
When I 'made a federal case out of it' it could have been resolved, but the federal courts stuck their heads up their asses.
So it is going to require an Act of Congress for me to get divorced... and they exposed the deliberate corruption of the American Bar Association and their effective overthrow of the United States Government... Everything that goes before the judiciary is without jurisdiction as it is biased by the sedition and treason of the ABA and missing a very essential element of due process.

Rule 1.6 - Occam's Razor

"Occam's Razor" is a principle which suggests that "all things being equal, the simplest answer is usually the right one."

Rule 1.6 is the simplest answer to the corruption and injustice in the United States and the nationwide indications that the United States Constitution is being ignored and people are losing their constitutional rights.

Rule 1.6 demonstrates it's fault and can be applied to EVERY story of injustice, judicial corruption, failure of law enforcement to act and deliberate acts of lawlessness within the law enforcement community.

Kids for Cash Sandusky @ Penn State The National Foreclosure Crisis The Injustice in Family Courts The Injustice in Criminal Courts Malicious Abuse of Power Under Color of Law

If you have a matter which defies explanation, write it in the COMMENTS section below. I can likely explain it by applying Rule 1.6

Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional, unethical, immoral, corrupting, and an unnecessary mandate within any system of justice.

Rule 1.6 has undermined the Judicial Branch of the United States government. The actions in the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 has demonstrated that the federal courts refuse to address their responsibility for the 'law' and have further engaged in an unconstitutional and fraudulent conspiracy to deliberately deny, obstruct and prevent the rights and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

THE BEAUTIFUL THING is that once Rule 1.6 removed, all the laws currently in place are good.

Justice restored.

All the reforms which failed because of the secret override enabled by Rule 1.6 begin to actually function. As it stands the reforms may have only been attempts by the corrupt to misdirect attention from their conspiracy to conceal their involvement and responsibility.

MEETING: Senator Pat Toomey

Met and exchanged documents and supporting information at Senator Pat Toomey's office in Philadelphia this morning. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was presented.

The meeting covered the who, what where, why, how and when in a very short time... with supporting articles and references.

Requested Senator Toomey review and assist in editing of the request for congressional intervention. (Draft Copy)

The meeting ended with us offering to be available to address any questions and provide support and evidence of any issue which is challenged.

Senator Toomey is NOT a lawyer and is NOT MANDATED under Rule 1.6 to ignore injustice and judicial corruption.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

---

After the meeting at Senator Toomey's office, we walked to Senator Casey's office a few blocks away. Though Sen. Casey's misinformed contact person had refused to arrange any meeting with us, we provided the handouts which were given to Senator Toomey and offered to address any questions or issues which Senator Casey might have on the matter.

We also requested Senator Casey's review and input regarding the the request for congressional intervention document. (Draft Copy)

Senator Casey IS a Lawyer and IS MANDATED under Rule 1.6 to take no action which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary and the reputation of lawyers... even when those actions deny constitutionally protected rights.

Senator Casey's father was the Governor of Pennsylvania in 1987/1988 when the Rules of Professional Conduct were promulgated and enacted into law by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

US Congress - Request for Intervention

---

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
requires the action of the United States Congress
to address a problem created by the Judicial Branch
which by its own authority
enacted a mandate for injustice
which sacrifices the judiciary's integrity and
prevents the court from lawful action to resolve the problem.

---

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 exists because of a necessity. Litigants in the American Courts have experienced a loss of constitutionally protected rights and privileges. The state courts fail to consider their responsibility for the loss of constitutional rights of a litigant which leaves the litigant without any recourse.

The litigant is forced to petition the court to address the loss of rights, however the court fails to recognize and acknowledge responsibility. Further, the court fails to realize that the litigant has no choice but to return to the court for justice which will never occur.

The litigant realizes he has lost his rights, BUT it is not until the matter can be removed to a higher court that the evidence which demonstrates and corroborates the loss of rights presents itself.

The lower court is permitted to take any actions to deny, prevent and obstruct justice in the Appeals court. The Appeals court neglects to address the actions or enforce the Rules of Civil Procedure or the Rules of Appellate Procedure. There is no protection under law accorded to the victim.

Judges issue orders without regard for the rule of law, proper procedure, due process or a lack of jurisdiction.

The victim soon learns that a defective and void court order is more powerful than the United States Constitution. No judge will review the order and address the defects and lack of jurisdiction. Case law, precedent and procedures are summarily dismissed and ignored by the court.

This is a deliberate result of the action intended when the judge issued the defective and void order. Judges refer to these orders as 'unappealable'.

There is no escaping the damage when the court is not lawfully permitted to address the injustice caused by the issuing judge;
when district attorneys will not take any action to prosecute the corruption;
when the attorney general will not take any action to prosecute the corrupt judge;
when the judicial conduct board will take no action against the judge;
when the clear lack of jurisdiction additionally removes the judge's immunity;
when federal law enforcement will not respond to your complaints unless invited into the jurisdiction by a District Attorney or Attorney General;
where both the District Attorney and Attorney General are lawyers who according to the Rules of Professional Conduct may not take any action which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary.

The victim litigant is isolated and further victimized while every court and every level of law enforcement fails to act in any regard to the injustice and the collateral crimes which occur based on the defective and void order.

Without empathy or mercy, the court annihilate the litigant with only possible futures for the victim litigant. (1) Homeless/destitute, (2) incarceration or (3) suicide.

At this point, it became necessary to determine why everyone believed their inaction contrary to the law and the responsibilities of their office and their oath was acceptable.

After evaluating the relationship of those involved (ALL LAWYERS AND JUDGES) a review of the Rules of Professional Conduct revealed that Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct made every failure to act lawful. The failure to act to address the injustice and judicial corruption was MANDATED by law.

The cross references within the Rules of Professional Conduct revealed the needle in the haystack of injustice. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information. The courts and law enforcement were not doing anything and refusing to explain their inaction, or misrepresenting their inaction as a lack of jurisdiction. The Attorney General had jurisdiction to act, but lacked a lawful ability to act pursuant to Rule 1.6.

Rule 1.6 prevented the prosecution of judges for injustice and corruption. The intent to abuse the power of the judiciary and violate the public trust was deliberate, intentional, undeniable and demonstrative of a conspiracy concealed by every level of state and federal court.

Reacting to the FBI's Operation Greylord which decimated the Cook County Judiciary and Courthouse, the American Bar Association encouraged the Code of Professional Conduct be enacted by the state supreme courts into law. The Rules of Professional Conduct replaced a discretionary ethical aspect with a MANDATE to maintain confidentiality where information would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.

Instead of promoting a strong sense of ethics, morality and integrity in the judiciary, the enacted Rules of Professional Conduct would MANDATE participation of each judge to sacrifice their integrity to conceal the injustice and corruption of the judiciary.

Whenever an injustice caused by Rule 1.6 was exposed and prosecuted, the state supreme court modified Rule 1.6 to close the loophole. These edits on the record provide breadcrumbs which reveal evidence of the true intent and purpose of enacting Rule 1.6 into law.

By the state Constitution, the County Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the county. The Sheriff has the constitutional authority, the resources and the staff available to him to prosecute the injustice and corruption of the judiciary.

Yet contrary to the state constitution, the County Sheriffs have a greatly diminished role in law enforcement and take no action to enforce the law. It seems that there was a series of cases where the constitutional power and authority of the County Sheriff was progressively diminished. A Sheriff is not required to be a lawyer.

The only available law enforcement authority who was NOT mandated by the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Sheriffs, were convinced of their diminished law enforcement role by the judges and lawyers. The actions of the each level of state court improperly reducing the constitutional authority of the County Sheriff demonstrates the intention of the judiciary and the lawyers to abuse the authority of their position under color of law to avoid responsibility and prosecution while enabling an ability to commit deliberate criminal injustice and judicial corruption.

In a perverse and twisted irony, the Sheriffs responsibilities include protection of the judges on the county bench. The Sheriffs are protecting the criminally corrupt judiciary who undermined the Sheriff's constitutional authority in furtherance of sedition. The Sheriffs were criminally and deceptively manipulated to participate in injustice and judicial corruption while denying equal protection under the law to the victims and the public.

---

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6

Growing out of necessity, the challenge did not arise out of malice, seeking to restore the constitutional rights of the People, to restore the integrity of the judiciary, and the reputation of legal professionals.

By taking the approach to the matter as a preemptory challenge to the constitutionality of a state law, the challenge deliberately avoided the usual 1983 abuse of power dismissal doctrine.

The Challenge referred to their cases within the state ONLY for the purpose of evidentiary support demonstrating the loss of rights, loss of liberty, and denial of any respite from the constant litigation, false allegations and threats of future litigation.

The lack of any aggressive assignment of blame was perceived as weakness or foolishness by the court. EVEN WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE CLEARLY EXPOSED, the court demonstrated with unapologetic arrogance the deliberate intent for the judiciary to continue in their injustice, to persist in the sedition of each state government, to abuse the authority and power of the court without regard for the rights of the People or the United States Constitution.

While failing to substantiate statements in fact or law or doctrine, the federal court continued to carelessly issue orders and opinions without regard for relevance or consistency. The judiciary was determined to perpetrate a fraud and sacrifice their integrity.

The Rule is clearly and deliberately unconstitutional. Yet, knowledgeable judges and lawyers, senators and representatives, and government officials continued to perpetuate the injustice.

The matter should have ended immediately with the judiciary accepting responsibility and indicating RULE 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

However, the court actively participated in actions which ignored the law and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; undermining the default by every state attorney general (the only option which could have avoided adversely affecting the integrity of the federal judiciary); removing the state attorneys general from the matter; deliberate misrepresentations on the court docket; refusing to allow the Attorneys General to indicate their default; failing to certify the constitutional claim with each state; and failing to notify the United States Attorney General in this matter of national significance.


A LAW WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IS A NULLITY. Informed and knowledgeable judges and lawyers were continuing to sacrifice their reputation and integrity based on a nullity. The delusion of the court's flawed, unsubstantiated and irrelevant statements in opinions and "supporting" documents continued without any cognizance of reality or fact or law.

When filing with the district court, the plaintiffs did not intend to cause the judge to embarrass and humiliate himself in orders and opinions. Had the default been permitted, the court would have not been required to be directly involved and compelled to undermine the case and sacrifice the courts integrity.

When the court improperly accepted the late, incorrectly filed, irrelevant and undistributed filing from Randall Henzes purportedly on behalf of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, who had already defaulted in the matter, the Court created a requirement to be directly involved in the rulings and opinions in the matter. The nature of the case would require the court to conceal the facts, misrepresent the case and sacrifice the integrity of the court in a futile attempt to protect the integrity of the court.

On Appeal to the Third Circuit Court, the Appellants could do nothing to prevent the improper manipulation of the docket and the documents in the matter; the disappearance of fifty five state attorney general from the matter; the clerk of courts instructions to the state attorneys general to NOT PARTICIPATE in the Appeal; the failure of the clerk to respond to issue raised regarding the actions of the personnel in the clerk's office; further fraud and misinformation in the court's incomplete unsigned Per Curiam ruling and opinion; the unsigned court order denying reconsideration or rehearing en banc.

It is not the litigants intention for the Supreme Court of the United States to disgrace themselves by ignoring the matter and denying certiori; or, by reviewing the matter and sacrificing the integrity of the highest court in the United States for the illusion of judicial integrity which been usurped and undermined by corruption and injustice since the mid 80's.

RESPECTFULLY, The litigants request the United States Congress address the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 and permit the Supreme Court of the United States to maintain an illusion of judicial integrity.

As survivors of the systematic injustice and extreme corruption which lead to the discovery of the unconstitutional 'law';
and
the lawful presentation with an emphasis on resolution of the constitutional issue;
and
without irresponsibly attempting to cause civil unrest in the United States
while
the United States Attorney General and the Department of Justice prosecute the criminal sedition of the American Bar Association
and
the corruption of the judiciary at every level of the state and federal courts;
and
actions to restore the authority of the County Sheriff in accordance with the state constitution;

The litigants respectfully request the prompt resolution of this matter and restoration of the the rights of the People in accordance with the United States Constitution .

Enough is enough. It is time to act responsibly. REBOOT.

It is in every American's best interest that Congress act at this time.

We demand the United States Constitution be respected honored and fully enforced by the Judiciary, the US Congress and the President.

---

THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION - A RICO organization

WHAT COULD BE THE MOTIVATION?
Who are the fans of injustice? ...the fans of the lack of integrity demonstrated by the United States Judiciary? ...the fans of judges who lose their integrity when they write fraudulent and twisted orders and opinions? ...the fans of corruption which goes unprosecuted? ...the fans of the power attained by undermining and usurping the authority of the judicial branch? ...the fans of a multiple decade conspiracy to deny and undermine the U.S. Constitution and the People of the United States?

The membership of the American Bar Association is the only beneficiary from the injustice caused when their guideline set of 'trade rules' which were discretionary were enacted into law and became MANDATORY.

With malice aforethought, the ABA created an industry where their membership could thrive financially by charging litigants who could never expect to escape a deliberate mandatory injustice and abuse of power of the judiciary.

Concealing the Rule under attorney client privilege, the ABA aggressively enforces the Confidentiality of Information with disciplinary actions and requires that confidentiality continue even after the death with its members.

The ABA conspired with, trained and misinformed its members to keep from exposing their sedition as the organization usurped the authority of every state judiciary.


JUSTICE IS COMING. EVERY PERSON MATTERS.