Lawyers and judges are required to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rule 1.6 - Confidentiality of Information is in the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The law mandates confidentiality of information where it will adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. The unconstitutional 'law' was followed by attorneys general, district attorneys, prosecutors, public defenders, and lawyers ... when clearly they all knew better and could see the injustice and corruption of the court which denied constitutional rights and ignored the rule of law. There is no way to address Rule 1.6 which will not adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.
The shame and unwillingness of the judiciary to take responsible action to correct the injustice of Rule 1.6 IS NOT ANY REASON FOR AMERICAN PEOPLE TO WAIT FOR THEIR RIGHTS. We have assembled a plan - a lawful plan which takes into account the public reaction and keeping the peace.
Rule 1.6 may explain why the judges and lawyers did nothing, however, it is not an acceptable excuse. An unconstitutional law is a nullity. They know that.
Rule 1.6 - Confidentiality of Information in The Rules of Professional Conduct enacted by the state supreme courts without the legislatures or the governors or any review of it's unconstitutional impact.
Once Rule 1.6 is declared unconstitutional, The US Constitution will be in full force and authority once again. It always has been as Rule 1.6 is a nullity, but the courts and lawyers were following Rule 1.6 and enforcing Rule 1.6.
We did the responsible thing in the situation. We took the matter directly to the federal court and did not request more than was necessary. We did not extrapolate or attempt to assign blame or responsibility. We provided and presented facts and indicated the sources which would corroborate our facts. It would seem that the courts failed to recognize the responsibility and restraint in our documents and our approach.
Terance Healy and Todd Krautheim on behalf of the United States filed the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 and served it upon the fifty-six state attorneys general. As non-Lawyers, Healy & Krautheim's filing was lawful and intended to restore their constitutional rights, to restore the integrity of the judiciary and the reputation of legal professionals, and to provide the Legislatures with their ability to perform their duties.
The Challenged was filed with the District court - the proper venue for a pre-emptive constitutional challenge where the court had jurisdiction. The Challenge was served upon the Attorneys General, with a concise Statement of their Claim of violation of the US Constitution. Each state Attorney General having the constitutional authority to enforce the federal court's ruling within their state.
The Challenge of Rule 1.6 got ONE POINT SIX'D itself when a member of the Office of the Attorney General filed a late motion after the Attorney General of Pennsylvania had defaulted. Rule 1.6 does not allow the Attorney General to reveal information which would expose a liability and affect the Office of Attorney General. The federal court would sacrifice their integrity by failing to address the facts and dismissing the matter where dismissal was not proper in law or doctrine.
The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal without signature, an while failing to address the issues and facts not reviewed on appeal. Any Hearing or Rehearing En BANC was denied without signatures of the court.
Now, the Challenge moves to the Supreme Court of The United States. The Challenge will be filed concurrently with the US Congress in an attempt to prevent the Supreme Court from sacrificing their integrity. We are fearful that the Supreme Court of the United States may be similarly mandated to conceal the matter and perpetuate the injustice and corruption. Where the Rule 1.6 loss of integrity has affected every court in the United States, Healy & Krautheim seek to allow SCOTUS to maintain at least a shred of their dignity by not requiring their participation in the matter further. Either way, the integrity of SCOTUS would be adversely affected by not granting certiori or by declaration that the law is unconstitutional.
Had Randall Henzes from the Office of the Attorney General not filed an improperly titled document; filing it LATE - after the default date had passed; without excuse or explanation; while failing to serve it upon the 55 other attorneys general while purporting to extend the due date for their Answer. Where the court would have been able to issue A DEFAULT RULING, Henzes' motion required the court to write opinions/memoranda where the court's integrity was further damaged on the record.
Fifty-five Attorneys General who did NOT file any response or appearance in federal court were prevented from DEFAULT in the matter. The Court ignored that the attorneys general had no notice, or awareness of the Request for Extension upon which to base any delay in responding.
Terance Healy, Todd Krautheim, the states Attorney Generals and the People of the United States (ALL OF THE PARTIES TO THE CHALLENGE) were denied the opportunity to present the issue to the government for resolution by the judiciary - who had caused the problem in the first place.
The Government has provided constant examples where the Constitution is being ignored. It is my sincere belief that there are people with integrity in the government who support our efforts in the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
Every news story with a controversy or injustice is affected by Rule 1.6 - There is something being kept confidential. Often Lawyers hire lawyers to make sure that any of their liabilities are confidential... and mandated to be confidential.
Perhaps, Rule 1.6 will prevent them from speaking until it is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
JUSTICE IS COMING.
The following movies were released in theaters in 2014... The Injustice and corruption of the judiciary is exposed. We only needed to find the needle in the haystack of injustice to correct the crisis.
DIVORCE CORP
KIDS FOR CASH
AMERICA
PERSECUTED
No comments:
Post a Comment