August 3, 2014
Governor Tom Corbett
Sheriffs of Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Legislature
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information was applicable to the ‘Sandusky Report’. As such, the report presented a very skewed version of events because the mandate of confidentiality undermined it from any impact. For example, we present a possible disclaimer which clearly was not included with the report.
Disclaimer
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.
Office of the Attorney General
The Report from the Attorney General regarding 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
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- 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.
Report Production
Further, acting as Attorney General, Kathleen Kane contracted the creation of the report to Widener University law professor and former federal prosecutor H. Geoffrey Moulton.
(You might say “Kathleen Kane is his client.” and that the Rules of Professional Conduct mandate his confidentiality for her protection. Because, SHE IS… and IT DOES.)
Constitutionally
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) 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 has been presented to President Barack Obama and the United States Congress where every level of the state and federal judiciary have 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.
Political Campaign
Yes, Kathleen Kane shot her mouth off during her campaign for Attorney General of Pennsylvania,
AND
Kathleen Kane promised to investigate Attorney General Tom Corbett’s mishandling of the Sandusky case,
AND
Kathleen Kane believed Corbett to be stalling the case so it would not impact his run for Governor,
AND
Kathleen Kane was elected to the position of Attorney General,
AND
Kathleen Kane has an obligation to the People of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
BUT, as Attorney General, these corrupt and incompetent horses asses are NOW her clients, her boss, and her staff… The RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT mandate her confidentiality.
Pennsylvania State Police
With regard to the non-participation of the Pennsylvania State Police in the preparation and assembly of this report…. Did someone tell the PA State Police that we wouldn’t publish anything they might have to say because of the confidentiality mandate? The State Police participation would have potentially required a great deal of redaction and editing.
The Pennsylvania State Police do NOT have a Confidentiality Mandate. If they were to issue a report, 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.
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…
You attention to this matter of national importance is anticipated and expected. We are available to meet with you at any time to discuss this issue at length. Please contact us directly.
Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim
Showing posts with label Ann Lokuta. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ann Lokuta. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Everyone can be a victim of Rule 1.6 - Terrorism
An unconstitutional law enacted by the judiciary without any review during construction for constitutionality is further excluded from any 'checks and balances' because ONLY THE COURTS can decide constitutionality which causes judicial corruption and injustice to be ignored while denying basic constitutional rights.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality further mandates that lawyers take no action which would adversely affect the integrity of the court.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality further mandates that an Attorney General not expose corruption within the OAG, by state officials or other state agencies.
Rule 1.6 mandates the victim to be abused and terrorized within the courts made destitute, homeless or incarcerated until their suicide.
Rule 1.6 is so powerful that lawyers, attorneys general and judges will deny law, constitutional rights, human rights, and facts to conceal the corruption and injustice which it causes.
It only requires a judge and lawyer commit misconduct. The resulting injustice will overwhelm. Whether aware of the injustice's existence or not, the target experiences the loss of rights and the denial of the protection of the law. Even if the initial injustice is discovered, there is no method by which a victim may recover or survive. There is no possibility of regaining your rights where they have been deliberately denied by the judiciary.
The victim knows what it means to be terrorized. Any attempt to survive requires the court and judiciary to address the denial of rights. They don't. They won't. Ever. It's their law.
The law was deliberately written without opportunity for escape. It's intent was destruction. It has been allowed to foreclose on millions of people's homes. It has thrown innocent children in jail. It has denied parents of their children. It has thrown innocent people in jail.
Homeless. Destitute. Suicide. Incarceration. THE ONLY CHOICES UNDER RULE 1.6. Perseverance is self-torture. Survival is futile.
Rule 1.6 destroys HOPE last. Hope is requisite for justice - even where you know justice will be denied. There is no alternative. You must return to the corrupt court seeking justice that won't come... ...until you are dead.
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 continues to persevere on behalf of the survivors and to help further victims. BUT, I am exhausted... fighting the misinformation and corruption art every level of the courts. It proves my case against Rule 1.6, while it consumes my life and terrorizes every moment since 2006. There are no vacations, no breaks, no relief, ever... I understand why people break.
Please Persevere. I understand. Terror, destruction and isolation is no life.
Every. Person. Matters. JUSTICE IS COMING.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality further mandates that lawyers take no action which would adversely affect the integrity of the court.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality further mandates that an Attorney General not expose corruption within the OAG, by state officials or other state agencies.
Rule 1.6 mandates the victim to be abused and terrorized within the courts made destitute, homeless or incarcerated until their suicide.
Rule 1.6 is so powerful that lawyers, attorneys general and judges will deny law, constitutional rights, human rights, and facts to conceal the corruption and injustice which it causes.
| Kids for Cash corruption concealed the crimes of Judge Ciavarella. Judges, lawyers, prosecutors, district attorneys, attorneys general, public defenders, Supreme Court Justices, Judicial Conduct Boards, Disciplinary Boards,... THEY ALL CONSPIRED TO CONCEAL THAT A JUDGE WAS TRAFFICKING CHILDREN INTO A JAIL FOR KICKBACKS FOR YEARS. EVEN THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE HOW IT HAPPENED, AND HOW TO PREVENT IT FROM EVER HAPPENING AGAIN CONCEALED RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY FROM THEIR REPORT. (They were all lawyers and judges. They all knew.) |
| Judge Ann Lokuta who contacted federal authorities was disciplined for violating Rule 1.6 and removed from the bench. She may never hold judicial office again. |
It only requires a judge and lawyer commit misconduct. The resulting injustice will overwhelm. Whether aware of the injustice's existence or not, the target experiences the loss of rights and the denial of the protection of the law. Even if the initial injustice is discovered, there is no method by which a victim may recover or survive. There is no possibility of regaining your rights where they have been deliberately denied by the judiciary.
The victim knows what it means to be terrorized. Any attempt to survive requires the court and judiciary to address the denial of rights. They don't. They won't. Ever. It's their law.
The law was deliberately written without opportunity for escape. It's intent was destruction. It has been allowed to foreclose on millions of people's homes. It has thrown innocent children in jail. It has denied parents of their children. It has thrown innocent people in jail.
Homeless. Destitute. Suicide. Incarceration. THE ONLY CHOICES UNDER RULE 1.6. Perseverance is self-torture. Survival is futile.
Rule 1.6 destroys HOPE last. Hope is requisite for justice - even where you know justice will be denied. There is no alternative. You must return to the corrupt court seeking justice that won't come... ...until you are dead.
| If you have been involved in litigation and the following description fits. then you are a victim of Rule 1.6. "I am a sane man dealing with an absolutely insane situation. Every person in a position to help has acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter… they each make the situation worse… NO ONE HELPS… NO ONE HELPED… " |
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 continues to persevere on behalf of the survivors and to help further victims. BUT, I am exhausted... fighting the misinformation and corruption art every level of the courts. It proves my case against Rule 1.6, while it consumes my life and terrorizes every moment since 2006. There are no vacations, no breaks, no relief, ever... I understand why people break.
| It has annihilated my life. Every minute of every day of every week of every year form over 9 years. Not one moment of relief during that entire time. Destitute. Property destroyed. No protection of the law. Constant technology intrusions and attacks. Tech attacks against any friends or supporters - they disappear. Constant fraudulent litigation. Court orders issued without lawful jurisdiction. Ignored Appeals. Further harassing litigation without jurisdiction. Court Records denied and prevented from the appeals court. Somehow I have survived when I would have preferred suicide. I find Rule 1.6 which causes the situation. Only to discover it was intentionally written and enacted to destroy people, children, families,... Destruction without any empathy or mercy. Rule 1.6 is the purest most vile form of evil I have ever encountered in my life. |
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
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.
AS SUCH...
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.
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...
| 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...
Sunday, June 1, 2014
Kids for Cash... The deliberate failure to see Rule 1.6 impact
Rule 1.6 impacts a person quickly causing the loss of their rights and privileges protected by the United States Constitution. No one helps. No one explains.
Rule 1.6 impacts the judiciary as the judges sacrifice their integrity without explanation - the victims learn to have no faith or trust in the judiciary.
INTERBRANCH COMMISSION ON JUVENILE JUSTICE
So extraordinary were the circumstances that the executive, legislative and judicial branches of Pennsylvania government agreed to undertake a noncriminal investigation to determine the root causes of the breakdown of Luzerne County's juvenile justice system and to propose remedies.
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 FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPACT OF RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. Here's a few reasons / influences...
Prosecutors, defenders and probation officials had witnessed and had participated in proceedings in Ciavarella's courtroom.
The Commission finds a complex and nuanced picture in which many individuals may be seen to have shared the responsibility attributing their inaction and silence to inexperience, ignorance, fear of retaliation, greed, ambition, carelessness.
For some, hesitation to act stemmed from a quandry: They were not sure where to turn to report concerns.
For some there was a coinciding skepticism: What good would it do?
"WHAT GOOD WOULD IT DO?" is not coinciding skepticism. It is the impact of the unconstitutional 'law' that caused the moral and ethical quandry where injustice and denial of constitutional rights is mandated to conceal the corruption and injustice of the judiciary.
THE COMMISSION FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THEIR INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED BY PERSONS WHO MUST FOLLOW THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT?
AND THAT THE LAW MANDATES CONFIDENTIALITY?
AND HAD THE CORRUPTION BEEN REPORTED TO ANY SUPERIOR, OR HIGHER COURT OR DISCIPLINARY BOARD OR JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD, THEY TOO WERE MANDATED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY?
Silence, inaction, inexperience, fear of retaliation. Greed, ambition, carelessness. MAYBE.
BUT, There was no ignorance of the law requiring CONFIDENTIALITY... their failure to act was deliberate and deceptive and calculating.
Rule 1.6 mandates an obligation to maintain confidentiality where information
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary, or
- would reveal the misconduct of the lawyers office, or
- would expose individual liability of the lawyer, or
- would negatively impact their client.
Government lawyers are unsure of WHO their client even is…
- Public
- Government as a whole
- Branch of government in which employed
- Particular agency or department
- Responsible officers who make decisions with an agency or department.
Rule 1.6 concealed the single point of failure... itself.
After all, Rule 1.6 was why the District Attorney did not prosecute the judges or ever investigate.
After all, Rule 1.6 was why the Attorney General did not prosecute the judges or ever investigate.
After all, Rule 1.6 was why Judge Ann Lokuta was removed from the bench for reporting the corruption to the FBI. The Commission failed to interview Judge Ann Lokuta. The FBI involvement was in response to HER report. While the Commission was meeting, Judge Ann Lokuta was disciplined for violating Confidentiality of Information.
While the Juvenile Law Center may be credited with exposing the injustice and corruption, you must recognize that The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania didn't care about their complaint. NOT ONE BIT. Repeatedly dismissing it in every format submitted. Rule 1.6 required that they dismiss.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's own law enacted in 1987 (effective 1988) undermined their own power to act, or take steps to rectify the situation. Rule 1.6 sacrificed the judges integrity. Rule 1.6 prevented and denied justice.
Rule 1.6 undermines and causes the loss of the constitutional rights of the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Kids for Cash scandal exposes the deliberate actions of the 'law' and the effect on the families and the communities.
Post Operation Greylord, The ABA wanted to make sure judges could not be prosecuted for corruption and injustice... so the ABA made it possible to deny the constitutional rights of people and children leaving the victim with no other place to turn but to go to the wrongdoers and request justice - and when ignored and denied, they were forced to return again and again without mercy.
Injustice doesn't end injustice. It extends it.
References:
Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice
Summary of Recommendations
Progress Report
Kids for Cash Final Report
Kids for Cash Luzerne County Task Force
Kids for Cash Beck Report(Life before)
Lokuta Opinion
Lokuta Sanction
Lokuta Dissent
Lokuta Opinion and Order 2nd
Lokuta Opinion 2nd
Lokuta Order 1st
Lokuta Opinion and Order
Rule 1.6 impacts the judiciary as the judges sacrifice their integrity without explanation - the victims learn to have no faith or trust in the judiciary.
INTERBRANCH COMMISSION ON JUVENILE JUSTICE
So extraordinary were the circumstances that the executive, legislative and judicial branches of Pennsylvania government agreed to undertake a noncriminal investigation to determine the root causes of the breakdown of Luzerne County's juvenile justice system and to propose remedies.
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 FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPACT OF RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. Here's a few reasons / influences...
| THE COMMISSIONS MEMBERS | |
| Judge John M. Cleland | A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6. |
| Judge James A. Gibbons | A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6. |
| Judge John C. Uhler | A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6. |
| Judge Dwayne Woodruff | A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6. |
| Kenneth J. Horoho, Jr, Esquire | A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6. |
| Jason A. Legg, Esquire | A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6. |
| Robert L. Listenbee, Jr. Esquire | A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6. |
| George Mossee, Esquire | A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6. |
| Darren M. Breslin, Esquire | A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6. |
| Tod C. Allen | ??? |
| Valerie Bender | ??? |
| Ronald P. Williams | ??? |
| Witnesses who appeared before the commission: | |
| The president judge of Luzerne County | A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6. |
| the former district attorney | A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6. |
| the incumbent district attorney | A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6. |
| the county public defender | A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6. |
| assistant district attorneys | A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6. |
| assistant public defenders | A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6. |
| juvenile probation officials | ??? |
| former juvenile defendants | ??? |
| parents of juvenile defendants | ??? |
| school officials | ??? |
| county commissioners | ??? |
| officials of the Judicial Conduct Board | judges and lawyers mandated to follow Rule 1.6. |
| and others | ??? |
Prosecutors, defenders and probation officials had witnessed and had participated in proceedings in Ciavarella's courtroom.
The Commission finds a complex and nuanced picture in which many individuals may be seen to have shared the responsibility attributing their inaction and silence to inexperience, ignorance, fear of retaliation, greed, ambition, carelessness.
For some, hesitation to act stemmed from a quandry: They were not sure where to turn to report concerns.
For some there was a coinciding skepticism: What good would it do?
"WHAT GOOD WOULD IT DO?" is not coinciding skepticism. It is the impact of the unconstitutional 'law' that caused the moral and ethical quandry where injustice and denial of constitutional rights is mandated to conceal the corruption and injustice of the judiciary.
THE COMMISSION FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THEIR INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED BY PERSONS WHO MUST FOLLOW THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT?
AND THAT THE LAW MANDATES CONFIDENTIALITY?
AND HAD THE CORRUPTION BEEN REPORTED TO ANY SUPERIOR, OR HIGHER COURT OR DISCIPLINARY BOARD OR JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD, THEY TOO WERE MANDATED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY?
Silence, inaction, inexperience, fear of retaliation. Greed, ambition, carelessness. MAYBE.
BUT, There was no ignorance of the law requiring CONFIDENTIALITY... their failure to act was deliberate and deceptive and calculating.
Rule 1.6 mandates an obligation to maintain confidentiality where information
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary, or
- would reveal the misconduct of the lawyers office, or
- would expose individual liability of the lawyer, or
- would negatively impact their client.
Government lawyers are unsure of WHO their client even is…
- Public
- Government as a whole
- Branch of government in which employed
- Particular agency or department
- Responsible officers who make decisions with an agency or department.
After all, Rule 1.6 was why the District Attorney did not prosecute the judges or ever investigate.
After all, Rule 1.6 was why the Attorney General did not prosecute the judges or ever investigate.
After all, Rule 1.6 was why Judge Ann Lokuta was removed from the bench for reporting the corruption to the FBI. The Commission failed to interview Judge Ann Lokuta. The FBI involvement was in response to HER report. While the Commission was meeting, Judge Ann Lokuta was disciplined for violating Confidentiality of Information.
While the Juvenile Law Center may be credited with exposing the injustice and corruption, you must recognize that The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania didn't care about their complaint. NOT ONE BIT. Repeatedly dismissing it in every format submitted. Rule 1.6 required that they dismiss.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's own law enacted in 1987 (effective 1988) undermined their own power to act, or take steps to rectify the situation. Rule 1.6 sacrificed the judges integrity. Rule 1.6 prevented and denied justice.
Rule 1.6 undermines and causes the loss of the constitutional rights of the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Kids for Cash scandal exposes the deliberate actions of the 'law' and the effect on the families and the communities.
Post Operation Greylord, The ABA wanted to make sure judges could not be prosecuted for corruption and injustice... so the ABA made it possible to deny the constitutional rights of people and children leaving the victim with no other place to turn but to go to the wrongdoers and request justice - and when ignored and denied, they were forced to return again and again without mercy.
Injustice doesn't end injustice. It extends it.
References:
Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice
Summary of Recommendations
Progress Report
Kids for Cash Final Report
Kids for Cash Luzerne County Task Force
Kids for Cash Beck Report(Life before)
Lokuta Opinion
Lokuta Sanction
Lokuta Dissent
Lokuta Opinion and Order 2nd
Lokuta Opinion 2nd
Lokuta Order 1st
Lokuta Opinion and Order
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)