Overview of The Challenge to Rule 1.6

A law enacted by the state supreme court in every state without proper construction, without constitutional review, without involvement of any state legislature and without the signature of any governor designed to ignore judicial corruption and injustice which includes an aggressively enforced MANDATE of silence for all lawyers while ignoring, denying and preventing the constitutional rights of litigants.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6

Rule 1.6 affects civil, criminal, family, federal district and federal appeals courts making it impossible to address the loss of constitutional rights when committed by a judge.

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

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 and the Public. All Clients.

---

This is why Cash for Kids was ignored by the Attorney General, the Luzerne County District Attorney, every lawyer in Luzerne county, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Judicial Conduct Board.

This is why the 'Sandusky Report' released in 2014 failed to indicate any improper conduct. The Report also failed to include a disclaimer that Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandated the silence of the Attorney General regarding information about the Office of the Attorney General, the Governor, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, etc...

This is why millions of foreclosures were ignored by the Attorneys General nationwide with no prosecutions while millions of people lost their homes based on fraudulent and robo-signed deeds and other documents.

---

Rule 1.6 has undermined law enforcement and the judicial branch in the states and federally.

---

Rule 1.6 is a core part of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Most, if not all, rules point back to Rule 1.6 by cross-reference.

The ABA presented their Model Rules to each state supreme court for promulgation into law. As trade rules confidentiality was discretionary. As LAW, the confidentiality became an aggressively enforced mandate which denied people of constitutional rights and prevented anyone in law from acting on behalf of the victims against it's unconstitutional effect.

The victims having no protection of the law become 1) destitute/homeless 2) incarcerated or 3) suicidal.

RULE 1.6 CAUSES AN INESCAPABLE LOSS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
WHICH UNDERMINES THE STATE AND FEDERAL JUDICIARY.

Happy Holidays. Since 2007 Rule 1.6 injustice and terror has caused me to be destitute, alone and isolated on every holiday. Families cannot handle the stress which is placed upon the victim who cannot escape the constant litigation - a judicial farce where justice is NOT POSSIBLE when concealing injustice and fraud is MANDATED BY LAW.. Friends witness the injustices and are attacked for supporting the victim in any way. When your children are manipulated into participation in actions against you, it puts a massive level of humiliation and shame on them which prevents any chance of reconciliation. Rule 1.6 was designed to destroy people. Rule 1.6 is evil made lawful.

"The Justice System is broken."

PA CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE ANDY OSTROWSKI points towards the necessity of addressing the injustice and the failure of the judicial branch citing his experience fighting for constitutional rights of litigants.

These problems are the same issues which lead me to recognize the root cause of the problem and lead to my filing of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6



More Info:
Rule 521: NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE

How to include the Challenge in your filings with the Court

Politely and respectfully use the following paragraphs as a guideline to alerting the court of your knowledge of the loss of constitutionally protected rights in your case.

If there is silence... and it goes without any discussion or mention. Then, you have been clearly heard and understood.

The courts corruption and injustice is occurring in full view of knowledgeable litigants.

---

As a section before you close your legal filing....

---

COMPLAINT – CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

12. Plaintiff provides this Honorable Court with a copy of a document filed on August 8, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which challenges the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and has been served upon Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General and the Attorneys General of the United States. [ Exhibit D ]

13. “The Rules of Professional Conduct set out the minimum ethical standards for the practice of law and constitute a set of rules which all lawyers must follows.” – The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

14. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information causes a denial of the constitutionally protected rights to petition the Government for redress of grievances (First Amendment); causes a denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without duie process of law (Fifth Amendment); which causes the denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law by a State (Fourteenth Amendment).

15. Plaintiff believes that Defendant is a currently practicing legal professional who ‘must follow’ the Rules of Professional Conduct, and as such Plaintiff asserts that any misrepresentation made by Defendant will be lawfully ignored by this Honorable Court resulting in the denial of Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights.

16. The potential of a represented party intentionally introducing an act of fraud or misconduct which triggers the loss of constitutionally protected rights when facing a Pro Se litigant creates a situation which would demand strict actions regarding misconduct.

17. Those lawful practices endorsed and enabled by the Rules of Professional Conduct are unconstitutional and as such are a nullity.

18. Plaintiff does NOT ALLEGE knowledge of any prior misconduct by the Defendants, and is respectfully not acting with the intent to disparage, undermine or disrespect the Defendants or adversely affect the integrity of this Honorable Court.

Challenge13-4614

STANDING: Case and Controversy before the Court

How's this for some STANDING? THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6
THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE COURT

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane's deliberate and intentional failure to take any action regarding the denial of the constitutional rights of the litigants is the basis of the 'controversy' before the Court. The Attorney General has done nothing.

Attorney General Kane's failure to take any action results in the denial of the constitutional rights of the litigants. The Attorney General has failed to execute the responsibilities of the Office of Attorney General.

(So did Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly.
So did Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett.
So did every Attorney General upon whom the Challenge was served. How's that for some case/controversy and standing for fixing this nationwide problem?)

Attorney General Kane cites Article 5 Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution as the 'lawful' basis for non-responsibility and inaction.

'Lawful' BUT UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS NOT LAWFUL even when enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

The Attorneys General of Pennsylvania have repeatedly indicated a lack of jurisdiction or 'lawful' inability to become involved in the cases of the litigants and the basis for inaction.

The Plaintiff's challenge a law Rule 1.6 which collaterally results in the denial of their constitutional rights.

Any law which denies rights and liberties is repugnant to the US Constitution and is a nullity.

The Attorney General's 'lawful' inaction and 'lawful' failure to address an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is the Constitutional Controversy before the Court.

The Attorney General's 'lawful' actions are unconstitutional and are not lawful.

How's that for a case and controversy pursuant to Article III?
It's already been accepted that Rooker-Feldman and Younger are NOT valid doctrine for dismissal of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6.

---

NOW, TELL ME AGAIN WHY THE COURT FAILED TO ASK EACH STATE IF THE LAW WAS CONSTITUTIONAL? Why did the court fail to CERTIFY the Constitutional Challenge? I think that answer is clear.

THE COURT KNOWS THE ANSWER TO THE 'Is Rule 1.6 constitutional?' QUESTION.

Plaintiffs have stated that Rule 1.6 sacrifices the reputation and integrity of the judiciary.

'Lawfully but unconstitutionally' under Rule 1.6, the Attorney General is mandated to not reveal the unconstitutionality of Rule 1.6 as it applies to the litigants... The court knew this and failed to Certify the Constitutional Challenge.

Judicial Reputation and integrity sacrificed... and FAILED ANYWAY.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

KEEP CALM and CHALLENGE RULE 1.6

Robo-signing is an act of fraud upon the court. Once committed it results in the loss of constitutional rights and liberties from which any recovery by a litigant is obstructed, denied and prevented by Rule 1.6.

Any act of fraud or judicial misconduct can trigger the loss of constitutionally protected rights and liberties.

Rule 1.6 makes it legal for lawyers and judges to ignore you and to terrorize you without explanation.

Rule 1.6 makes the illegal lawful when committed by lawyers and judges.

Rule 1.6 also prevents any lawyer or judge from helping resolve any matter or helping to restore your rights. The only thing a lawyer can do after the Rule has been triggered is take your money... and get you to hopelessness, despair and suicide faster.

It wasn't always like this... Rule 1.6 was enacted into law. It was not constructed by a Legislature. It was not signed by any Governor. The Supreme Court in each state enacted the law which they are not lawfully permitted to revoke, rescind or annul.

Rule 1.6 went from being a guideline not to expose or prosecute judicial misconduct and corruption TO BEING A LAW WHICH DISCIPLINED ANY ATTORNEY OR JUDGE WHO TRIED TO EXPOSE JUDICIAL CORRUPTION MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY STATE TO PROSECUTE JUDGES AND UNLAWFUL FOR ANY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR ATTORNEY GENERAL TO REQUEST A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION.

IT IS NEVER TO YOUR ADVANTAGE TO BE UNINFORMED.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/ChallengeRule1.6/

The ONLY way to address this law which mandates INJUSTICE

What if you discovered there was a law which mandated injustice? preventing prosecution of those responsible? and that it was illegal to annul or strike the law? where the result was people lost their rights and the judiciary lost integrity.

No District Attorney could prosecute the injustice. No Attorney General could request an investigation by Federal authorities - the law made that unlawful.

The Supreme Court which enacted the law is precluded from removing it.

The only lawful way to remove the law is for a person to have been denied their rights by that law, suffered damages, had standing and a cause for relief and filed in federal court. No lawyer would be permitted to handle the case. THAT would not be lawful. The only lawful approach is by non-lawyers.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6. (Filed August 8, 2013)

Responsible Attorneys General, not lawfully permitted to take any action which would expose the corrupt law, would permit a default to occur and thus restore the constitutional rights of the people.

A Judge loses his integrity by issuing contradictory statements which do not support his decision.

A Judge refuses to reconsider his application of incorrect rules and procedures.

THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (Filed December 2, 2013)

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 ...

JUSTICE IS COMING.

Resurrect Justice

Lawyers undermined our founding documents.

The country is clueless to the occurrence, but fully aware of the effect.

Yet, they do nothing. They point to problems, but never a solution. They can't comprehend that it was made unlawful to end injustice - NO MATTER HOW BLATANT.

They made it lawful to ignore corruption. They made it mandatory to ignore injustice.

And when the cause was exposed the SILENCE became deafening.

The Solution is THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

The only guaranteed way to make a lawyer stop talking... deliver a copy.

The only guaranteed way to end further injustice in the courts... deliver a copy.

It's not going to get better until it is stopped. It is not going to stop until it is exposed.

EXPOSE INJUSTICE. Serve up a copy of the Challenge. JUSTICE IS COMING.


https://www.facebook.com/groups/ChallengeRule1.6/

Pssst...

Pssst... I have just explained why there seems to be so much injustice in the United States. Lawful failure to address the actions sacrifice the reputation and the integrity of the judiciary. That can now change,

---

Pssst... I have just explained Cash for Kids in Pennsylvania. How it happened and how it could happen again. That can now change.

---

Pssst... I have just explained the foreclosure crisis in the United States. How it happened and how the fix agreement fails and how it continues to happen still but more quietly now. That can now change.

---

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6

Lawful failure to address the actions sacrifice the reputation and the integrity of the judiciary,
and deny constitutionally protected rights.
THAT IS REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION... AND TO AMERICANS.

---

Pssst... You are going to want to be ready when the other shoe drops.