THE CASE AND CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE COURT

Plaintiffs have been denied rights and liberties which are granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1343, 1345.

Kathleen Kane is the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. Kathleen Kane is a lawyer.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane failed to act and did nothing to address the Plaintiff's matters.

The Attorney General of Pennsylvania has indicated a lack of jurisdiction or 'lawful' inability to become involved in the cases of the litigants as the basis for her inaction.

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's failure is based on a perceived 'lack of jurisdiction' due to a 'law' improperly enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court without the proper authority of Article V Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution - unlawfully and unconstitutionally denying plaintiffs of any forum for the redress of grievances, denying the plaintiffs of any resolution, obstructing appeals to higher courts and further denying the plaintiffs of justice.

The Plaintiffs have proper standing for this matter before the court.

Plaintiffs have documented their proper standing pursuant to Article III as Attorney General Kathleen Kane has failed to act to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and failed to address the denial of the plaintiff's constitutional rights.

RETURN TO REPLY BRIEF INDEX

THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE COURT - SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Healy's and Krautheim's constitutional challenge to Rule 1.6 was not correctly dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General's misrepresentation that there was no Article III case or controversy between them and Attorney General Kane (or any of her counterparts), fails upon review as the Attorney General was clearly able to discern the case/controversy while presenting statements to the contrary.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General repetitive misstatements regarding application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Younger abstention, and incomplete paraphrasing of the Pennsylvania Constitution which specifically and clearly does not allow authority for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to enact laws which deny the substantive rights of a litigant.

---

RETURN TO REPLY BRIEF INDEX

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.