Kathleen Kane will boldly continue. JUSTICE IS COMING.

The following was reported by WPVI Channel 6 in Philadelphia. The full grand jury document has NOT yet been made public although there has been a great deal of speculation regarding what the grand jury was investigating.

The latest statewide headlines relate to a leak of limited information purported to be in the grand jury report. The leaked information has been used to attack the integrity and character of the Attorney General and suggest she be impeached. The negative effort is unfounded and political consisting of baseless snarky remarks and a state representative who can't let go of the marriage issue.

"I have torn up their questionable contracts, cleaned up their investigations, broke their pornography ring and prosecuted corrupt officials." - Kathleen Kane

PHILADELPHIA (WPVI) -- In a statement released Friday, Kathleen Kane said, "I did nothing illegal. Period." This the day after a grand jury recommended criminal charges against the Pennsylvania attorney general.

The charges include perjury and concern allegations that she leaked confidential grand jury information to a newspaper involving an investigation into a local NAACP leader.

On Friday Kane addressed the grand jury decision in a statement, which reads as follows:

"I did nothing illegal. Period. Any fair and impartial review of the facts would conclude that. This seems to me to be another political attack on my attempt to clean up Harrisburg and its political culture.

They have fought me all the way, including an effort to impeach me.

Since taking office, I have torn up their questionable contracts, cleaned up their investigations, broke their pornography ring and prosecuted corrupt officials.

I will continue to clean up Harrisburg, despite these attacks that seem to be more about politics than the merits."

---

Kathleen Kane did not mention anything about the following pending issues which may also be related to the Grand Jury Effort.
– About those two secret orders?
– About the two secret courts which issued them?
– About the investigation she is not permitted to conduct?
– About the case she is not permitted to participate in?
– About the actual subject of the grand jury investigation?
– About the corruption mentioned on CNN?

It is reasonable to assume that a Grand Jury which has met for a year might have more to say than the one topic which has been 'leaked'.

---

A Montgomery County Tradition - THE RETALIATORY PERJURY CHARGE.
The only people who are charged with perjury in Montgomery County are those who find themselves or their cases in a position which confronts the corruption of the Montgomery County or threatens the Power-That-Be.

I can think of only two cases in recent years.
Jim Matthews and Gabriele Drexler

Matthews was a County Commmissioner accused of perjury and arrested by Risa Ferman. The charge was subsequently dropped. AND the record was expunged in 2013. His brother is the host of MSNBC'c HARDBALL, Chris Matthews

Drexler had been coerced into a 'perjury trap'. Her mother's illness was leveraged with a plea through a public defender. She was coerced into a plea agreement BUT jailed anyway. Drexler's case was positioned to expose the county's availability and improper and illegal use of intrusive computer surveillance tools. Her Federal complaint was subsequently dropped.

Her case had been closely followed on this website as there was a question of whether the Grand Jury was ever informed of the capabilities of the county detectives and police to access home computers and modify emails. Her case had been perfectly positioned to expose the misused surveillance software in the county AND in federal court.

Miss Drexler was unaware of how the printed emails in her report failed to agree with the documents on her computer. The surveillance and remote control software tools which would have been available to the officer involved in her case could possibly have explained the discrepancy.

It is unlikely that Drexler was ever aware that her case risked exposing the county's improper surveillance tools and efforts in a time before Edward Snowden's worldwide revelation. I was a victim of their software tools, as was the Lower Merion High Schoolers who discovered that stealth surveillance software installed on their laptops had been taking thousands of pictures without their knowledge. The County had advised the school of the software.

Perjury is ignored in the Family Courts... even in custody. Custody Master Sarah Goren had indicated to me at one time that if the District Attorney were to prosecute perjury in Family court there would always be a line at the courthouse. SO... They just ignore it.

I suppose it is just another of those strategies available to District Attorneys which Bruce Castor wrote about on New Years Eve.
"You don’t go to war with a person who spends his/her professional life figuring how to [screw] others…”

JUSTICE IS COMING.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

The following letter was sent to the Justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Using the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice Report to demonstrate the failure within the 'system' to take responsibility for the Kids for Cash injustice and the failure to present the cause of the problem - Rule 1.6 Confidentiality.

There have been filings with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania by which they were aware of our effort though dismissals by unsigned per curiam orders offer plausible deniability to their being informed. As petitions had been filed with the court, it would have been inappropriate to communicate with the judiciary at that time.


One persistent Question lingers...

WHY DID THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ENACT THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT INTO LAW?

What was the reason which necessitated their action? You may wonder why the supreme court in EVERY state did the same thing at staggered times from 1984 through 2009.

We have asked for a meeting where the issue can be discussed and those essential questions can be answered.

---

August 28, 2014

Chief Justice Ron Castille
Justice Max Baer
Justice Michael J. Eakin
Justice Seamus P. McCaffrey
Justice Thomas G. Saylor
Justice Correale F. Stevens
Justice Debra Todd
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania


Your Honor,

After meetings with Senator Chuck McIlhinney have failed to demonstrate any progress, it is clearly necessary to raise this issue to your attention directly.

The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was made up of lawyers (9 of 12) who heard information from county judges, district attorneys, public defenders and the Judicial Conduct Board. Attributing the blame to “silence, inaction, inexperience, ignorance, fear of retaliation, greed, ambition, carelessness.”, the lawyers on the commission maintained ‘confidentiality of information’ as required by law – Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Their realization was correct – “What good would [reporting] it do?” HOWEVER, the Commission’s report neglected to indicate the reason for the silence (Rule 1.6) and it also neglected to expose the cause (the Rule 1.6 mandate) , and as such their recommended reforms do nothing to prevent a recurrence of the judicial corruption.

Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information where it adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary, the reputation of legal professionals, self-incriminates, or negatively affects their client. Protecting the integrity of a judicial which lacks integrity is foolishness. Mandating it has unconstitutional effects.

The Commission Report and Reform Recommendations amount to fraud – a deliberate effort to conceal the root cause of the failure of the justice system to address judicial misconduct, corruption and injustice.

Far more frightening and perilous, is that the lawyers associated with the Commission have now been ‘educated and trained’ in how to execute and conceal crimes such as those committed by Ciavarella and Conahan – who only went to prison because they had failed at money laundering.

The Supreme Court’s authority to enact law is limited to situations where ‘such rules are consistent with this Constitution [Pennsylvania] and neither abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of any litigant.’

The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who must follow the US Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Rules of Professional Conduct which were enacted by the Supreme Court.

For the Attorney General, the Rule 1.6 mandate of ‘confidentiality of information’ with regard to client information undermines ‘everything’ where an attorney general’s clients include (1) the public, (2) the Pennsylvania government, (3) the Office of the Attorney General, (4) government agencies and departments statewide, (5) personnel within those agencies and departments, (6) and themselves.

The Rules of Professional Conduct enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have substantially affected the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Attorney General preventing and obstructing law enforcement responsibilities when it relates to judicial corruption and injustice within the courts.

The Supreme Court, by the same mandate, has caused a ‘lawful’ requirement within every court and by every lawyer in the commonwealth to ignore injustice and judicial corruption.

Previous Codes of Professional Responsibility (among other titles) have included similar guidelines, BUT once enacted into ‘law’ in 1987 ignoring injustice and judicial corruption ceased being discretionary and was MANDATED BY LAW.

The result, the Rules of Professional Conduct collaterally affect and negate ‘the substantive rights of the litigant’. Specifically, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality causes a mandatory conspiracy of silence within the courts which ignores the damage and harm caused to litigants and further hinders and prevents any resolution.

The substantive rights of the children and families of Luzerne County were clearly ignored.

The Supreme Court lacked authority to enact Rule 1.6 into law as the substantive rights of the People have been ‘abridged’, ‘modified’, denied and ignored.

Additionally, the role of the Sheriff as Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the county has been negated and minimized by judicial decisions. Constitutionally, the Sheriff has the lawful authority and resources to enforce the law within the county.

Failing to act because the judiciary has convinced them of a greatly diminished role, the non-lawyer Sheriffs (reluctantly) defer authority to the county District Attorney who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.6. A necessity to prevent prosecution. District Attorneys take no action to investigate and prosecute the injustice and judicial corruption. Related crimes against the victims of injustice are ignored leaving the litigant with no protection under the law.

The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct were rolled out to the states and enacted into law nationwide without the involvement of the state legislatures, the signature of the governors or any constitutional review.

“What is right is not always the same as what is legal.” was offered by Edward Snowden as an explanation for his actions revealing unconstitutional activity. This statement may also apply to the failure of attorneys general, judges, district attorneys and lawyers to address the unconstitutional actions made ‘legal’ which have undermined justice over the last 25 years.

It is the responsibility of the Governor to represent the People, to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution and the state Constitution, and to recognize that collaterally Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional to the People.

The act of sedition which enacted Rule 1.6 and mandated the silent participation of all legal professionals, perverted the judiciary, sacrificed the personal integrity of every judge, and undermined justice can no longer be ignored and excused because of the intimidation and threats of disciplinary action by the corrupt who have deliberately violated the public trust.

The Commission on Juvenile Justice have not done what was requested of them. They have participated in concealing the truth. They have endorsed and enabled continuing injustice.

You, the members of the Legislature and the Judiciary who assembled the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice must review their report findings and recommendations. The deliberate knowledgeable failure of those lawyers to indicate the root cause of the problem in Luzerne County, which also less publicly affects every court in the Commonwealth, was caused by Rule 1.6 - An unconstitutional and repugnant law which has been improperly enacted by the state Supreme Court without proper review of its affect on constitutional rights.

You attention to this matter of statewide importance is appreciated. A meeting to discuss the issue would be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim


PDF version
Attachment - Letters sent to other government officials

"What is right is not always the same as what is legal."

Edward Snowden makes a very valid point... He is not condoning that everyone break the law.

DID YOU KNOW... there was a constitutional challenge to Rule 1.6 of the rules of professional conduct filed on August 8, 2013 and served upon every state attorney general.

Every state Attorney General has failed to address the loss of the constitutional rights of people in the state courts because a 'law' makes it illegal to prosecute judicial corruption.

Every District Attorney also does nothing. Every lawyer also fails to act.

How's that for an example to a 'legal' state law which should not be followed BECAUSE OF IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESULT.

The good news is that Rule 1.6 does not have to be followed by THE PEOPLE unless you are mandated to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct which applies to lawyers and legal professionals.

The bad news is that the LAW which MANDATES the failure to prosecute judicial corruption and injustice is concealed in the rules which only affect lawyers conduct.

The bad news is that the LAW which MANDATES that legal professionals not take any action which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary EVEN WHEN IT CAUSES THE DENIAL OF RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES PROTECTED BY THE US CONSTITUTION was enacted by the judiciary.

The bad news is that the LAW results in disciplinary actions against any legal professional who breaches the confidentiality of information.

The bad news is that the LAW is unconstitutional AND a nullity BUT that determination must be made by a court which by LAW may not take any action which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary.

The bad news is that the lower court actions/decision on appeal presents the issue to an appeals court which by LAW may not take any action which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary.

The bad news is that escalation for review to a state supreme court which by LAW may not take any action which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary.

The bad news is that state supreme court enacted THAT LAW. The state supreme court is not obligated to act where their decision would incriminate the state supreme court.

The bad news is upon presentation of the constitutional issue to the us district court, the judiciary improperly dismisses the matter.

The bad news is upon appeal to the Third Circuit, the appeals court improperly affirms the lower court decision without substantiation.

The bad news is upon raising the issue to the US Supreme Court, the court may choose to ignore the matter entirely. Realistically, the US Supreme Court is not likely to expose the sedition of the judiciary in every state. In the national interest of preventing civil unrest, they permit the state to continue to deny the constitutional rights of people.

THE US CONSTITUTION grants authority and jurisdiction to the US Supreme Court through the US Congress.

The bad news is that when you contact your US Senators and Representatives, you discover they are lawyers - mandated to obey THAT law and take no action.

"WHAT IS RIGHT IS NOT ALWAYS THE SAME AS WHAT IS LEGAL." - Edward Snowden

The Judicial Branch made judicial corruption and injustice legal, and in doing so they undermined the US Constitution.

Edward Snowden is speaking DIRECTLY to the US ATTORNEY GENERAL...
Edward Snowden is speaking DIRECTLY to the ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES...
Edward Snowden is speaking to the US Congress...
What is right is not always the same as what is legal.

The Constitutional Crisis in the US can only lawfully be addressed by Eric Holder, the US Attorney General, the Attorneys General of the United States, or the US Congress.

According to the law, the petition for action cannot be from a legal professional.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed on August 8. 2013 and served on the Attorneys General of the United States by Terance Healy and Todd M. Krautheim. Pro Se litigants. Non-lawyers. Lawfully acting to address an unconstitutional law.

When a law mandates that lawyers ignore corruption and injustice, WHAT IS RIGHT IS NOT ALWAYS THE SAME AS WHAT IS LEGAL.

Edward Snowden

In the end, the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me...
We are stateless, imprisoned, powerless...
No, the Obama administration is afraid of you...
an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised
- and it should be.
Edward Snowden

WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE?

Asking... is always cheaper than spying.

"Together we can find a better balance, end mass surveillance and remind the government that if it really wants to know how we feel asking is always cheaper than spying." - Edward Snowden

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/alternative-christmas-message/4od

The missing part of the Edward Snowden story is WHY? Perhaps the necessity of preventing the American public from being informed of the problem with it's judicial branch necessitated the surveillance. It just went out of control because no one could be told the true purpose.

Each state judiciary, under their lawful authority to self-regulate, rendered themselves a nullity. The Rules of Professional Conduct once enacted into LAW rendered the state courts unconstitutional because they denied the people of their rights protected by the US Constitution. The state courts were void... a nullity...

The state courts did not have the authority and necessary jurisdiction YET terrorized honest law abiding people into poverty, homelessness and suicide. Nowhere is this more evident than the family courts... where the twisted mental perversions and hatred of judges like Rhonda Lee Daniele, Thomas DelRicci, Garrett Page and Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio attacked every effort of their victims to persevere and survive. In my case, because of my ability to persevere and my incapacity for suicide, eighteen judicial terrorists attacked and annihilated every aspect of my life and existence. NOT ANY ONE OF THEM DID ANYTHING TO ADDRESS OR RESTORE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

"The invasion of privacy has gone too far" - Former President Jimmy Carter.

Oh, President Carter you have no idea of the damage they have done. Not just in the surveillance, but in the efforts to prevent their unconstitutional and unconscionable actions from being exposed.

I've had a few chances to speak with Former President Carter in the past. He was always a friendly and sincere man. No matter where the encounter took place Jimmy Carter was personal and genuine. Whether at Independence Hall in Philadelphia or an early morning in Chicago's O'Hare Airport, he was just himself.

A truly respectable quality. A truly respectable leader.

And in an age of political slander and dirty tricks, I am reminded of what was done to President Carter on his last day in office. They negotiated with terrorists in an attempt to humiliate the man. They failed.

You can never take away the quality of character demonstrated by President Carter. They only demonstrated how low they would venture using innocent people as political tools.

---

From Der Spiegel Online

NSA affair: Ex-President Carter Condemns U.S. Snooping By Gregor Peter Schmitz, from Atlanta 17.07.2013 – 13:59 Uhr Ex-President Carter: "The invasion of privacy has gone too far" The Obama administration has tried to placate Europe's anger over their spying programs. Not so ex-President Jimmy Carter: The Democrat Carter sharply criticized U.S. intelligence policy. The disclosure by the whistleblower Snowden was "useful." Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter was in the wake of the NSA spying scandal criticized the American political system. "America has no functioning democracy," Carter said Tuesday at a meeting of the "Atlantic Bridge" in Atlanta. Previously, the Democrat had been very critical of the practices of U.S. intelligence. "I think the invasion of privacy has gone too far," Carter told CNN. "And I think that is why the secrecy was excessive." With regard to the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, Carter said his revelations were "likely to be useful because they have informed the public." Carter has repeatedly warned that the moral authority of the United States has declined sharply due to excessive curtailment of civil rights. Last year he wrote in an article in the "New York Times" that new U.S. laws have allowed "never before seen breaches of our privacy by the government."