Who are the people in your neighborhood?

The use of confidential informants, their handlers and private investigators to set up people targeted for destruction by the county is pervasive.

For their safety, I have not posted the names pictures and stories of those used in the actions which FAILED to result in my prosecution. THEY FAILED. They failed to create the criminal to prosecute.

BUT, where I get punished because of their failure to make me a criminal. Where I have continued to be denied Life and liberty, protection of the law and my constitutional rights. Why should I be the responsible protective citizen? Let them deal with the bloodbath when their 'personnel' are exposed. Courtesy of those capable of hurting people. The ones they 'tricked' and jailed. Their lives and futures destroyed.

The only way to end a war "with a person who spends his/her professional life figuring how to [screw] others…” is to expose them for the corrupt criminal frauds that they are. Former District Attorney Bruce Castor summed up his methods concisely on NYE. Then when not appointed Attorney General decided to return to the DA's position of twisted and perverted power.

Their informants handlers and investigators are about to become VERY exposed. Every single one who planted the devices cleared out by the sheriffs department on the day I was thrown out of my home by a corrupt court order. Every one who hit that shelf in the bathroom while setting their devices. Names and pictures... including the cities where they relocated. Bios, pictures, addresses and videos.

And the effort to conceal all of the failed investigative information by using a grand jury, doesn't require me to not IDENTIFY each person and the tactics utilized as they terrorized my life, spied and recorded every interaction, and paralyzed me with fear while they met within earshot.

When they informed and threatened my children who now fear any interaction because of what you will do to them if they 'slip up'.

The twisted monsters in law enforcement who are above the law running the drug trade and creating their new stories. The people who lie so often to everyone and themselves cannot recognize the truth and have no sense of honor and responsibility. Their crimes are justified by lies. Concealed by further lies... and injustice, and grand juries, and secret court orders.

Without the secrecy and protection of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, law enforcement would not be able to conceal their investigation and false litigation and manipulations which denied constitutional rights and the protection of the law. That lawlessness continues because otherwise this target will survive to expose that law enforcement committed major crimes and constitutional violations which were concealed by a corrupted judiciary.

WHAT IF: Sorry Mr. Healy, but your wife's attorneys leveraged a massive investigation into you. It failed to produce the desired results BUT it did terrorize you for several years. They then leveraged that to coerce Carolyn Carluccio to go FULL FORCE TO SUICIDE. That failed too. The grand jury is concealing it, BUT every judge in Montgomery and the Superior Court has been manuipulated into approving the actions to terrorize you for years. Your suicide was a necessity and your survival makes things difficult. Your survival was not expected AND PLACES OUR CAREERS AT RISK because we wasted millions trying to destroy you.

The lawyers who tricked the county into becoming their tools in a divorce would turn on them and leverage the extensive county efforts which failed to set-up the target. Sociopath lawyers who will stop at nothing. And the law enforcement and judiciary which will capitulate. A sickening disgraceful twisted plot.

Enough is enough.

Handlers never tell the informants that they will end up dead OR be prosecuted anyway. Even in Hollywood, there's always have that scene where the handler is sad because they lost ANOTHER informant. They are consoled by being reminded they lost others by another handler who lost others. The joke - Handlers that care even when they lose EVERY informant.

Confidential Informants are always one degree away from lawyers and law enforcement. This is useful to leverage their participation and threaten them to do ANYTHING requested no matter how wrong or immoral.

Why is the government IGNORING the Constitution?

Why is the government IGNORING the Constitution?

This is MY NEW MANTRA.

Anyone is welcome to join me in asking the simple question on every Facebook and internet post which relates to the government, public officials, corruption and constitutional issues. So far the response has been favorable. The sincerity of the statement has not been perceived as antagonistic.

Maybe if enough people start asking the simple question, we will get an answer.

The information is clear. Everywhere you see and hear people pointing at politicians and judges indicating the failure to follow the Constitution. Even the politicians and judges themselves are doing it to each other. When you remove the blame and negativity of the labels used in remarks, it all boils down to the same issue - across all of the manufactured segments of American society... Something is wrong.

What if 'The American Government has already collapsed' and public officials no longer feel any responsibility to follow the Constitution. Is it possible that our elected officials are IGNORING the Constitution with the deliberate purpose being to expose a problem which they have not lawfully been permitted to expose and address?

Are they anticipating the public realization while demonstrating that the Constitution can be ignored without consequence. The judiciary has been undermined, lost their independence and lacks jurisdiction to conduct any proceedings.

---

After being involved in constant litigation since 2007 where the judges failed to adhere to Rule of Law and Procedure, with Due Process and the US Constitution being IGNORED and every level of law enforcement and government within the state and federally failing to address the injustice, corruption and denial of rights.

Where issues, evidence and supporting law was presented to the court, and neglected and ignored by opposing counsel, the judge additionally neglected and ignored the issues, the evidence and the law in rulings and opinions.

It became necessary to find why EVERYONE believed it appropriate to ignore my situation.

I found the issue which undermined the state and federal judiciary in July 2013 and filed with the Federal Courts. A pre-emptive Constitutional Challenge was served upon every state Attorney General, fifty six (56) public officials, the problem was a national issue.

A law had collaterally caused the complete denial of rights with no protection of the law to litigants who were affected by judicial misconduct and injustice within the courts. Where the affected litigant would present the issue to the court for resolution/correction, the judges and lawyers would not address it. The deliberate silence caused the injustice and corruption to persist affecting every subsequent proceeding.

The SILENCE was explained by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct. An aggressively enforce mandate of silence/confidentiality which affects all lawyers and judges, district attorneys and attorneys general, and law enforcement at state and federal levels.

Their silence ignored the rule of law, due process and procedure, and rights protected by the state Constitution and the US Constitution. The silence caused the my rights to be ignored, denied, obstructed and prevented.

Copies were electronically transmitted and hand delivered to the news media which failed to carry the story and inform the American Public.

Copies were sent to every Governor.
Copies were sent to every state Senator nationwide.
Copies were sent to the entire US Congress - Senate and House of Representatives.
Copies were sent to the US Attorney General Eric Holder.
Copies were sent to every US Attorney nationwide.
Copies were sent to the President.
Copies were sent to every member of the Pennsylvania Legislature - Senate and House of Representatives.
Copies were sent to every county Sheriff in Pennsylvania.

Updated communications were additionally sent when necessary to explain developments and document new examples.

Documents were hand delivered to state senators and representatives local Bucks and Montgomery County offices with a request to meet to discuss the issue.

We met with US Senator Pat Toomey's staff in Philadelphia. NON-lawyer.
We met with Pennsylvania Senator Chuck McIlhinney multiple times. NON-lawyer.
We met with Pennsylvania Representative Kathy Watson. NON-lawyer.
We met with Pennsylvania representative Marguerite Quinn. NON-lawyer.
Multiple requests to assemble the local state legislators were IGNORED. NON-lawyers and lawyers alike.

State and Federal officials are aware and informed, yet they have failed to take any action to address an issue which has undermined the state and federal governments.

Preserve, Protect, Defend, Enforce, Support,... the Constitution.
These are the types of words found in the oath of public office for members of government and public office. Why is the government IGNORING the Constitution?

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality directly applies to lawyers, judges, state and federal law enforcement and federal lawyers.

Where Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information does NOT apply to all public officials.
Why are the non-lawyers IGNORING the issue and their sworn responsibility to preserve, protect, defend, enforce, and support the Constitution?

RULE 1.6 has been demonstrated to cause a loss of substantive rights of litigants. Therefore, the state supreme court lacked the authority to enact the law.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Improperly enacted without authority. No authority under the state constitution. Repugnant to the US Constitution - the Supreme Law of the Land. A NULLITY.

AS A NULLITY, Lawyers have had the discretion to act - to expose, suspend and remove the 'unconstitutional law' without risk of being disciplined for 'adversely affecting the integrity of the judiciary, revealing the misconduct of their office, exposing individual liability, or adversely affecting any of their clients; where clients for government attorneys may include the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, the Attorney General’s office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers. YET, LAWYERS FAILED TO ACT.

All Lawyers have a MANDATE to act under the Rules of Professional Conduct to expose misconduct and injustice within the court. YET, LAWYERS FAILED TO ACT.

The Judiciary additionally had a MANDATE to act under the Judicial Canons to protect the integrity of the judiciary. YET, JUDGES FAILED TO ACT.

The Lawyers and Judges neglected their responsibility to act to protect the integrity of the judiciary; failed to preserve, protect, defend, support, or enforce the constitutional; and ignored the rights of the People.

WHY? Because, THIS. IS. HUGE.

The SILENCE of the lawyer/public officials concealed their complicity. The Lawyers/Public Officials were members of the organization responsible for the constitutional crisis nationwide.

The American Bar Association (ABA)
- was responsible for presenting and providing the Rules of Professional Conduct to each state supreme court to enact into law;
- no information has been provided to explain what necessitated every state supreme court to act;
- no information has been provided to explain why it was done over 25 years from 1984 (New Jersey) to 2009 (Maine)
- had provided its membership with (CLE) training to conceal, misrepresent, obstruct and deny people's constitutional rights;
- created Affiliated Organizations at every level of the state and federal government which enabled and concealed membership interference with the administration of justice.
- had effectively influenced and undermined the authority of the judiciary within the state and federally.
- had effectively undermined the law and the integrity of the judiciary within the state and federally.
- having witnessed the affect on the rights of millions of American People was undeterred by conscience or constitution, the ABA sedition continued to roll-out until it involved every state government.
- failed to take any effort to prevent the federal judiciary from incorporating the Rules of Professional Conduct (specifically Rule 1.6) within the 'Local Rules' for District Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeals which further prevented the federal courts from addressing the denial of constitutional protections to a litigant.
- failed to take any effort to prevent the US Congress from enacting the McDade-Murtha Amendment which prevented federal government attorneys from investigating and prosecuting the denial of constitutional rights by members of the state judiciary - an unconstitutional abuse of power under color of law by the US Congress.
- influenced and interfered with process and procedure, the US Constitution, the state Constitutions and the Rule of Law which secretly undermined the independence of the judiciary - an essential element for the jurisdiction of the courts to conduct proceedings on any matter.
- by leveraging the judiciary to act without proper jurisdiction and without judicial independence, the judicial immunity granted to the court is undone. Immunity was provided to assure and protect judicial independence. The court lacked any independence where exposure of the corruption and extreme violation of the public trust could be used as leverage against judges at every level of the state and federal judiciary.
- caused the courts to have no lawful jurisdiction/authority to hear cases. The courts, unable to revealing they had been undermined and corrupted, continued without authority and the protections of actions within jurisdiction.
- where the ABA act of sedition has caused the judicial branch of state and federal government to become completely UNDONE:

requiring judges to sacrifice their personal integrity;
causing an extreme abuse of the public trust;
obstructing and denying justice, denying and preventing civil rights and human rights;
preventing affected litigants from any lawful and just resolution within the courts; and
perpetrating a fraud upon the People for the past 25 years.

- continued the conspiracy between the judiciary and the ABA organization/affiliates making a mockery of justice and trust which lacked respect for the law, the people or the government.
- compelled the necessity for the appearance of judicial integrity by the court enabled the courts to be leveraged, manipulated and controlled improperly extending the authority of the court and usurping the authority of the Legislative branch, the Executive branch, and the People.

An Organization whose efforts had brought about the damaging actions above clearly would never have hesitated to intimidate and threaten it's own membership.

However, the lawyers in the legislatures of state governments who could have prevented or acted to address and resolve the issue cannot be excused from their negligence to their oath, the People, and the Constitution.

The Rules of Professional Conduct is a 'minimal ethical standard' for the legal profession. The failure within the legal profession to properly differentiate between JUSTICE and CORRUPTION demonstrates a complete failure of ethics, even minimal ethics. Minimal ethics is no ethics at all.

What good is it to say that one values justice, the rule of law, the Constitution, honesty, and above all, the truth, if one is either doing or supporting the exact opposite?

How does a profession advance the cause for good governance and social justice, while supporting the exact opposite? while supporting unethical behavior? corruption? and lawlessness? while trampling the Constitution? while acting without mercy?

Honesty, ethics, principles, morality, compassion, justice, and empathy are societal factors which are learned over time. When you consider the failure of those human principles within the legal profession, it was necessary to determine the motivation of the people involved AND the level of participation. Where the aggressively enforced SILENCE required by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information may explain the failure of the entire profession, it does not necessarily excuse it.

When truth-telling is suppressed, when those who seek to speak the truth are persecuted and maligned, it damages the whole country. We must stand together and demand that the truth be spoken, that corruption and malfeasance are exposed. The shameful SILENCE of those lawyers who failed to stand up to corruption, to lies, to abuses of power, to profiteering, while following the ABA's false policy of ethics has caused incomprehensible irreparable loss to the victims.

EXPOSE IT!    IT WILL BE GONE... and the Constitution REBOOTED.

The Founding Fathers were aware of a loophole in the US Constitution where the trusted judiciary was left unchecked and could potentially seize power. Alternately, they likely never imagined that a single rule of confidentiality enacted in every state could undermine the state and federal judiciary and usurp the power of the state governments under the permissive negligence of federal government while people observed and accepted the loss of constitutionally protected rights.

Abraham Lincoln indicated "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."

Lincoln also suggested that America would only fall from it's own undoing... "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher."

With Rule 1.6 an unconstitutional nullity and removed, the US Constitution is rebooted and no longer trumped in the silence of a state law. Prepare America. The injustice and corruption of the last 25 years which has been concealed and ignored can now be prosecuted.

A Constitutional Amendment which prevents the judiciary from over-reaching their authority and usurping power and removes the authority to enact law would appropriate at this time. Logically speaking, there are toilets in the courthouses yet the court is not permitted to enact a code of conduct for plumbers. The courts authority to enact laws for the business of the courts should never have extended to include every aspect of the legal profession.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

But if this happens, where is the remedy?

What happens if the Supreme Court imposes ITS will upon the nation, contrary to the specific provisions of the Constitution? The Founders knew this possibility existed, and Alexander Hamilton wrote:

"The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."

Hamilton had already pointed out that an unconstitutional act of the legislative body is null and void. It should be clear, then, that an unconstitutional edict by the Supreme Court would be equally invalid.

But if this happens, where is the remedy? By what means do the people protect themselves against an unconstitutional edict by the Supreme Court? Apparently the Founders were so concerned about an overzealous Congress that they neglected to protect themselves from an overzealous judiciary. The only checks and balances provided in the Constitution are as follows:

All judges have to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Article III, section 2, authorized the Congress to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but this has been rarely attempted.

The Congress can impeach judges for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," but not for an unpopular decision. Even when the Supreme Court has seriously violated its constitutional limitations by making new laws through judicial decree, no effective congressional action has been asserted.

From this it will be readily seen that insofar as checks on the judiciary were concerned, a major loophole was left in the basic structure of the Constitution. Perhaps the Founders were too busy to read an article in a New York paper signed "Brutus" (believed to have been Robert Yates) which said:

"It is of great importance to examine with care the nature and extent of the judicial power, because those [Supreme Court judges] are to be rendered totally independent, both of the people and the legislature, both with respect to their offices and salaries. No errors they commit can be corrected.... The only causes for which they can be displaced [are] convictions of treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.... The power of the judicial will enable them to mold the government into almost any shape they please."

---

While the loophole is acknowledged, the Founders likely never imagined that the American Bar Association would present a constitutional calamity where over 25 years (1984-2009) EVERY state supreme court would enact one (1) law which violates a litigants rights protected by both the state Constitution AND the Constitution of the United States with all enforcement actions being kept Confidential with every level of state and federal law enforcement prevented from prosecuting the crimes (injustice and judicial corruption) by a Federal Law enacted by the US Congress and FURTHER prevented from addressing the litigant's loss of constitutional rights by LOCAL RULES enacted by the Federal District and Appeals Courts which incorporated the one (1) repugnant law.

The only remaining constitutional law enforcement authority, THE SHERIFF, has been convinced of a greatly diminished role by their lawyers and the state judiciary.

This type of circumstance does not happen by chance.

These were the deliberate and secret retaliatory actions of the American Bar Association after the FBI's Operation Greylord investigated and prosecuted such extreme judicial and courthouse corruption within the Cook County Courthouse in Chicago.

The US Congress can address a repugnant law by modifying the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to exclude jurisdiction to hear actions based on the Courts ability to create law for the operation of the courts.

BUT, this is a state law. IN EVERY STATE. Federalism may be a factor which prevents federal intervention into a state law.

THE STATE Supreme Court is not permitted by law to adversely affect their own integrity by exposing the most egregious violation of the public trust by any government.

This repugnant state law MUST be suspended by the Legislature pursuant to their EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND LAWS.

Article I, Section 12 "No power of suspending laws shall be exercised unless by the Legislature or by its authority."

Article I, Section 26 "Neither The Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right."

Article I, Section 1 "All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness."

Article I, Section 2 "All power in inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper."

Article I Section 20 "The citizens have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble together for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance."

Article II, Section 7 "No person hereafter convicted of embezzlement of public moneys, bribery, perjury or other infamous crime shall be eligible to the General Assembly, or capable of holding any office of trust or profit in this Commonwealth."

THE PEOPLE will accept resignations from Senators and Representatives who are members of the American Bar Association and affiliated federal, state and local organizations whose seditious and treasonous actions - have undermined the state and federal judiciary and compromised the integrity, judicial independence and jurisdiction of the courts; - who have violated, neglected and ignored their oath of office; - who have conspired, obfuscated, prevented and denied without mercy, empathy or conscience the inherent rights of the people which are protected and secured by the US Constitution and the Constitution of Pennsylvania; - who have deliberately ignored their sworn responsibilities to the Constitution in a persistent and intentional dereliction of the public trust; - who have failed to act to address, resolve or discuss the situation created by their organization

The actions of other public officials / members of the American Bar Association and affiliates were mandated by the state Supreme Court to inaction and conflicting legality without opportunity to expose, address and resolve the issue. Their circumstances should be reviewed by a citizens committee/organization with recommendations to the House of Representatives with regard to impeachment and prosecution.

Senators and Representatives had the information and knowledge of the situation and the constitutional authority YET FAILED TO MEET with litigants, AND FAILED TO TAKE ANY ACTION to suspend the repugnant unconstitutional law permitting the problem to persist within the courts on a state and federal level without concern for the irreparable damage done to the People.

Pennsylvania Senator Stewart Greenleaf who had full knowledge of the matter of Healy v Healy and the effect of the loss of constitutional rights on a litigant AND was the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary should be prosecuted criminally and civilly for his criminal abuse of power.



JUSTICE IS COMING.

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.