SUMMARY OF CASE

Plaintiff's allege that Rule 1.6 results in the denial of rights protected by the United States Constitution.

Plaintiff's allege that Rule 1.6 which was NOT LAWFULLY ENACTED pursuant to PA. CONST. Article V 10(c) is a nullity because it results in the denial of constitutionally protected rights and liberties.

Plaintiff's allege that the actions of The Pennsylvania Supreme Court are NOT LAWFUL in removing jurisdiction for law enforcement from the Attorney General, and in enacting a law which prevents the Attorney General from properly and lawfully executing the responsibilities of the office of Attorney General.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane is a lawyer who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct which prevent her from properly and lawfully executing the law enforcement responsibilities of the office of Attorney General.

Plaintiffs have 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 loss of the plaintiff's constitutional rights basing her failure and 'lack of jurisdiction' on an unconstitutional 'law' improperly enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in violation of Article V Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution which further unlawfully and unconstitutionally denied citizens of any forum for the redress of grievances, denying the plaintiffs of any resolution and further denied the plaintiffs of justice.


'Lawful but unconstitutional' IS NOT LAWFUL
even when enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

---

RETURN TO REPLY BRIEF INDEX

Zed McLarnon - I wanna speak with you.

Zed,
Please, contact me.

Our stories are too similar that I am wondering how our paths have not crossed.

The number of people who seem to know both of us are too great that I am curious as to why we have not met before.

Read, what we are doing... You will learn that everything which has been done to you has been LAWFUL... but UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And it's only been lawful because the lawyers were bullied into injustice, and the judges compelled to lose their integrity. Remove Rule 1.6 and everything is good. No more excuses or ways to hide injustices.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. With a cause for relief and standing to address the issue, pro se litigants filed and served every state - lawfully acting to expose a law which obstructed justice and mandated corruption leaving Americans without basic rights and liberties.



YouTube

Separation of Powers

The Judiciary is not constitutionally or lawfully permitted to write, make or enact law.

SO HOW DID THE 1987 SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA GET AWAY WITH IT?

Can someone in the Pennsylvania legislature please explain how the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania enacted a law?
Title 204 Chapter 81?

...and how THAT law prevented the legislature from changing the law?
Title 204 Chapter 81?

...and how THAT law also prevents the executive branch from enforcing the law?
Title 204 Chapter 81?

And NOW inform the USA how it happened in every state?
It seems the State Supreme Courts have some 'splaining to do.

Because the courts acted without authority and in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions... and the resulting injustice in undeniable... and the criminal misconduct and corruption were BEYOND LAWFUL PROSECUTION??? Protected and concealed by an illegal, unlawful, improperly enacted and executed law, which they failed to enforce.

EVIL IS NOT ILLEGAL. But it seems the State Supreme Court made it lawful. And who could declare it unlawful, but themselves. And who could expose the unlawfulness, when lawyers were not lawfully permitted to act? A couple of Pro Se litigants terrorized to the point of extinction.

IT'S CALLED UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS. and THAT'S NOT VALID.

Now who is gonna back up the Pro Se litigants that have lawfully filed this Challenge in Federal Courts?

And who is going to arrest the 1987 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and the Governor and Attorney General?

The nightmare of unconstitutional unprosecuted malicious and deliberate injustice and abuse of power under color of law is ending in the USA because it was always unconstitutional... and now it is clear why, when, where, who and how it happened.

NOW that it is exposed as unconstitutional. Lawyers may step up and assist without fear of disbarment for failing to follow Rule 1.6. Step Right UP! EXPOSE THE INJUSTICE.