(DRAFT OF LETTER)
To the Honorable Court,
In the interest of resolution with recognition of the scope and seriousness of the following information, I present the cause and resolution of the problem which is plaguing this Superior Court. It is my sincere wish to assert my constitutional rights, to restore the integrity of the judiciary, and to rectify the Constitutional Crisis which affects the entire country.
The integrity of the judiciary is an essential element for American society. The judicial branch has been undermined and usurped at state and federal levels. The judiciary must not be held hostage by the efforts to conceal the corruption, the lack of judicial independence, the denial of the Rule of Law, and the disregard for the US Constitution.
Permit me to explain the impact of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information on the matter of Healy v Healy. The Court acting without jurisdiction has issued a deliberately defective and void order, and while failing to address the defect or to offer any information to substantiate any real or imagined element of jurisdiction has improperly and aggressively enforced, embellished and exacerbated the void order while acting with abject and summary disregard for every applicable law while ignoring and repeatedly violating constitutionally protected rights of the litigant under color of law with the intent to cause distress and irreparable harm.
Every unresolved and twisted perversion of jurisprudence has been concealed from litigation, discussion and/or lawful review pursuant to the MANDATE of non-disclosure by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The collateral unconstitutional affect of Rule 1.6 is hereby presented. Demonstrating the affect of the law which voids the substantive rights of the litigant, the Supreme Court was without lawful authority to enact the unconstitutional Rule into Law.
Without further delay, I demand and assert rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States, and CALL FOR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION AND ACTION of and by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Legislature, and the Governor of Pennsylvania to strike this repugnant abomination from any further terror to the People of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Justice is coming.
Terance Healy
Every. Person. Matters.
PS: With instructions to the Pennsylvania Attorney General to commence criminal prosecution of the American Bar Association, and all affiliated organizations who have perpetrated a loathsome and contemptible sedition which has caused systemic corruption and injustice within the judicial branch at state and federal levels.
AN INJUSTICE, NEGLECTED
Once a case has been affected by judicial fraud or injustice, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality MANDATES non-disclosure by any and every means necessary. There is no law, no procedure, no right, no truth, and no limit on the actions pursuant to Rule 1.6 which will prevent and deny justice.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBLE ESCAPE FROM RULE 1.6 INJUSTICE.
Every legal professional is MANDATED to follow that rule will take cause fraud and continued injustice - lawyers, judges, court staff, District Attorneys, Attorneys General.
This has been my terror since 2007.
The extra-jurisdictional orders issued by Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio under color of law are void ab initio.
If the procedurally defective and void Order of May 9, 2011 was valid, Angst & Angst, Judge Carluccio, Judge Haaz, Judge Page, and/or Judge Weilheimer would have supported their Opinions by including the elements of jurisdiction.
THEY IGNORE.By law, ALL subsequent orders based on, or purporting to enforce, the May 9, 2011 are also void ab initio.
THEY IGNORE.The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has demonstrated with precision a deliberate and intentional negligence in the failure to address the jurisdiction of the May 9, 2011 order within the MEMORANDUM filed October 27, 2014.
THEY IGNOREThe lack of this information and consideration is not an oversight by the court.
COLLECTIVELY IGNORED IS NOT AN OVERSIGHT. THIS IS RULE 1.6 NONDISCLOSURE/CONFIDENTIALITY
The deliberate and intentional non-disclosure seeks to maintain Confidentiality of Information pursuant to Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct – enacted into law by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on October 16, 1987 - effective April 1, 1988.
The creation of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct purported to combine the long established and practiced Canons of Law and provide ethical guidelines for the legal profession.
Prior to providing the state supreme courts with their Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the American Bar Association (ABA) removed 'fraud provisions' from Rule 1.6. Where a matter is tainted by fraud, there is no allowance for disclosure of information to protect third-party victims from the fraud, or the continuance of that fraud. There is no allowance for disclosure to rectify the fraud.
The ABA MODEL RULES are inadequate according to moral and legal principles. They are unethical.
Prior to 1983, the 'Code' followed by legal professionals provided an attorney with discretion to disclose information.
However, the Model Rules were being enacted into LAW by the state Supreme Courts. The lawyer's discretion was replaced by a MANDATE to maintain confidentiality of information where information would adversely affect their client – with each and every concept of 'the client' being protected by law.
RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION requires non-disclosure by legal professionals where the information
– would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary,
– would reveal the misconduct of their own office,
– would expose an individual liability,
– would adversely affect their client.
Where an attorney worked within the government, the client would also include the Public, the Government as a whole, the Branch of government in which employed, the Particular agency or department, and the Responsible officers who make decisions with an agency or department.
FRAUD UPON THE COURT
A fraud has occurred. A procedurally defective and void order has been issued without jurisdiction by the court.
Where disclosure of that information would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary, Rule 1.6 does not permit disclosure by legal professionals.
Where that information would expose a failure by the attorney and potential liability, Rule 1.6 does not permit disclosure by legal professionals.
Where that information would adversely affect their client who benefited greatly from the error, Rule 1.6 does not permit disclosure by legal professionals to address or to rectify the fraud..
The legal professionals MUST IGNORE the fraud without explanation.
Rule 1.6 does not permit disclosure even in the furtherance of the fraud. The MANDATE OF CONFIDENTIALITY which prevents disclosure excuses the any efforts which conceal the fraud, even where these actions cause further fraud.
Rule 1.6 does not permit disclosure to rectify the fraud. A MANDATE OF CONFIDENTIALITY which prevents every legal professional from disclosure EVEN TO RECTIFY THE FRAUD.
Rule 1.6 prevents the entire judiciary, in the state and federal courts, from disclosure of the fraud, while ignoring actions in the furtherance of the fraud.
... even where it undermines the every Rule of Law and the Constitution of the United States.
THE NON-ATTORNEY LITIGANT
Where a litigant is not represented by an attorney, Rule 1.6 does not prohibit or prevent information about the fraud from being presented by them.
Where true and correct Petitions and Motions are properly filed and served, the deliberate neglect of an Opposing Counsel to address the issue, to counter any facts, or to present any evidence is ignored.
Without regard for evidence, the truth, or the law, Rule 1.6 prevents the judge from any ruling which discloses the fraud.
A LITIGANT WITHOUT THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW and DENIED AND PREVENTED FROM RIGHTS SECURED AND PROTECTED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
A single act of fraud which may not be disclosed has undermined the truth, excused any failures in process and procedures, dismissed the Rule of Law, sacrificed the integrity of the judiciary, demonstrated the unavailability of rights protected by the United States Constitution, obstructed justice, denied access to the courts, undermined the entire judiciary.
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
There is no procedure or law which will be applied and enforced in your favor.
There is no enforcement of any Court Orders in your favor.
The absolute immunity applies TO THOSE PARTICIPATING IN THE FRAUD who benefit from the injustice while they conceal and prevent disclosure of every act in furtherance of the fraud.
AGGRESSIVE AND ZEALOUS SCRUTINY
The Court demonstrates an escalated scrutiny on all litigation by the victim, zealously attacking every action of the victim.
There is aggressive attention, zealous and detailed review and strict enforcement of every aspect of court orders, agreements, and the law, etc...
The Court promptly entertains with full proceedings, conferences and hearings for each and every false allegation, unsubstantiated accusation, misrepresentation, statement, or thought with knowledge aforethought that any outcome in favor of the victim is not possible where it discloses, or may lead to disclosure, of information.
The constant sacrifice of judicial integrity causes the judge to attempt to pursue any way to throw the case out. BUT, the fault and responsibility which 'requires and compels' the court to close the case MUST be attributed to the victim. Those participating in the non-disclosure of fraud have undocumented and absolute immunity.
NOT BIAS, THE SYSTEMIC LACK OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
These actions are NOT indicative of BIAS against the victim.
An unconstitutional law MANDATES AND PREVENTS disclosure. Rule 1.6 has undermined and usurped the authority of the court, demonstrated the lack of judicial independence, resulted in extra-jurisdiction actions in violation of constitutional rights and the law.
When a judge acts without jurisdiction their judicial immunity from civil suits and prosecution is affected. As their injustice and corruption expands, the judge's liability grows.
Extreme carelessness and abject disregard for jurisdiction in repeated and compounded extra-jurisdictional actions, causes the loss of judicial immunity for the judge who can face criminal and civil prosecution for their abuse of authority.
To prevent disclosure a judge will sacrifice personnel integrity, the integrity of the judiciary, ignore the truth, neglect or misapply the law, and disregard the US Constitution. Every twisted and corrupt action by the court is protected from disclosure pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.
The perseverance and survival of the victim subjected to these aggressive tactics is causing the complete disruption of their every day life while denying freedom and liberty.
An excessive volume of vexatious and frivolous litigation to which the victim MUST respond where any opportunity for resolution, or success, is NOT POSSIBLE where it could lead to disclosure of the information regarding the fraud.
Enforcement of court orders previously issued where there has not been compliance, or where contempt can be demonstrated, requires the litigant to petition the court for action.
The ONLY participant with any expectation of justice resulting from the well-formed petition filed and served in good faith and being heard by the court is the victim with a sense of hope.
The ability to persevere in the belief that the justice system could not possibly be completely corrupt and void of justice in defiance of their experience empowers a litigant to continue to raise each issue with the court in a good faith effort to address and resolve the matter.
A persistent and consistent failure by the court to dispense justice affects the personal integrity of the judge, embarrasses and shames the judiciary, and creates within the court record (docket) a vast, undeniable testament to the neglect, the abuse of power, and the denial of constitutional rights which affects every issue and exposes the systemic lack of judicial independence .
ON APPEAL
Any and all efforts to prevent the submission of an Appeal to the Superior Court, which would require a subsequent direct involvement by the Superior Court judiciary in the injustice will be excused, ignored and kept confidential.
CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF
The Superior Court employs a CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF to assist the court in management of the business of the court. The Central Legal Staff are attorneys who by law must be members of the Pennsylvania Bar.
As legal professionals, the Central Legal Staff must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Central Legal Staff participate in the effort to prevent disclosure where information would adversely affect the judiciary, their office, or the courts.
The Central Legal Staff exists between the litigant and the judiciary with all documents required to go through the CLS before delivery to a judge.
If you received a PER CURIAM order which is unsigned from the Superior Court which ignores , neglects, denies or dismisses your filing, A review of the Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Law relarting to the business operation of the Superior Court fails to show any allowance for a Per Curiam decision unless the issue is purely for scheduling or 'housekeeping.'
The scheduling and 'housekeeping' orders previoulsy issued as Per Curiam had included the related reference to the applicable and relevant Rule of Law, or Rule of Appellate procedure.
A Per Curiam order ignores, neglects, denies or dismisses a Motion seeking the decision of the Superior Court regarding issues relative to the Appeal;
- neglects to indicate any reference to the relevant Rule of Law or the Rule of Appellate Procedure in support of that decision,
- IS UNSIGNED BY ANY JUDGE,
- contains no evidence or indication that a judge had reviewed the matter;
- Pursuant to Rule 1.6, the Central Legal Staff must participate in actions which prevent disclosure which could adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary, the CLS office, coworkers and themselves.
The Central Legal Staff is not protecting the integrity of the judiciary, by intercepting the document. At best, CLS is preventing the judge from direct involvement in the action. CLS is obstructing justice, interfering with the administration of the courts, denying constitutional rights, participating in a conspiracy which has permitted and caused continued fraud against the victim.
The Central Legal Staff are members of the American Bar Association, the Philadelphia Bar Association, and other affiliated organizations.
The Central Legal Staff are compensated for presenting Continuing Legal Education programs for the ABA and it's various affiliated organizations.
THE CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF IS POSITIONED TO INTERCEPT
Where every document must go through the CLS;
the issue has been neglected;
the decision fails to indicate any direct action or review by any judge;
the Motion was not vexatious or frivilous;
Rule 1.6 permits efforts by legal professionals which prevent disclosure of fraud;
That initial order lacked jurisdiction and represented a fraud;
CLS members are legal professionals and member of the various Bar Associations and affiliates;
CLS Members are compensated for presenting seminars for the Bar Associations;
When you asked for a signed copy of the document, YOU WERE DENIED.
When requesting the signed document, the clerks responses suggested you were paranoid or crazy;
When you petitioned the court for the signed document, it was ignored.
You have had to sign every copy of every document along with it's verification and certificate of service.
Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy were things which your parents convinced you to believe in which you later found out did not exist.
The hopeful litigant had persevered undaunted while experiencing and documenting egregious and inescapable injustice.
THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 filed and served on every state Attorney General.
Where every state attorney general defaulted to Answer, an inappropriate document filed incorrectly and late without relevance or substantuiation to support DISMISSAL, filed without authorization on behalf of EVERY attorney general and written by someone who did not comprehend the issue before the court, caused a fraud upon the court which involed non-disclosure pursuant to Rule 1.6where
By Local Rule for the Eastern District Court, attorneys must follow the Pennsylvania version of Rule 1.6.
You never saw a judge.
No document was ever signed.
Every Motion in good faith was dismissed and ignored.
Motions which requested the indication of DEFAULT were obstructed and prevenmted.
There was no ionvervention to Eric holder.
There was no certification to each state supreme court whixch indicated the constitutional;ity of Rule 1.6.
The District Court failed to substantiate their decision, BUT DISMISSED THE CASE.
There is evidence of two versions of the Court Docket for the matter.
The Clerk of Court's staff consists of legal professionals MANDATED to follow Rule 1.6
THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
By Local Rule for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, attorneys must follow the Pennsylvania version of Rule 1.6.
The Case Manager and Clerks never provided consistent accurate informATION.
You never saw a judge
Every Motion in good faith was dismissed and ignored.
Motions which requested the indication of DEFAULT were obstructed and prevenmted.
They affirmed a dismissal; which was unsubstantiated.
The Supervisory staff Are legal professional required to follow Rule 1.6
NOTICE OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AFFECT OF RULE 1.6 to Bucks & Montgomery County Judiciary
REQUEST FOR ACTION OF US CONGRESS
REQUEST FOR ACTION BY PRESIDENT BAACK OBAMA
REQUEST FOR ACTION OF PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE
Chuck, Marguerite, Kathy and the local senators and representatives who were informed YET, refused to meet.
The Threat to Kathy Watson
REQUEST FOR ACTION BY PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNOR
Tom, Your letter was Horseshit.
PROSECUTION BY LAW ENFORCEMENT
LOCAL
STATE
FEDERAL
SHERIFFS
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF7
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is aggressively enforced by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania with their actions and decisions prevented from disclosure pursuant to Rule 1.6.
Then there is the curious failure by the news media to report on the Rule 1.6 Challenge.
It is a reasonable time to remind the reader, that Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio lackled jurisdiction to issue a divorce decree on May 9, 2011 and has neglected to provide any information to support jurisdiction – The lawyers ingorer, Caqrluccio Ignored,
Judge Haaz put a hold on the matter
Judge page ignored
The Superior Court IGNORED
EVERY ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE MATTER IS IGNORED IN DEFIANCE OF THER LAW, IN VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, and it is being done UNDER COLOR OF LAW WITH INTENT TO CAUSE IREPPARABLE HARM AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
The Order of May 9, 2011 was NOT the injustice/fraud which resulted in the loss of protection of the law and the obstruction and prevention of my constitutional rights which was then used to leverage the court.
An Order issued on August 27, 2007, without jurisdiction, without proceeding, which was not distributed, which was not docketed, which was used to slander me, which was used to excuse the burglary of my home, which undermined EVERY proceeding and denied and prevented any opportunity for relief through litigation, issued by the President Judge of the Family Court Division Judge Rhonda lee Daniele, concealed in a folder not kept with the other documents filed in the Divorce, presented to judges who neglected procedure and denied me a copy, the existence of which was repeatedly denied by Angst & Angst, which was denied in Discovery Motions, leveraged to prevent any custody or ANY visitation with my children, which destroyed the integrity of the court as the matter of Healy v Healy went before 20 members of the Montgomery County Judiciary.
Because I survived constant litigation through hundreds of petitions, all docuimented on the court record, President of the Montgomeryh County Bar Association Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio after being exposed for cancelling proceedings to address 15 long neglected petitions to enforce court orders, rescheduling those hearing, cancel;l;ing them AGAINS, and then ignoring them with extreme malice, and in her deliberate haste to issue what she believed would be AN UNAPPEALABLE ORDER/DIVORCE DECREE neglected the procedure required by law EXPOSING HER EVIL EFFORTS, dismissing every petition which in a post-decree environment could nmot be resubmitted, but her neglect, and the deliberate actions by Angst & Angst to the contrary of the PennsylvaNIA Procedure, the oerder was defective and void ab initio.
With hundreds of opportunities for the Court to address the defect, the neglect was exacerbated by the blockage ot the initial appeal.
With the Direct Challenge to Jurisdiction remanded to Superior Court, I waited.
When Angst & Angst attempted to enforce the defective and void order, three more judges became invoplved in the matter.
Judge Page wopuld join the conspiracy with zeal.
With an incorrect finding of contempt, while enforcing a void order based on a void order based on a procedurally defective and void divorce decree which voids the Order in Equitable Distribution.
The intent was to incarcerate me for contempt for not paying the $300,000 penalty.
There is no dounbt the mightmare of my existence is Rule 1.6. An imopral unetical and illegal unconstitutional law improperly encated by every state supreme court in a seditious effrt by the American Bar Association.
They made lawyer fraud legal, mandated non-disclosure, and uindermined the constitutional rights of every Amwerican.
Foreclosures with fraudulent document and robosigned deeds
Kids fr Cak
The Sandusky investigatioopn
EVERY AMERICAN IS AT RISK FOR THE LOSS OF RIGHTS, and once it happens, Rule 1.6 prevents any escape.
ONLY Where the victim would be murdered, disclosure is perm,itted. A sociopath keeping their victim alive for further terror.
