Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 - Reply Brief

REPLY BRIEF
Appeal to
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
from the Order and Memorandum entered in
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
on the 29th day of October. 2013


Plaintiffs Terance Healy and Todd M. Krautheim filed this Constitutional Challenge on August 8, 2013 and served it upon Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane and the Attorneys General of the United States challenging the Constitutionality of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Plaintiffs are seeking to restore their constitutional rights; restore the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession; and to return to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Case and Controversy before the Court

Article III Requirements are met

Rooker – Feldman Doctrine

Younger Abstention

Article V Section 10 (c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution

Article V – The Attorney General

Article V – The Supreme Court

Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information

Jurisdiction for the Constitutional Question

National Issue

Summary of Case

The Controversy Before The Court - Summary Of Argument

Attorney General Kathleen Kane's DOMA Decision

CONCLUSION Oral Argument is requested


Addendum – Misinformation in the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Brief
- Statement of Jurisdiction
- Statement of Issues
- Statement of the Case

Addendum – Plaintiffs Questions/Issues

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

ARTICLE III REQUIREMENTS ARE MET

A case or controversy between the plaintiffs and the defendant is properly placed before the court.

(1) an “injury in fact”;

The Court acknowledged the Plaintiffs injury in the Memorandum of the Court dated October 29, 2013.
“[Plaintiffs] assert, inter alia, that Rule 1.6 denies a Pro Se litigant of an opportunity to petition the government for redress of grievances, denies a Pro Se litigant of life, liberty and or property without due process of law; causes a denial of constitutionally protected rights by the State and as such is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.”

(2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of – the injury had to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.

From Appellee Breif page 14.
“Attorney General Kathleen Kane has never has anything to do with Healy or Krautheim themselves, or with their previous litigation efforts (in which they allegedly were injured)”

Attorney General Kane acknowledges the failure to take any action to address the injuries to the Plaintiffs, to investigate the extensive reports of the judicial misconduct and corruption, and the damage caused to the plaintiffs because of the failure of the Attorney General to enforce the laws of the commonwealth.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The office has the responsibility for the prosecution of crime prosecuted by the commonwealth, including organized crime, public corruption, and consumer protection. The Attorney General represents the commonwealth in all actions brought by or against the commonwealth, reviews all proposed rules and regulations by commonwealth agencies.


The failure of the Attorney General to enforce the laws of the commonwealth, and also the Attorney General's failure to follow the law, directly caused the resultant injury to the plaintiffs.

The Attorney General's inaction in the matter further causes the inescapable injustice to the plaintiffs which continued for years.

Once an act of misconduct occurred within a courtroom, the failure of the Attorney General to enforce the law and to address the injustice and resultant public corruption sacrificed the integrity of the judiciary and caused the plaintiffs situation to worsen without any possibility for resolution.

(3) A showing that it 'be likely, as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable outcome.

A ruling that Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL resolves the matter for the plaintiffs and returns them to the state with their previously denied rights and liberties available with equal protection under the law.

A ruling that Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL permits the Attorney General to perform the law enforcement responsibilities required of the office of Attorney General.

A ruling that Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL permits the judiciary to acknowledge address and resolve matters before their courts without a mandate to ignore and deny injustice, judicial misconduct and public corruption.

A ruling that Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL permits the legislature to resume responsible management of the laws of the commonwealth

---

RETURN TO REPLY BRIEF INDEX

ROOKER – FELDMAN DOCTRINE

The Plaintiffs' Challenge is NOT subject to dismissal under the Rooker - Feldman doctrine.

The Court indicated in the Memorandum of the Court dated October 29, 2013, page 8.

“To the extent that plaintiffs do 'not, [in their complaint,] complain of injuries caused by a state court decision,” and instead raise “a direct challenge to the constitutionality” of Rule 1.6, their complaint is “not subject to dismissal under the Rooker – Feldman Doctrine.” Gray v Yavil, 513 F. App'x 210, 212 (3d Cir.2013).

The plaintiffs' cases in the state court were presented for the District Court to take judicial notice of the matters in the state and Admissions were filed on October 18, 2013, Dkt. No. 9

The plaintiffs are not asking the district court to review and reject state court judgments.

---

RETURN TO REPLY BRIEF INDEX

YOUNGER ABSTENTION

The Challenge is NOT subject to dismissal under the Younger Abstention doctrine.

The matter before the Court is the Constitutionality of Rule 1.6, a 'law' enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court without proper authority. The case does not involve state criminal prosecutions or civil enforcement proceedings akin to criminal prosecutions.

A state proceeding could not afford the opportunity to raise the federal constitutional claim. Pursuant to the challenged Rule 1.6, the state court is obligated to take no action which would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary, or that would self-incriminate.

Attorney General Kane correctly concurs in the Appellee Brief, page 16, that the District Court's application of Younger can no longer be justified in light of the recent Supreme Court Decision. Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S.Ct. 584 (2013)

---

RETURN TO REPLY BRIEF INDEX

ARTICLE V SECTION 10(C) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA

“The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts, justices of the peace and all officers serving process or enforcing orders, judgments or decrees of any court or justice of the peace, including the power to provide for assignment and reassignment of classes of actions or classes of appeals among the several courts as the needs of justice shall require, and for admission to the bar and to practice law, and the administration of all courts and supervision of all officers of the Judicial Branch, if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of the peace, nor suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose. All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions. “

The Attorney General's Appellee Brief page 3 misinforms the Court by incompletely paraphrasing The Pennsylvania Constitution Article V, 10(c) omitting the condition whereby the Supreme Court lacks authority when not consistent with the Constitution and when the rules abridge, modify and deny the substantive rights of any litigant.

Rule 1.6 causes a denial of rights and liberties which is NOT consistent with the United States Constitution or the Pennsylvania Constitution and causes the denial of the substantive and constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court was without authority to enact Rule 1.6 into law.

---

RETURN TO REPLY BRIEF INDEX

ARTICLE V – THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Jurisdiction was improperly removed from the Attorney General to the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court per Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

When acting per Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court may not deny constitutionally protected rights and privileges.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane had proper jurisdiction because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not have authority to remove jurisdiction from the Attorney General where it denied constitutionally protected rights and privileges.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane failed to act and did not enforce the law or address the Plaintiff's matters.

---

RETURN TO REPLY BRIEF INDEX

ARTICLE V – THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court was notified yet failed to act and did not enforce the law or address the Plaintiff's matters.

The Judicial Conduct Board was notified yet failed to act and did not enforce the law or address the Plaintiff's matters.

The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was notified yet failed to act and did not enforce the law or address the Plaintiff's matters.

Plaintiff's allege violations of Constitutionally protected rights and liberties and the failure of the Attorney General to take any action to address the resulting injustice due to the unconstitutional removal of jurisdiction from the Attorney General to the Supreme Court who also took no action.

---

RETURN TO REPLY BRIEF INDEX

JURISDICTION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

The Federal Court has jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 and provide the relief requested declaring the challenged law UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Rule 1.6 causes the plaintiffs direct the loss of constitutionally protected rights and additionally prevents the state from addressing the loss, which is of itself a protected right which is also being denied..

Article V Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not permit the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to deny rights protected by the United States Constitution.

---

RETURN TO REPLY BRIEF INDEX

NATIONAL ISSUE

Plaintiffs have lawfully petitioned the court and served the challenge upon every US Attorney General to address a constitutional calamity which has 'LAWFULLY BUT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY' persisted in the United States for decades.

The Plaintiffs have filed in the name of The United States, and served the Challenge on each of the Attorneys General as Rule 1.6 has been enacted into law in each state.

Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court address the national issue by presenting the Plaintiffs inability to escape the injustice by relocating to another state. There is no law which would prevent the injustice experienced in Pennsylvania from being presented in another state court where that state's version of Rule 1.6 would continue to deny the plaintiffs of life free from injustice.

Additionally, the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is a national issue. Any law which denies rights and liberties protected by the United States Constitution is unconstitutional in every state.

An act of sedition in every state was committed by the American Bar Association in the conspiracy to promulgate Rule 1.6 to every state. Each state supreme court acting in violation of the US Constitution to enact 'law' which violates the rights of the people and prevents denies and obstructs any remedy for the loss.

---

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

Attorney General Kathleen Kane's DOMA Decision

Where Kathleen Kane appropriately invoked the Rules of Professional Conduct in removing herself from the DOMA Constitutional Challenge in Pennsylvania, that option is not available as the matter before this Court is the constitutionality of the Rules of Professional Conduct specifically Rule 1.6.

Were Attorney General Kane to invoke the Rules of Professional Conduct to remove herself from this matter,
- she would demonstrate the plaintiff's allegation that the law is preventing their rights; (Rule 1.6)
- further exposing her actions are preventing the plaintiff's constitutional rights; (Rule 1.6)
- further exposing her client for the improper, unlawful and unconstitutional denial of their rights, (Rule 1.6) and
- further exposing the Supreme Court of enacting an unconstitutional law which denied and prevented (Rule 1.6)
The Rules of Professional Conduct prevent her from removing herself from the matter.

---

RETURN TO REPLY BRIEF INDEX

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should reverse the decision of the district court and refer the matter to the District Court, or the United States Supreme Court, for presention and review of the Constitutionality of Rule 1.6.


AN ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED.


We lawfully and strongly demand restoration of our constitutional rights and petition this Honorable Court to review the constitutional matter.


Respectfully submitted,

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

---

RETURN TO REPLY BRIEF INDEX

Draft - Third Circuit REPLY

The Plaintiff's respectfully inform this court that the convoluted misinformation provided on behalf of the Defendants which has successfully dismissed cases in the past DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE.

The Plaintiffs have standing.
- Article III standing is established.
- The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is not applicable.
- The Younger Abstention does not apply.
- Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not permit the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to deny rights protected by the United States Constitution.

The Court has jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of the law and provide the relief requested declaring the challenged law UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Rule 1.6 causes the plaintiffs loss of constitutionally protected rights and additionally prevents the state from addressing the loss, which is of itself a protected right which is being denied..

Plaintiffs have lawfully petitioned the court and served the challenge on every US Attorney General to address a constitutional calamity which has 'LAWFULLY BUT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY' persisted in the United State for decades.

An act of sedition in every state was committed by the American Bar Association in the conspiracy to promulgate Rule 1.6 to every state. Each state supreme court acting in violation of the US Constitution to enact 'law' which violates the rights of the people and prevents denies and obstructs any remedy for the loss.

We lawfully and strongly demand restoration of our constitutional rights and petition this Honorable Court to review the constitutional matter..

When used in this document “law”, 'law', “lawful”, 'lawful', “lawfully”, and 'lawfully' indicates a law which has been incorrectly presumed to be lawful and constitutional, however as it is repugnant to the US Constitution is ultimately and in actuality a nullity.


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 not to address the Plaintiff's matters.

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.

(Article III requirement is met.)

A case or controversy between the plaintiffs and the defendant is properly placed before the court.


ARTICLE V – The Attorney General

Jurisdiction was improperly removed from the Attorney General to the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court per Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

When acting per Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court may not deny constitutionally protected rights and privileges.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane had proper jurisdiction because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not have authority to remove jurisdiction from the Attorney General where it denied constitutionally protected rights and privileges.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane failed to act and did not to address the Plaintiff's matters.


ARTICLE V – The Pennsylvania Supreme Court

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court failed to act and did not to address the Plaintiff's matters.

The Judicial Conduct Board failed to act and did not to address the Plaintiff's matters.

The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania failed to act and did not to address the Plaintiff's matters.

Plaintiff's allege violations of Constitutionally protected rights and liberties and the failure of the Attorney General to take any action to address the resulting injustice due to the unconstitutional removal of jurisdiction from the Attorney General to the Supreme Court who also took no action.


Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information

Lawyers are required and responsible to report all misconduct
- unless it affected the integrity of the judicial system
- unless it was self incriminating
- unless it adversely affected the client

The Attorney General must be a lawyer.

The Attorney General must follow the U.S. Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane is the chief law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is responsible for law enforcement, prosecution and review while representing the Commonwealth in all actions brought by or against the Commonwealth.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane did not address the absolute failure of the Supreme Court to take any action to address the denial of constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.
RULE 1.6(#) Lawyers are not required to report 'misconduct' where it affects the integrity of the judicial system.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane did not address the failure of the Attorney Generals office to act to address the denial of constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.
Rule 1.6(#) Lawyers are not required to report 'misconduct' where is is self-incriminating.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane took no action to address the law which causes her to take no action as that would reveal the improper actions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania when the law was enacted.
Rule 1.6(#) Lawyers are not required to report 'misconduct' where it adversely affects the client.

Rule 1.6 prevented Attorney General Kathleen Kane from acting to address the loss of constitutionally protected rights and privileges which the Rule itself was causing to be denied.

Rule 1.6 has a 'self-defense mechanism' which prevents it from being addressed by anyone who is required to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. No Lawyer, District Attorney, or Attorney General could 'lawfully' take any action to address the loss of constitutionally protected rights and privileges of the plaintiffs.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court who had enacted the law could not take any action to address the unconstitutional law as Rule 1.6(#) prevented them from any action which was self-incriminating.

The author of Rule 1.6 who presented The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Supreme Courts of the other states, with the law to enact was equally protected from exposure as any action to reveal the unconstitutional result of the law was protected by the CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

RULE 60 Attachments to follow for immedaite action and as evidence of the deliberate and intentional denial of rights. The latest order issued without jurisdiction was issued 3/11/2014 by Judge Bernard Moore, the 20th member of the Montgomery County Pennsylvania judiciary to have conspired in the case. No escaping the injustice of Rule 1.6.