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

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

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