Invitation

August 26, 2014

Rep. Katherine M. Watson
Rep. Marguerite Quinn
Rep. Todd Stephens
Rep. Tina Davis
Rep. Scott Petri
Rep. John T. Galloway
Rep. Thomas Murt
Rep. Steven J. Santarsiero
Rep. Frank Farry
Rep. Paul Clymer
Rep. Gene DiGirolamo
Rep. Bernie O’Neill
Rep. Kate Harper
Sen. Bob Mensch
Sen. Robert Tomlinson
Sen. Charles McIlhinney
Sen. Stewart Greenleaf
Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick
Senator Bob Casey
Senator Pat Toomey

A package of information regarding the loss of constitutional rights and liberties caused by Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct has been delivered to your office, by hand, and by fax, with a request to meet to discuss the issue, and ways to address it.

We have been very fortunate to have had the opportunity to meet with members of your staff, or directly when your schedule has permitted. Those meetings have proven to be productive and informative.

As we are all located nearby to each other, we are proposing a meeting with everyone who is available. Please contact our office with 3 possible dates/times when you are available in the coming weeks and if you are interested in hosting the meeting at your office, another location, or our location in Doylestown.

Thank You for your attention to this very important issue.

Terance Healy
Todd Krautheim

---

A law enacted by the state supreme court in every state without proper construction, without constitutional review, without involvement of any state legislature and without the signature of any governor designed to ignore judicial corruption and injustice which includes an aggressively enforced MANDATE of silence for all lawyers while ignoring, denying and preventing the constitutional rights of litigants.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6

Rule 1.6 affects civil, criminal, family, federal district and federal appeals courts making it impossible to address the loss of constitutional rights when committed by a judge.

The Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandates confidentiality of client information where the information
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
- would reveal the misconduct of their own office,
- would expose individual liability,
- would adversely affect their client.

The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, the Attorney General’s office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers and the public. All Clients.

This is why Kids for Cash was ignored by the Attorney General, the Luzerne County District Attorney, every lawyer in Luzerne county, the PA Supreme Court and the Judicial Conduct Board.

This is why the ‘Sandusky Report’ released in 2014 failed to indicate any improper conduct. The Report also failed to include a disclaimer that Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandated the silence of the Attorney General regarding information about the Office of the Attorney General, the Governor, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, etc…

This is why millions of foreclosures were ignored by the Attorneys General nationwide with no prosecutions while millions of people lost their homes based on fraudulent and robosigned deeds and other documents.

Rule 1.6 has undermined law enforcement and the judicial branch in the states and federally.

---

Rule 1.6 is a core part of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Most, if not all, rules point back to Rule 1.6 by cross reference.

The ABA presented their Model Rules to each state supreme court for promulgation into law. As trade rules, confidentiality was discretionary. As law, the confidentiality became an aggressively enforced mandate which denied people of constitutional rights and prevented anyone in law from acting on behalf of the victims against it’s unconstitutional effect. The victims having no protection of the law become 1) destitute/homeless, 2) incarcerated, or 3) suicidal.

RULE 1.6 CAUSES AN INESCAPABLE LOSS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
WHICH UNDERMINES THE STATE AND FEDERAL JUDICIARY.

PDF version
Fax'd 8/26/2014 11:25 AM - 1:13 PM

What is this all about anyway...

A law enacted by the state supreme court in every state without proper construction, without constitutional review, without involvement of any state legislature and without the signature of any governor designed to ignore judicial corruption and injustice which includes an aggressively enforced MANDATE of silence for all lawyers while ignoring, denying and preventing the constitutional rights of litigants.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6

Rule 1.6 affects civil, criminal, family, federal district and federal appeals courts making it impossible to address the loss of constitutional rights when committed by a judge.

The Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6
CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandates confidentiality of client information where the information
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
- would reveal the misconduct of their own office,
- would expose individual liability,
- would adversely affect their client.

The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, the Attorney General’s office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers and the public. Clients.

This is why Kids for Cash was ignored by the Attorney General, the Luzerne County District Attorney, and every lawyer in Luzerne county.

This is why the Sandusky Report released in 2014 failed to indicate any improper conduct. The Report also failed to include a disclaimer that Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandated the silence of the Attorney General regarding information about the Office of the Attorney General, the Governor, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, etc...

This is why millions of foreclosures were ignored by the Attorneys General nationwide with no prosecutions while millions of people lost their homes based on fraudulent and robo-signed deeds and other documents.

Rule 1.6 has undermined law enforcement and the judicial branch in the states and federally.

---

Rule 1.6 is a core part of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct. All rules point back to Rule 1.6 by cross reference.

The ABA presented the Rules to each state supreme court for promulgation into law. The American Bar Association took their trade laws which were discretionary and the supreme courts turned them into lawful mandates. Aggressively enforced mandates which denied people's constitutional rights. BUT, the silence prevented anyone in law from acting on behalf of the victim of the loss of their constitutional rights.

Rule 1.6 causes an inescapable loss of constitutional rights.

Rule 1.6 has NOT been Misinterpreted or Misunderstood

The Constitutional Challenge is NOT misinterpreting or misunderstanding Rule 1.6.

These are the dismissive suggestions of lawyers with regard to the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6. It is what they tell people who ask them about it. They offer no further information to back up their statement. They further indicate that we will never succeed. (and neglect to explain.)

These lawyers are WRONG.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 backs up every statement. Every post on the web has supporting documentation which corroborates every statement.

Within Pennsylvania we have four clear examples of Corruption and Injustice where the actions of the judiciary and lawyers involved in the matters have defied any logical and acceptable explanation. When Rule 1.6 is applied the actions of law enforcement are clearly explained.
- Kids for Cash
- Jerry Sandusky prosecution & the Sandusky Report
- Foreclosures


How about we have a discussion? a debate? in Public? on Television? Anytime... Anywhere...


Let's see who understands the improperly enacted and unconstitutional law - lawyers mandated to say nothing about it, or two non-lawyers who can demonstrate the mandate for lawyers to conspire to conceal injustice and corruption.

As those same lawyers are MANDATED to silence/confidentiality of information even where it is about Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, We will see who is misinterpreting misunderstanding OR misinforming.

And we will see who gets disciplined for discussing the issue.

Rule 1.6 is frequently the subject of law review articles. Usually those articles are also addressing the problems with the Rule which cause it to undermine undermine morality, ethics, personal integrity. AND TO UNDERMINE JUSTICE. Search for those keywords in your favorite search engine. You may be surprised at the volume of material. The step that seems to be missing from any article is the unconstitutional aspect and the inescapable situation it causes for the victims of judicial corruption and injustice.

Addressing the injustice of Rule 1.6 is an inevitability. Facing it responsibly will affect the public reaction to this realization.

Where substantive rights are violated, directly or collaterally, the law is repugnant to the Constitution and a nullity.

The judiciary have buried an unconstitutional law so deep in the law books that they never expected any non-lawyer to find it, and survive to prove it while being denied their constitutional rights and the protection of the law.

No matter how deeply the mandate of Rule 1.6 is buried and concealed, THE LAW MAY NOT VIOLATE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 has been presented to the President of the United States, the United States Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States.

WE WELCOME YOUR QUESTIONS AND WILL ENDEAVOR TO ANSWER EACH. COMMENTS are not published on this site, but comments are reviewed and responded to on a regular basis.