Showing posts with label Senator Toomey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senator Toomey. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

HAND delivered - US Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick & PA Representative Thomas Murt

Continued our delivery of the letters to US Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick at his office in Newtown, PA...

On the way back we stopped for a delivery and DISCUSSION of the issues at the office of PA Representative Tom Murt in Hatboro, PA.

The following letters were included in the package. Each is different and exposes a different aspect of the Unconstitutional Effect of Rule 1.6.

- Letter to Governor Tom Corbett, Sheriffs of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Legislature, and the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. PDF version
- Letter to President Barack Obama. PDF version
- Letter to US Senator Toomey and Senator Casey. PDF version
- Letter to the Senators of the 113th Congress. PDF version
- Letter to the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary. PDF version
- Letter to the Sheriffs of Pennsylvania. PDF version
- Letter to the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee. PDF version
- Letter to US House of Representatives. PDF version
- Letter to US House Committee on the Judiciary. PDF version
- Letter to Governors of the US. PDF version
- Letter to Governor Tom Corbett. PDF version
- Letter to the Pennsylvania Senators. PDF version
- Letter to the Pennsylvania Representatives. PDF version

candor

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Letter to Senators

July 28, 2014

The Senators of the 113th Congress
Washington, DC 20510

Senators,

Please permit us to update you with a document sent to President Barack Obama. You may have also been informed of this issue by Senator Toomey and Senator Casey of Pennsylvania.

In August 2013, a Constitutional Challenge to Rule 1.6 was filed and served upon the Attorney General for every state, fifty six in all, to address a law enacted by the state supreme courts without benefit of the state legislature or the signature of any governor. The unconstitutional aspects were not taken into consideration during construction of the law.

Every state attorney general failed to respond to the summons and challenge by the deadline, yet the district court refused to accept or acknowledge their deliberate default action. The Challenge was concealed and then dismissed based on unsubstantiated doctrine and fictional misinformation. That decision only served to harm the integrity of the court. The very integrity which the Challenge had sought to restore while re-securing the constitutional rights of all Americans.

The national foreclosure crisis is an example of Rule 1.6 confidentiality undermining the judiciary and removing people from their homes based on fraudulent and robo-signed documentation. Pennsylvania’s Kids for Cash scandal demonstrated Rule 1.6 even more cleanly.

The judiciary is mandated to follow the very law which is being challenged and to protect the integrity of the court by sacrificing the integrity of the court. A seriously flawed logic which prevents lawyers and law enforcement from addressing judicial corruption and injustice within the state and federal judicial system. The federal courts follow the local (state) Rules of Professional Conduct where Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is an indirect law which undermines the government and trumps EVERY law including the US Constitution.

Addressing the injustice of Rule 1.6 is an inevitability. Facing it responsibly will affect the public reaction to this realization. We ask your involvement, or where your direct action is ‘unlawful’, whatever assistance of support and resources which will permit us to succeed for the betterment of the nation in the best interests of every American.

Sincerely,

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

PDF Letter to President
PDF Attachment

Letter to Senator Toomey (and Senator Casey too)

July 28, 2014

U.S. Senator Patrick J. Toomey
Eight Penn Center
1628 JFK Blvd, Suite 1702
Philadelphia, PA 19103

U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
2000 Market Street, Suite 610
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Senators,

Please permit us to update you with a document sent to President Obama. A draft of which had already been provided to you on June 18, 2014.

While we can never be certain that our correspondence reaches the President, we again ask that you present the issue directly to the President and to the U.S. Congress.

We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you both to discuss the matter.

We do understand that Senator Casey, as an attorney obligated to take no action in this matter, may continue to deny any meeting requests. One would hope that Senator Casey would be eager to be involved considering his fathers involvement as the Governor of Pennsylvania when the law was improperly and unconstitutionally enacted. In any case we will continue to keep Senator Casey informed so that he is permitted to make his own decisions in regard to taking action to address judicial corruption and injustice.

A meeting to update status of your actions and further actions we are taking would be appreciated. Please contact Todd Krautheim at (215) 290-XXXX.

Sincerely,

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

Cc: Philip Innamorato
Kurt Imhof

PDF Letter
PDF Letter to President
PDF Attachment

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

MEETING: Senator Pat Toomey

Met and exchanged documents and supporting information at Senator Pat Toomey's office in Philadelphia this morning. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was presented.

The meeting covered the who, what where, why, how and when in a very short time... with supporting articles and references.

Requested Senator Toomey review and assist in editing of the request for congressional intervention. (Draft Copy)

The meeting ended with us offering to be available to address any questions and provide support and evidence of any issue which is challenged.

Senator Toomey is NOT a lawyer and is NOT MANDATED under Rule 1.6 to ignore injustice and judicial corruption.

JUSTICE IS COMING.





After the meeting at Senator Toomey's office, we walked to Senator Casey's office a few blocks away. Though Sen. Casey's misinformed contact person had refused to arrange any meeting with us, we provided the handouts which were given to Senator Toomey and offered to address any questions or issues which Senator Casey might have on the matter.

We also requested Senator Casey's review and input regarding the the request for congressional intervention document. (Draft Copy)

Senator Casey IS a Lawyer and IS MANDATED under Rule 1.6 to take no action which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary and the reputation of lawyers... even when those actions deny constitutionally protected rights.

Senator Casey's father was the Governor of Pennsylvania in 1987/1988 when the Rules of Professional Conduct were promulgated and enacted into law by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Friday, June 6, 2014

Two lawful ways to resolve the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6

There are only two lawful ways to resolve the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6

1. Default by state attorneys general within the Federal Court.
2. An Act of Congress.

The state and federal courts have all mandated that they may take no action to adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. A mandated bias and prejudice which prevents an independent review by the courts at every level.

The attorneys general can lawfully default in the challenge and the result is the requirement of the court to accept the default and find Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional. 55 of 56 attorneys general defaulted in the challenge.

Default was the gentle quiet resolution in the best interest of the entire country to avoid alarm and civil unrest.

The unexplained late filing of a future intention to dismiss on behalf of AG Kane required the response of the court. That 'Monkeywrench' thrown by Randall Henzes, purportedly on behalf of Attorney General Kane, sacrificed the integrity of the judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals who are mandated to conceal and suppress the matter. The improper doctrine and imaginary references presented are an embarrassment.

Default would have allowed the judges to maintain their individual dignity in this instance.

The United States Supreme Court additionally has the bias and prejudice of "protecting the integrity of the judiciary" from the exposure of the sedition of every state court in actions which denied the constitutional rights of the people of every state.

An Act of Congress will be required to address the situation. Constitutionally, the Congress must address the failure of the judiciary. Following the example of South Africa's Constitution, Congress must act to address the violation of the public trust by the judicial branch and prevent any future jeopardy to the liberty and rights of the People.

YOU DO NOT PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY BY SEDITION
OR
BY DENYING THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS IN CIVIL, FAMILY and CRIMINAL COURTS,
OR
BY DENYING THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN LUZERNE COUNTY,
OR
BY DENYING THE RIGHTS OF MILLIONS OF HOMEOWNERS IN FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE ACTIONS.

Every US Senator has been notified of the Constitutional Challenge.

Senator Toomey and Senator Casey of Pennsylvania have avoided meetings on the topic.

There are only two lawful ways to resolve the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6.

1. By the deliberate default by the Attorneys General in federal court, resulting in Rule 1.6 being declared unconstitutional without the court's interaction.
2. An Act of Congress.

The Federal Judiciary has a mandate which does not permit them to adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. If the decision goes to the federal judges, they are required to sacrifice their integrity and write orders which have no basis in fact, law or legal doctrine.
Examples are documented in EVERY order from a federal judge.

The state Supreme Courts are under the same mandate. As such, they too are legally prevented from repealing their law, or finding it unconstitutional. The Federal Court did not certify the constitutional challenge with each state court because it would require a false answer.

The state Legislatures are similarly prevented from action. The non-lawyer governors may have legal authority, however the attorney general or private counsel are not permitted to advise them of such.