Unconstitutional Nullity: Peek-a-boo... Justice is Coming

Freedom is IMPORTANT. Constitutional rights are IMPORTANT.

If your solution violates either My Freedom or the US Constitution, then YOU have some more work to do.

Freedoms and Rights can coexist.

Once permitted to infringe upon each other, it is a slippery slope.
(OY! I hate cliche's but no better choice there.)

I am grateful for the effort by the founders of the US, because in today's 140 char or less environment they would never have been allowed to think in a broad sense which permits freedom and rights to co-exist.

Their archived papers and documents explained the basis for their decisions, and the aspects which they wrestled with to come to the decision. They exerted considerably more thought while founding the American Government than people expect. It was not haphazard. Decisions were not reached by exhausting the person who did not agree. Only one known and argued issue seems to have been conceded while it left the government at risk.

One issue which was a necessity left a loophole in the separation of powers. They did foresee the problem, but did not imagine that it would ever occur. They got it wrong. Very wrong.

By permitting the Judicial branch to self-police, the administration of justice, and the independence of the judiciary and the reasons which necessitated absolute judicial immunity all pivoted on one point of failure - THE PUBLIC TRUST.

The Public Trust in the judiciary is mandated by law. Respect towards the judicial branch is mandated by law.

The courts were open rooms in the centers of towns. Justice was transparent and open to the public. The public could witness proceedings. When necessary, where the trust placed in the judiciary was violated, the public would remove a judge from office. Occasionally by hanging. Justice was swift. Violations of the Public Trust could not be permitted to continue and erode the entire system of justice and government..

It was this type of violation of the public trust which endorsed and enabled apartheid to persist in South Africa. Their judiciary jailed the outspoken without regard for their own injustice.

When South Africa wrote their new Constitution in the 90's, they made certain that the judicial branch was accountable to the people and the Executive and Legislative branches of government, and not just to the judicial branch. They recognized the problem which existed in the US, once corrupted the judiciary find justice in permitting injustice to continue.


THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT
(because trust, honor and respect is mandated by law)

The judiciary did not recognize Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION for the pervasive corruption it would permit, cause, enable and conceal.

Once under the control of Rule 1.6, with the leverage of exposing the violation of the public trust concealed by the judiciary, the American Bar Association had effectively usurped the authority and independence of the judiciary. The ABA then manipulated the authority of the courts over lawyers and legal professionals, even in other branches of government. Where Rule 1.6 expanded to affect federal lawyers, Rule 1.6 undermined the jurisdiction and authority of the Federal Government to act to address corruption within the state. Rule 1.6 required active participation in the conspiracy and the injustice.

The McDade Murtha Amendment which prevents the exposure of Rule 1.6 by government lawyers was enacted against the objections of several US Attorneys General, and DOJ officials. It would have been so simple had they only informed the Congress of the central issue. Applying the ethical standard enacted within the state to all government lawyers would cause considerable damage to the government.

The Rules of Professional Conduct lacked ethics, permitted fraud and the efforts to conceal fraud and prevent resolution. The US Congress never checked to see if the state ethics laws were ethical. Pennsylvania describes the Rules as a minimal ethical standard. Minimal is none. Points for not lying about the law which would require their silence about the corruption it would cause.

Did the state law, Rule 1.6 prevent exposing that state ethics laws lacked ethics? even where the country was about to mandate all government attorneys to follow the 'Rules' within the respective state where they were investigating and working? even where it denied constitutionally protected rights?

Apparently, the lawyers who foreclosed upon over 48 million homes using fraudulent and forged robo-signed documents were confident that their corruption of the authority of the judiciary had been successful.

The big injustices, the little injustices all combine to create a sense of national urgency. Injustice is occurring across the country. The US Constitution is being ignored. One law enacted in every state affects every case secretly, confidentially. Promotion to law was begun in 1984, generations of lawyers find this 'acceptable' because they were mandated to conceal the problem if they discovered it. Trained to perceive Rule 1.6 as attorney-client privilege, and neglecting the affect on the law, justice and the judiciary.... even while it undermined and usurped the authority of the other branches of government.

When recognized by PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane, an unconstitutional law would not be effective to silence her, The courts issues several secret court orders. AG Kane is silenced while those corrupt orders are under appeal.... and while it undermines the constitutional rights of every American.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 removes an unconstitutional law and restores justice to the entire country. Discovered by victims of injustice with standing to address the unconstitutional effect of the 'law'. Without the assistance, or cooperation, of any legal professional or member of the American Bar Association and affiliated organizations formed in every jurisdiction at every level of state and federal courts.

Hindered from the effort by legal professionals within the state and federal government mandated to follow the unconstitutional law, the government lawyers knew better and cannot be excused from damages and repartations for their participation in the denial of the rule of law and prevention of rights secures by the US Constitution.

Did those secret court orders require Kathleen Kane to file for divorce in an attempt to secure her personal assets? Is that why those lawyers are representing 'the person' Kathleen Kane (and not the Office of the Attorneyh General)?

The laws work when not prevented by an unconstitutional requirement to conceal injustice in every state and federally.

If your solution violates either My Freedom or the US Constitution, then you have some more work to do.

If their defense is that they were following the law, then they need to recall that an unconstitutional law is no law, a nullity, as if it never existed. It can no longer be obstructed by an unconstitutional law mandating non-disclosure and confidentiality and participation in a conspiracy to deny constitutional rights.


A nullity cannot conceal a nullity.

A nullity cannot justify or excuse a nullity.

PEEK-a-Boo... JUSTICE IS COMING.

Peek-a-boo Pennsylvania!

Governor Wolf and the Legislature can act now, or after a federal lawsuit is filed against them?

Those who know better ought to know better than to continue their participation in a conspiracy to deny the constitutional rights of every American in every state. EVERY PERSON MATTERS.

Pwennsylvania, whatcha gonna do?

On to SCOTUS & the US Congress

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has demonstrated their tactics which while preventing the matter from going before any judges rules without any court appearances AND affirms that ruling by every judge in the Third Circuit.

The thing is that no judge signs anything in the Third Circuit. Yet, one must play along to the point of foolishness pretending.

- even when the attorneys general have indicated they were told not to participate.
- even though no order is ever signed
- even though the clerk of courts never provides the briefs to the judges
- even though the US Marshalls are watching the case
- even though the rulings are not based on facts (there's been no hearings so everything has to be on the paper.)
- even though the technology demonstrates the clerk of courts misdirection

The evidence that the matter never went before any judge for review is clear. The fact that they think people are stupid and that the court persists in this disrespect is aggravating.

What's wrong with these people? So afraid of facts? So afraid of justice? So afraid that they cannot substantiate their decisions based on the facts of the case THAT THEY MAKE UP STUFF and rule based on that.

The incomprehensible injustice of the American Court system.

Pray you never learn this fact first-hand.

So the matetr is off to SCOTUS, BUT with the knowledge that SCOTUS would never acknowledge that the United States Judiciary has been undermined by the American Bar Association in every state and given the full power to attack and destroy it's critics.

Remember how many years Nelson mandela spent in prison. It was the South African Courts whichn put him in jail. It was the South African Courts which jailed it's critics.

It is the South African Constitution that saw to it that the Judicial Branch of their Government would not have that power to undermine justice in South Africa ever again.

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.

The Constitutional Crisis in the US

There have been many groups attempting to address the constitutional crisis in the United States. Their approaches include the following:
Civil Disobediance
Constitutional Conventions
Court Reforms
Revolution
Enacting New Laws
Grand Juries

Unfortunately, the same problem which is causing the crisis prevents those approaches from being successful.

Where a national approach is necessary, Americans are very apathetic when it comes to their rights. Those who are unaware that they have lost their rights are content to ignore the people who have lost their rights.

Once you experience a loss of rights, you will be forced to turn to the very courts which deny your rights for a resolution. A court where no one will acknowledge your loss of rights. A Court where the issue is ignored with a deliberate silence that overwhelms the matter.

The best definition I have found for the victim of this type of inescapable loss of rights is...

"I am a sane man dealing with an absolutely insane situation. Every person in a position to help has acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter… they each make the situation worse… NO ONE HELPS"

Those in govt did not expect proactive attempts at a resolution. This may be why the government is trying to get guns off the streets while seemingly preparing for a sort of martial law in every community.

The government never expected anyone to find the needle in the haystack of injustice.

It was a necessity in my case. I needed to find out why the courts and every level of law enforcement failed to address the denial of my constitutional rights while annihilating every aspect of my life in the process. The injustice continually delivered by the 20 judges over the course of my court appearances since 2007.

Nationally, 30 years of denial of constitutional rights could come to an end.

Once I knew the problem, everyone's failure to take action on my behalf was clear. I had an explanation. FINALLY.


ONE LAW. Enacted by the Supreme Courts in each state. IS THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM. Same 'law' in every state. Same number. Same Name. Rule 1.6 - Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.



Rule 1.6 makes it illegal for a lawyer to address the problem. I am not a lawyer.

Rule 1.6 makes it illegal for a state Attorney General to address the problem. They are lawyers mandated to follow the rule or face disciplinary action... disciplinary action is swift to occur and deliberately intended to prevent exposure of the unconstitutional 'law'. Disciplinary proceedings are kept CONFIDENTIAL.

The 'law' in place makes it illegal for the state Supreme Courts to fix the problem the state Supreme courts caused when they enacted the 'law'.

The 'law' in place makes it illegal for lawyers within the legislature to fix the problem caused when the state Supreme Courts enacted the 'law'.

Truth be told, Most lawyers just accept it and had no idea what caused the constitutional crisis.

Lawyers who knew the effect were the same lawyers who foreclosed on millions of Americans and threw people out of their homes. An act of judicial misconduct or fraud upon the court was all that was required to cause the loss of rights. Fraudulent robo-signed documents served to the court.

The DOJ and the Courts (every level of the Courts) were all aware of the Constitutional Crisis. The 'law' makes it illegal for them to take any action to fix the problem.

Only one person in government would be able to lawfully address the problem. BUT, doing so would expose the active participation of every member of the judiciary and the membership of American Bar Association in the matter. Every judge and lawyer in the country.

Rule 1.6 was enacted into law starting in 1984 in New Jersey. Quietly and gradually it was enacted in every state.

When Rule 1.6 was a trade code, it was a guideline for legal professionals. HOWEVER, when enacted into law, CONFIDENTIALITY became a MANDATE for all lawyers, district attorneys and attorneys general.

When it became a mandate people experienced the denial of constitutionally protected rights and liberties. This denial was committed by the courts and the entire judiciary. Those responsible to make sure a persons rights were available to them in a courtroom were the very ones ignoring people's rights. The denial was done without mercy by those who knew their actions were unconstitutional, but the 'law' mandated the denial of those rights and liberties. An Appeal to a higher court would only cause the same results, because the courts are mandated to keep the injustice CONFIDENTIAL. Opinions from higher courts became documents of misinformation which ignored the lower courts injustice.

Any law which denies rights and privileges guaranteed by the US Constitution is a nullity. And while the judges and lawyers know this, they allowed Rule 1.6 to undermine the courts, the law and the constitution in every state.

The failure of lawyers and judges to stop the deliberate injustice demonstrates the intimidating and threatening disciplinary power of the courts conspiracy of confidentiality. The courts self-regulation disciplinary processes used to conceal the court's injustice.


THE US ATTORNEY GENERAL

The US Attorney General may not be prevented from addressing issues regarding ANY LAW in the country. Rule 1.6 does not prevent the US Attorney General from action. I think the mess is considered so massive, that the US Attorney General have opted to permit the continued injustice to occur instead of having civil unrest throughout the nation..

The only other person in the country who could lawfully address the matter is a pro se litigant (non-lawyer) who has experienced the injustice, survived the injustice, found the cause of the injustice, documented the injustice, and would have standing to address the matter in the Federal Courts. THEY NEVER ANTICIPATED THIS POSSIBILITY. It was the last place I looked. Only when it was realized that everyone who was failing to act had to directly or indirectly follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. They were lawyers or were guided by lawyers.


The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed on August 8 2013 and served upon every state Attorney General.

No news media has carried the story. We tried.

The Federal Courts have deliberately acted improperly to attempt to dismiss the matter. This causes more courts to become involved in the actions to continue

The State Attorneys General failed to respond to the Summons & Challenge. Rule 1.6 mandates their silence. They defaulted.

Currently in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals with the anticipation it must go on to the US Supreme Court, the recommendation of certiori by the Third Circuit judiciary would be beneficial.

Since August 2013, you may have noticed changes in the justice system. The quick end to some injustice which has caused people to be released from jail. The government seems to be preparing to restore justice. But simply put they know that people are going to be angry. Justifiably angry.

I never imagined I'd find the fix. But like I said, I had no choice. The victims are relegated to homelessness, prison or suicide... and that was just not an option for me.

Once Rule 1.6 is out of the way, justice and the constitution and the law will be restored.

When South Africa was writing their Constitution they recognized that the apartheid in South Africa was extended by the courts who falsely imprisoned civil rights activists. The courts were used to intimidate and threaten the people. The Courts were the enforcers of apartheid. South Africa's Constitution makes sure that their judiciary is the weakest and most vulnerable branch of their government.

The US Judiciary has been permitted to self regulate their courts. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 exposes that the courts betrayed the trust of the People and were unable to handle that responsibility.