CEASE and DESIST

American Bar Association
and ALL Affiliated Organizations
(PDF version)

This CEASE AND DESIST LETTER is to inform the officers of the American Bar Association and affiliated organizations at national, state and local levels, and their membership respectively to IMMEDIATELY STOP all operations and activities.

The organizations efforts which have written and promoted your Model Rules of Professional Conduct to be enacted into law in every state
- has caused a violation of constitutionally protected rights;
- has resulted in preventing law enforcement from actions to address the denial of constitutional rights;
- has undermined the integrity and the judicial independence of the courts at every level within the state courts, the federal district courts and the court of appeals
and has had similar impact hindering the government and ignoring the constitutional rights of Americans in every state.

In undermining the independence of the judiciary, your organization has committed an act of sedition which has been further compounded by manifest disregard for the law and due process. An aggressively enforced conspiracy of silence within your membership prevents exposure, redress and resolution by an affected judiciary which denies rights secured by the Constitution of the United States. The loss of judicial independence, an essential element of justice, compromises the integrity and jurisdiction of the courts.

As your activity which has resulted in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct being enacted into law affects my rights, I have the right to address this issue with your organization. I am currently engaged in efforts to address the indirect unconstitutional effect upon my rights including, but not limited to, contacting state and federal government representatives who may be members of your organization.

Additionally, I will explore legal remedies available to me. These remedies include, but are not limited to, contacting law enforcement to obtain criminal sanctions against you, and suing you civilly for damages which I have experienced. I am not under any circumstances waiving any legal rights I have presently, or future legal remedies against you by sending you this letter.

Sincerely,
Terance Healy
Todd Krautheim

DISTRIBUTION DIRECTLY TO:
American Bar Association
321 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654-7598

American Bar Association
Suite 900
740 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-1022

American Immigration Lawyers Association
Suite 300
1331 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-3142

American Judicature Society
Center Building
2014 Broadway, Suite 100
Nashville, TN 37203

The American Law Institute
4025 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104

The Association of American Law Schools
1614 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009-1001

Association of Life Insurance Counsel
14350 Mundy Drive
Suite 800, #258
Noblesville, IN 46060

Conference of Chief Justices (with copies sent to each Chief Justice)
Association and Conference Services
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, VA 23185-4147

Energy Bar Association
2000 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 715
Washington, D.C. 20036



Federal Bar Association
1220 North Fillmore St.
Suite 444
Arlington, VA 22201

The Federal Circuit Bar Association
1620 I Street, NW
Suite 801
Washington DC 20006

Federal Communications Bar Association
1020 19th Street, NW
Suite 325
Washington, DC 20036-6101

Hispanic National Bar Association
1020 19th Street NW, Suite 505
Washington, D.C. 20036

Judge Advocates Association
In care of: The Army Navy Club
901 17th Street
Washington DC 20006

The Maritime Law Association of the United States
16855 Northchase Dr
Houston, TX 77060

National Asian Pacific American Bar Association
1612 K Street NW, Suite 1400
Washington, DC 20006

National Association of Attorneys General
2030 M STREET NW
8TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, DC 20036

National Association of Bar Executives
c/o ABA Division for Bar Services
321 N. Clark St., 16th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
1660 L St. NW
12th Floor
Washington, DC 20036

National Association of Women Judges
1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 1138
Washington, D.C. 20036

National Association of Women Lawyers
American Bar Center MS 21.1
321 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654

National Bar Association
1225 11th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001

National Conference of Bar Examiners
302 South Bedford Street
Madison, WI 53703-3622

The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
111 N. Wabash Avenue
Suite 1010
Chicago, Illinois 60602

National Conference of Women’s Bar Associations
PO Box 82366
Portland, OR 97282

National District Attorneys Association
99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 330
Alexandria, VA 22314

National Legal Aid & Defender Association
1901 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006

The National LGBT Bar Association
1301 K Street NW Suite 1100, East Tower
Washington, DC 20005

National Native American Bar Association
PO Box 11145
Tempe, AZ 85284

Alabama State Bar
415 Dexter Avenue
P.O. Box 671
Montgomery, AL 36104

Alaska Bar Association
550 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 1900
Suite 1900
P.O. Box 100279
Anchorage, AK 99510-2079

State Bar of Arizona
Suite 200
4201 N. 24th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85016-6288

Arkansas Bar Association
2224 Cottondale Lane
Little Rock, AR 72202

The State Bar Of California
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

Colorado Bar Association
9th Floor
1900 Grant Street
Denver, CO 80203

Connecticut Bar Association
30 Bank Street
P.O. Box 350
New Britain, CT 06050-0350

Delaware State Bar Association
301 N. Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801

The District Of Columbia Bar
Suite 200
1101 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-3908

The Bar Association Of The District Of Columbia
Suite 101
1016 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

The Florida Bar
P.O. Box 389
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300

State Bar Of Georgia
Suite 100
104 Marietta Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30303

Supreme Court of Guam
Second Floor, Guam Judicial Center
120 West O’Brien Drive
Hogatna, Guam 96910

Hawaii State Bar Association
Alakea Corporate Tower
1100 Alakea Street, Suite 1000
Honolulu, HI 96813

Idaho State Bar
P.O. Box 895
525 W. Jefferson Street
Boise, ID 83701

Illinois State Bar Association
Illinois Bar Center
424 S. Second Street
Springfield, IL 62701

Indiana State Bar Association
One Indiana Square, Suite 530
Indianapolis, IN 46204

The Iowa State Bar Association
625 East Court Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50309

Kansas Bar Association
1200 S.W. Harrison Street
P.O. Box 1037
Topeka, KS 66612

Kentucky Bar Association
514 West Main Street
Frankfort, KY 40601-1883

Louisiana State Bar Asssociation
601 St. Charles Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70130-3404

Maine State Bar Association
124 State Street
P.O. Box 788
Augusta, ME 04332-0788

Maryland State Bar Association, Inc.
520 W. Fayette Street
Baltimore, MD 21201

Massachusetts Bar Association
20 West Street
Boston, MA 02111-1218

State Bar Of Michigan
306 Townsend Street
Lansing, MI 48933-2083

Minnesota State Bar Association
Suite 380
600 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55402

The Mississippi Bar
643 N. State Street
P.O. Box 2168
Jackson, MS 39225-2168

The Missouri Bar
326 Monroe Street
P.O. Box 119
Jefferson City, MO 65101

State Bar Of Montana
Suite 2B
7 West Sixth Avenue
P.O. Box 577
Helena, MT 59624

Nebraska State Bar Association
635 S. 14th Street, 2nd Floor
Lincoln, NE 68508

State Bar Of Nevada
600 East Charleston Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89104

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300
Concord, NH 03301-3502

New Jersey State Bar Association
New Jersey Law Center
One Constitution Square
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1520

State Bar Of New Mexico
5121 Masthead, NE
P.O. Box 92860
Albuquerque, NM 87109

New York State Bar Association
One Elk Street
Albany, NY 12207

North Carolina State Bar
208 Fayetteville Street Mall
P.O. Box 25908
Raleigh, NC 27611

North Carolina Bar Association
P.O. Box 3688
Cary, NC 27519

State Bar Association Of North Dakota
P.O. Box 2136
Bismarck, ND 58502-2136

Commonwealth Of The Northern Mariana Islands Bar Association
P.O. Box 504539 C.K.
Saipan, MP 96950

Ohio State Bar Association
1700 Lake Shore Drive
P.O. Box 16562
Columbus, OH 43216-6562

Oklahoma Bar Association
1901 N. Lincoln (73105)
P.O. Box 53036
Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3036

Oregon State Bar
16037 S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road
Tigard, OR 97224

Pennsylvania Bar Association
100 South Street
P.O. Box 186
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0186

Puerto Rico Bar Association
Ponce de Leon Avenue
808 Stop II
P.O. Box 9021900
San Juan, PR 00902-1900

Rhode Island Bar Association
115 Cedar Street
Providence, RI 02903

South Carolina Bar
950 Taylor Street
P.O. Box 608
Columbia, SC 29202-0608

State Bar Of South Dakota
222 E. Capitol Avenue #3
Pierre, SD 57501-2596

Tennessee Bar Association
Tennessee Bar Center
221 Fourth Avenue, N., Suite 400
Nashville, TN 37219-2198

State Bar Of Texas
Suite 300
1414 Colorado Street
P.O. Box 12487
Austin, TX 78711-2487

Utah State Bar
645 S. 200 East, #310
Salt Lake City, UT 84111-3834

Vermont Bar Association
35-37 Court Street (05602)
P.O. Box 100
Montpelier, VT 05601-0100

Virgin Islands Bar Association
P.O. Box 4108
Christiansted, Saint Croix, VI USA 00822

Virginia State Bar
Suite 1500
707 E. Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219-2800

The Virginia Bar Association
701 E. Franklin Street. #1120
Richmond, VA 23219

Washington State Bar Association
Suite 600
1325 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-2539

The West Virginia Bar Association
1111 6th Avenue
P.O. Box 2162
Huntington, WV 25701

West Virginia State Bar
2000 Deitrick Boulevard
Charleston, WV 25311

State Bar Of Wisconsin
5302 Eastpark Boulevard
P.O. Box 7158
Madison, WI 53718

Wyoming State Bar
4124 Laramie Street
P.O. Box 109
Cheyenne, WY 82003-0109

O'Reilly thinks American Media is "Corrupt" and "Biased"

Bill O'Reilly finds that American media is corrupt and biased because it has not provided what he considers enough time to certain issues. I'll agree.

In a passionate lecture, he showed clear and undeniable evidence of the media’s bias towards Christie’s “Bridgegate” scandal and its virtual silence on the IRS and VA scandals. All Americans need to be exposed to ALL the news.

What O'Reilly fails to see how HIS divisive accusations - which fault liberals and President Obama - only serve to misdirect from the very story he wishes to bring to our attention?

Still O'Reilly doesn't offer the realization that he is a part of an American media which is FULLY CONTROLLED and MANAGED.

Truthful and accurate information without an exaggerated bias is not currently available in the American media. Every news story contains an indicator of a political, religious or other target demographic which causes people to either embrace or ignore the information. I've been wondering if anyone really cares about the truth without the demographic. This harms the country. It harms Americans. The divisiveness subverts our democracy.

The American Media has become ridiculously lazy. Most stories fail to include the basics - who, what , where, when, why and how. Omissions which my children would never have gotten away with when turning in a report for grade school... yet, they are missing from the major networks and national news media outlets.

When the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed in August 2013 in Philadelphia. Copies of the document filed and an overview explanation was hand delivered to 3 (CBS), 6 (ABC), 10 (NBC), 12 (Public), & 29 (FOX) - with contact information. There was no coverage.

Every newspaper in the Philadelphia area was also contacted and provided the same documents. There was no coverage of the litigation. All of the national television programs were contacted and provided copies. There was no coverage. ONLY ONE had the courtesy of contacting us to indicate they were instructed to ignore the story.

On a trip to New York, I attempted to deliver copies to each major television network and national newspaper. I was redirected by each to deliver the documents to another address. I learned that ALL NEWS producers in New York City were gathered together in two buildings and were NOT in their respective network offices. NBC was the exception.

Suddenly, it became very apparent how easily the news media is controlled and managed in America. The reception people in these buildings were not permitted to take any documents, and were not permitted to allow me access to the offices. Where the network folks had instructed me to leave the documents with reception for their producers attention, I was called a liar by the receptionist who refused to accept any package. It was ridiculous.

---

As the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 proceeded thru the federal district court and on to the third circuit appeals court, the news media continued their unanimous disinterest in the case.

The newsworthiness of two individuals challenging constitutionality of a law in every state. A law with the same name, the same number and the same title. The challenge documents filed and served upon fifty-six state attorneys general to address a national problem caused by this unconstitutional state law.

The 'Law' had NOT been written by any legislature, NOR signed by any Governor. The 'Law' had been enacted by each state supreme court without any constitutional review.

Each state supreme court was further not lawfully permitted to repeal the law because it would adversely affect the judiciary.

The state Attorney General was not lawfully permitted to reveal the state supreme courts' mistake.

Every lawyer in the state was not lawfully permitted to reveal the state supreme courts' mistake.

The challenged 'Law' is contained within the Rules Of Professional Conduct which lawyers, judges and law enforcement officials must follow.

The challenged 'Law' is Rule 1.6 - Confidentiality of Information.

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

The very law which MANDATES the confidentiality of the legal community has undermined the constitutional rights of Americans.

The victims who lose their rights know they were being mistreated, misdirected and denied justice... while denied any explanation. Unfortunately, no one will listen. Their issues are ignored. They are dismissed as 'sore losers'. No one helps.

Pursuant to Rule 1.6, Judges and lawyers are not permitted to address it, explain it or correct the injustice caused by the 'law'. EVEN WHERE A PERSONS BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE DENIED LEAVING THEM WITHOUT THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW.

Pursuant to Rule 1.6, another court or another judge, is not permitted to address the injustice, or to explain it or to correct it. Most higher courts and Appeals courts ignore the injustice and all evidence relating to the injustice entirely by writing deliberately flawed and misleading opinions which only continue the injustice.

As the courts must safeguard the integrity of the judiciary, there is no court within each state which can address the deliberate injustice. Perseverance through each level of the state courts is necessary and futile. Rule 1.6 affects every level of the state judiciary. The integrity of every court is sacrificed to conceal the lack of integrity of the prior judge(s) in the matter.

The state Attorney General ignores all complaints citing a lack of jurisdiction. THIS IS A LIE. The state Attorney General has jurisdiction to address the injustice, BUT lacks a lawful ability to do so pursuant to Rule 1.6.

Only when viewed from the perspective of the public does the unconstitutional affect become very clear and visible.

Federal Investigators refuse complaints unless submitted by a lawyer or judge, or requested by a District Attorney or Attorney General - all of whom are prevented by Rule 1.6 from making the request.

Any violation of Rule 1.6 is addressed by swift disciplinary action to the violator.

Where the law fails, the loophole is promptly addressed by the state's Supreme Court. The modification of the Rules of Professional Conduct by the state supreme court leaves a trail of activity which can be used to evaluate and demonstrate the intent of the 'law'.

The Federal Courts do not address the 'abuse of power' demonstrated by the state judiciary and will not review an order/opinion decided in the state courts citing dismissal by Rooker-Feldman and Younger doctrines. Where the doctrines do not warrant dismissal, the federal court will ignore facts and law, and misapply the doctrine and dismiss the matter anyway.

The victim is left with no ability to address the deliberate error and the resulting injustice. Frustration grows with each deliberate improper action by the judiciary without regard for facts, or proper procedure or the rule of law. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandates the courts sacrifice their credibility and integrity to conceal the injustice.


THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6

When the Constitutional Challenge was filed on August 8, 2013, the litigants acted with the forethought to avoid the standard dismissal routines in federal court. The challenge was filed requesting a preemptive review of the constitutionality of the law based on their experience in the state courts.
The challenge was NOT seeking to reverse a state decision.
The challenge was NOT seeking a decision on a matter currently before the state court.
The challenge was NOT filed as an abuse of power under color of law complaint against the state judiciary.

Their litigation in the state courts is the evidentiary support which demonstrates how Rule 1.6 causes and results in the denial of constitutional rights.

Plaintiffs requested that the federal court find the state 'law' unconstitutional and return them to their matters in the state courts where the state judiciary would no longer have a Rule 1.6 mandate for injustice which ignores rights and privileges protected by the US Constitution.

Though the fifty six state Attorneys General all failed to file any document, appearance or answer before their assigned deadlines, the district court ignored their deliberate default and subsequently dismissed the challenge without any basis in facts or substantiation of any doctrine which would support dismissal.

Clearly, the district court was not yet ready to address the constitutional crisis caused by Rule 1.6.

On Appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court decision by issuing an unsigned per curiam order and opinion which neglects to review the facts, and fails to address the issues raised on appeal.

A Petition for Rehearing /Rehearing en Banc was denied. Unsigned Order and Opinion providing 'plausible deniability' for a judiciary which has acted to deny the US Constitution.

The Third Circuit Court was not yet ready to address the constitutional crisis - and were further denying the litigants of any venue to address the constitutional challenge.

The Constitutional Challenge will next be submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States with a concurrent submission to the United States Congress.

Prompt action by the US Congress would permit the Supreme Court Judiciary to maintain some integrity in a matter which has now demonstrated a failure of integrity at every level of the state and federal courts.

---

It has been noticed that the media frequently fails to completely report issues in politics or government. In cases of injustice and judicial corruption, Rule 1.6 can affect the media's presentation of the facts, and conceal the cause of the situation while preventing any explanation.

The confidentiality mandated by Rule 1.6 was further concealing that Rule 1.6 was the problem.

---

The corruption known as KIDS FOR CASH went on for years in the Luzerne County Courthouse, Rule 1.6 kept it CONFIDENTIAL. Lawyers, Judges, District Attorneys, Prosecutors, and Public Defenders all mandated to silence while people were victimized.

The conspiracy of silence by the judiciary, law enforcement and legal professionals of Luzerne County prevented the injustice and judicial corruption from being exposed, addressed and corrected and further allowed the crime to continue.

When one judge broke the silence and contacted federal authorities, she was disciplined and removed from the bench for adversely affecting the integrity of the judiciary in violation of Rule 1.6.

The disciplinary actions towards Judge Ann Lokuta by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the Court of Judicial Discipline demonstrate the aggressive methods used to attack and silence those who act in a moral and ethical manner for the greater good.

---

When the INTERBRANCH COMMISSION ON JUVENILE JUSTICE produced their report on the scandal, they concluded accurately 'What good would [reporting] it do."

The lawyers and judges on the Commission neglected to disclose that Rule 1.6 mandates they not reveal even where Rule 1.6 had caused the breakdown in the justice system.

As stated by Act 32, the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was to determine how the Luzerne County juvenile justice system failed, to restore public confidence in the administration of justice and to prevent similar events from occurring in Luzerne County or elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

The Commission's failure to identify Rule 1.6 as the cause demonstrates a conspiracy of silence which undermined the assigned purpose of the commission.

Reporting the injustice and judicial corruption involved in the scandal was futile because the courts, the disciplinary boards, the judicial conduct board were also obligated under Rule 1.6 Confidentiality and would take no action.

By deliberately concealing how and why the system failed, the Commission ignored their instructions pursuant to Act 32 in defiance of the Governor, the unanimous Legislature and a clear violation of the public trust. The Commission report is a deliberate fraud which attempts to conceal the truth.

Neglecting to address the failure caused by Rule 1.6 undermines each of the recommendations which the commission proposes. Each recommendation can have no true affect or impact where Rule 1.6 Confidentiality remains to continue to conceal the failure of the system.

The failure of the Commission concealed by the ineffective recommendations and their conspiracy of silence further serves as an endorsement of the corruption enabling and encouraging the repetition, or continuation, of judicial corruption and injustice which places the entire public in jeopardy.

---

When delivering "The Sandusky Report", Attorney General Kathleen Kane neglected to inform the public that Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information.

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.

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

---

During the campaign for Attorney General, Attorney General Kathleen Kane indicated she would investigate to determine if Attorney General Tom Corbett had delayed or stalled the Sandusky investigation during his run for Governor.

Currently, Governor Tom Corbett is a client of Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

Rule 1.6 prevents the Attorney General from revealing information which would adversely affect the Governor, or that would reveal the misconduct of the Attorney General's office.

---

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court enacted multiple modifications to the Rules of Professional Conduct with attention to the proper legal handling of email by lawyers and admissibility as evidence in a proceeding.
- on April 3, 2009
- on May 2, 2009
- on April 9, 2012
- on April 18, 2012
- on June 16, 2012
- on July 4, 2012
- on November 21, 2013

While the Sandusky report indicates the loss of email correspondence, efforts to retrieve the data, and the subsequent successful restoration of some emails relating to the progress of the investigation by the Office of the Attorney General.

Rule 1.6 requires that the Attorney General maintain any information as confidential where activity of the Supreme Court modifying the Rules of Professional Conduct presented concurrently with email issues encountered during the Sandusky investigation might adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.

---

Attorney General Kane contracted with an attorney to prepare the Sandusky report. Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information to protect his client from any liability.

A Possible Disclaimer relating to Rule 1.6 and the Sandusky Report is available to review here.

---

The Rules of Professional Conduct were enacted into law by the state supreme court with the clear and deliberate intent to conceal and prevent judges from being prosecuted for judicial corruption and injustice.

Where judicial corruption and injustice has occurred, the integrity of the judiciary is neither preserved nor protected by mandating the participation of judges and lawyers in a conspiracy of silence which ignores the crime and causes further injustice upon the victim.

---

The largest abuse which can be attributed to Rule 1.6 is the Foreclosure Crisis Nationwide.

Foreclosures affected millions of individuals and families nationwide and represent the most pervasive, malicious and destructively deliberate abuse of judicial authority in reckless violation of the US Constitution, federal and state laws, with an arrogant and shameful assault against the public trust of the entire nation.

The Foreclosure Crisis would not have occurred had the judiciary not been undermined by Rule 1.6.

A Lack of proper lawful standing caused by a fraudulent deed, a robo-signed document, an unidentified or non-existent plaintiff, false or non-existent paperwork, etc... Once initiated and accepted by the court the failure to follow law and procedure results in an injustice which the court then refuses to address, correct or resolve in accordance with the law.

The Rule 1.6 mandate of confidentiality then further prevents the courts and the lawyers from addressing the injustice. These actions include denial of elements of due process and procedure, the negligence of the court to address the rights of the litigant where property is concerned, and denial of equal protection of the law.

The injustice overwhelms the litigant personally, professionally and financially requiring an excessive effort to continually provide the facts to the court.

Millions of people lost their homes based on false allegations, bad information, and facts which the court neglected to consider during the course of overwhelming chaotic litigation.

The courts failed to address the loss of the litigants civil, constitutional and human rights caused by Rule 1.6 confidentiality and the foreclosure crisis swept across the entire nation.

Where Rule 1.6 prevented a lawyer from lawfully petitioning the court to address the injustice caused by Rule 1.6, the injustice, corruption and the destruction of judicial integrity has persisted for years awaiting the realization that the loss of constitutional rights was caused to non-lawyers collaterally by a law concealed within the Rules of Professional Conduct.


INSURRECTION

The litigant, acting in good faith, is unaware that the court is no longer acting with necessary judicial independence neutrally deciding a case by interpreting the law and applying it to the facts and then rendering a final and binding judgment.

Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just. Due process is violated if a practice or rule “offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.”

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality undermines judicial independence and further undermines due process for the litigant with the result being a lack of jurisdiction for the court to render a final and binding judgment.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 brings the case within the statute where a right or
immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States is an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff ’s cause of action. . . . The First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

The right or immunity must be such that it will be supported if the Constitution or laws of the United States are given one construction or effect, and defeated if they receive another.

"It is entirely unimportant, what may be the subject of controversy. Be it what it may, these parties have a constitutional right to come into the Courts of the Union.”
  - 19 U.S. at 378. See Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 368 U.S. 71, 79–80 (1961); Texas v. New Jersey, 379 U.S. 674, 677 (1965); Pennsylvania v. New York, 407 U.S. 206 (1972).

A genuine and present controversy, not merely a possible or conjectural one, must exist with reference thereto. The Challenge presents denial of rights and privileges protected by the Constitution of the United States which are collaterally denied as a result of an improperly enacted state law.

First Amendment to the Constitution

The Judiciary by failing to conduct the proper review petitioned in the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is denying the litigants of their right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Fifth Amendment to the Constitution

The Judiciary by failing to conduct the proper review petitioned in the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is depriving the litigants of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution

The Judiciary by failing to conduct a proper review petitioned in the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is ignoring where the State has made and enforced a law which abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; and further the State is depriving persons of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and further the State id denying persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Judiciary having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and having deliberately acted to deny and abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States are engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution and further abusing the authority of their office under color of law in violation of the public trust.

The Good Behavior Clause reminds the other branches that the judiciary is truly independent, it also reminds judges that life tenure is not a license for the wanton or the corrupt. It is in this sense both a shield and a sword—an affirmation of judicial independence and a reservation for judicial removal.

The courts are assured independence through good-behavior tenure and security of compensation, and the judges through judicial review will check the other two branches. The impeachment power gives to Congress the authority to root out corruption and abuse of power in
the other two branches.

---

THIS INFORMATION IS LEADING DOWN A PATH WHERE I WOULD PREFER NOT TO VENTURE

Having undermined their judicial independence, a fundamental element of the jurisdiction by which they are empowered, the insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution by the judiciary requires the United States Congress to commence impeachment proceedings regarding the seditious activities which have usurped and undermined the government of the United States.

The conspiracy to conceal and continue their corrupt and unconstitutional actions in furtherance of their denial of constitutional rights and obstruction of justice demonstrates the courts unwillingness to take responsibility or demonstrate any sense of remorse for their abuse of power in an arrogant violation of the public trust.

Clearly, the judiciary was aware of the United States Constitution and the law while continuing unconstitutional and abusive actions in violation of the public trust.

Rule 1.6 injustice and corruption exists in civil, family and criminal courts.

---

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information was not always a law.

The state Supreme Courts began enacting the Rules of Professional Conduct into law in the mid-80's. Prior to being enacted into LAW, the Rules were discretionary.

Once enacted into law, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information became a mandate which caused an unresolvable injustice which was inescapable.

The victim was required to petition the court to address the injustice;
while the court was mandated to ignore the injustice;
to sacrifice the integrity of the judge;
to dismiss the rights of the litigant;
and to ignore proper procedure and the law;
all in the interest of protecting the integrity of the judiciary.

You cannot protect the integrity of the judiciary by sacrificing the integrity of the judiciary.

---

Insurrection and Sedition to Undermine the Judiciary by the American Bar Association

The impetus for the state Supreme Courts to enact the Rules of Professional Conduct into law was the response of the American Bar Association to the FBI's decimation of the Cook County Courthouse in Operation Greylord.

To address the corruption of the judiciary, the American Bar Association sought to make it illegal to prosecute a judge within a state by making it unlawful for an Attorney General or a District Attorney to take any action to prosecute judicial corruption and injustice as it would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.

This was a deliberate action by the American Bar Association which successfully undermined the judicial branch at every level of the judiciary in every state. It further extends into the federal courts.

The Judicial branch has abused it's power at the behest of the American Bar Association.
The Judicial branch has conspired to conceal the sedition by the American Bar Association.
The Judicial branch has had their authority usurped by the American Bar Association.

When South Africa wrote their Constitution in the 90's, they recognized that the judiciary was the power behind apartheid. The critics of the apartheid system were victimized and incarcerated through the courts. South Africa recognized the opportunity for abuse and witnessed the abuse of power occurring in the United States judiciary. They acted to prevent the abuse of judicial power.

It is necessary that the US Congress take constitutional action with regard to sedition and usurpation by the American Bar Association.

The American Bar Association has a full organization structure similar to a government with a hierarchy of elected governors and elected delegates.

The American Bar Association's secret usurpation of the authority of the judicial branch denied the people from the protections of the United States Constitution .

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality demonstrates the relationship between the membership and concealing the truth from the American People even where the rights and privileges provided by the US Constitution have been denied to a large segment of the population.

The American Bar Association of and by its organization and actions to usurp the authority of the judiciary and undermine the United States Government represents a government within the government which has demonstrated successful attempts to control the legitimate government.

The American Bar Association is hereby requested to cease and desist their existence as an organization; to take immediate actions to cease operations and close every office and building belonging to the organization and any associated and related organizations in states, cities, towns and counties nationwide; shut down their internet presence; hold no further meetings of its membership; conduct no further training of its members; cease publication and dissemination of any documents; sell all assets belonging to the organization with proceeds to be secured to permit compensation to victims who have suffered harm and damages resulting from the American Bar Associations actions to undermine and usurp the authority of the Judicial Branch.


A CALL FOR VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION OF ABA MEMBERS IN GOVERNMENT

Senators and Representatives in Congress, holders of office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States have participated in insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution and the People of the United States abusing the authority of their office in violation of the public trust.

A Call For Elections to replace the membership of the American Bar Association currently holding positions of authority within the United States Government.


REBOOT THE US CONSTITUTION

Time to REBOOT the US Constitution - with one change. It is not logical to permit the judiciary to manage the laws under which it operates as they have demonstrated their failure in that regard.

Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Terance Healy	)
Todd M. Krautheim	)
in the name of THE UNITED STATES	Civil Action No. 13-4614
	(
v.	(
	(
KATHLEEN KANE	(
Pennsylvania Attorney General;	(
and	(
The Attorneys General of the United States	(

COMPLAINT – CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE


TERANCE HEALY and TODD M. KRAUTHEIM in the name of THE UNITED STATES file this pleading against KATHLEEN KANE, Pennsylvania Attorney General 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 seek to restore the constitutional rights of Pro Se litigants while restoring the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession and deliver to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.

Plaintiffs additionally offer that they are in the extremely unique position to be acting lawfully with proper standing while having a valid causes for relief in the proper forum for the rule to be addressed.


1. PARTIES

PLAINTIFFS Terance Healy
871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976

Todd M. Krautheim
207 Woodspring Circle
Doylestown, PA 18901

in the name of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEFENDANTS
KATHLEEN KANE
Pennsylvania Attorney General
1600 Strawberry Square, Harrisburg, PA 17120

LUTHER STRANGE
Alabama Attorney General
501 Washington Ave. P.O. Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36130-0152


MICHAEL GERAGHTY
Alaska Attorney General
P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, AK 99811-0300

American Samoa Attorney General
American Samoa Gov't, Exec. Ofc. Bldg,
Utulei, Territory of American Samoa, Pago Pago, AS 96799

TOM HORNE
Arizona Attorney General
1275 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ 85007

DUSTIN MCDANIEL
Arkansas Attorney General
323 Center St., Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201-2610

KAMALA HARRIS
California Attorney General
1300 I St., Ste. 1740, Sacramento, CA 95814

JOHN SUTHERS
Colorado Attorney General
Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor, Denver, CO 80203

GEORGE JEPSEN
Connecticut Attorney General
55 Elm St., Hartford, CT 06106

JOSEPH R. "BEAU" BIDEN, III
Delaware Attorney General
Carvel State Office Bldg., 820 N. French St., Wilmington, DE 19801

IRVIN NATHAN
District of Columbia Attorney General
441 4th Street, NW, Suite 1100S, Washington, DC 20001

PAM BONDI
Florida Attorney General
The Capitol, PL 01, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

SAM OLENS
Georgia Attorney General
40 Capitol Square, SW, Atlanta, GA 30334-1300

LENNY RAPADAS
Guam Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General,
ITC Building, 590 S. Marine Corps Dr, Ste. 706, Tamuning, Guam 96913

DAVID LOUIE
Hawaii Attorney General
425 Queen St., Honolulu, HI 96813

LAWRENCE WASDEN
Idaho Attorney General
Statehouse, Boise, ID 83720-1000

LISA MADIGAN
Illinois Attorney General
James R. Thompson Ctr., 100 W. Randolph St., Chicago, IL 60601

GREG ZOELLER
Indiana Attorney General
Indiana Government Center South
302 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204

TOM MILLER
Iowa Attorney General
Hoover State Office Bldg., 1305 E. Walnut, Des Moines, IA 50319

DEREK SCHMIDT
Kansas Attorney General
120 S.W. 10th Ave., 2nd Fl., Topeka, KS 66612-1597

JACK CONWAY
Kentucky Attorney General
700 Capitol Avenue, Capitol Building, Suite 118, Frankfort, KY 40601

JAMES D. "BUDDY" CALDWELL
Louisiana Attorney General
P.O. Box 94095, Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4095

JANET T. MILLS
Maine Attorney General
State House Station 6, Augusta, ME 04333


DOUGLAS F. GANSLER
Maryland Attorney General
200 St. Paul Place, Baltimore, MD 21202-2202

MARTHA COAKLEY
Massachusetts Attorney General
1 Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108-1698

BILL SCHUETTE
Michigan Attorney General
P.O.Box 30212, 525 W. Ottawa St., Lansing, MI 48909-0212

LORI SWANSON
Minnesota Attorney General
State Capitol, Ste. 102, St. Paul, MN 55155

JIM HOOD
Mississippi Attorney General
Department of Justice, P.O. Box 220, Jackson, MS 39205

CHRIS KOSTER
Missouri Attorney General
Supreme Ct. Bldg., 207 W. High St., Jefferson City, MO 65101

TIM FOX
Montana Attorney General
Justice Bldg., 215 N. Sanders, Helena, MT 59620-1401

JON BRUNING
Nebraska Attorney General
State Capitol, P.O.Box 98920, Lincoln, NE 68509-8920

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
Nevada Attorney General
Old Supreme Ct. Bldg., 100 N. Carson St., Carson City, NV 89701

JOSEPH A. FOSTER
New Hampshire Attorney General
33 Capitol St., Concord, NH 03301

JOHN JAY HOFFMAN
New Jersey Attorney General
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex,
25 Market Street P.O. Box 080 Trenton, NJ 08625

GARY KING
New Mexico Attorney General
P.O. Drawer 1508, Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508


ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN
New York Attorney General
Dept. of Law - The Capitol, 2nd fl., Albany, NY 12224

ROY COOPER
North Carolina Attorney General
Dept. of Justice, P.O.Box 629, Raleigh, NC 27602-0629

WAYNE STENEHJEM
North Dakota Attorney General
State Capitol, 600 E. Boulevard Ave., Bismarck, ND 58505-0040

JOEY PATRICK SAN NICOLAS
Northern Mariana Islands Attorney General
Administration Building, P.O. Box 10007, Saipan MP 96950-8907

MIKE DEWINE
Ohio Attorney General
State Office Tower, 30 E. Broad St., Columbus, OH 43266-0410

SCOTT PRUITT
Oklahoma Attorney General
313 NE 21st Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73105

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM
Oregon Attorney General
Justice Bldg., 1162 Court St., NE, Salem, OR 97301

LUIS SÁNCHEZ BETANCES
Puerto Rico Attorney General
PO Box 902192, San Juan, PR 00902-0192

PETER KILMARTIN
Rhode Island Attorney General
150 S. Main St., Providence, RI 02903

ALAN WILSON
South Carolina Attorney General
Rembert C. Dennis Office Bldg., P.O.Box 11549, Columbia, SC 29211-1549

MARTY J. JACKLEY
South Dakota Attorney General
1302 East Highway 14, Suite 1, Pierre, SD 57501-8501

ROBERT E. COOPER, JR.
Tennessee Attorney General
425 5th Avenue North, Nashville, TN 37243

GREG ABBOTT
Texas Attorney General
Capitol Station, P.O.Box 12548, Austin, TX 78711-2548

JOHN SWALLOW
Utah Attorney General
State Capitol, Rm. 236, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0810

WILLIAM H. SORRELL
Vermont Attorney General
109 State St., Montpelier, VT 05609-1001


VINCENT FRAZER
Virgin Islands Attorney General
Dept. of Justice, G.E.R.S. Complex
488-50C Kronprinsdens Gade, St. Thomas, VI 00802

KEN CUCCINELLI
Virginia Attorney General
900 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219

BOB FERGUSON
Washington Attorney General
1125 Washington St. SE, PO Box 40100, Olympia, WA 98504-0100

PATRICK MORRISEY
West Virginia Attorney General
State Capitol, 1900 Kanawha Blvd. , E., Charleston, WV 25305

J.B. VAN HOLLEN
Wisconsin Attorney General
Wisconsin Department of Justice,
State Capitol, Room 114 East P. O. Box 7857, Madison, WI 53707-7857

PETER K. MICHAEL
Wyoming Attorney General
State Capitol Bldg., Cheyenne, WY 82002


2. JURISDICTION
– The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 USC § 1331, 1343, and 1345, this being an action:
- authorized by law to challenge the constitutionality of State law;
- to redress the deprivation under State law, statute ordinance regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States which provides for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;
- seeking relief providing for the protection of civil rights,
- brought on behalf of the United States.


3. VENUE
- The Venue is properly placed in The United States District Court of The Eastern District of Pennsylvania for civil action;
- where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred;
- where plaintiffs are residents of the judicial district;
- where defendant is an officer of the state acting in official capacity or under color of legal authority.


4. SERVICE
- This Complaint – Constitutional Challenge is served on the state attorneys general as a state statute is questioned—either by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.


5. STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct as the rule causes the complete denial of constitutionally protected rights while subverting justice and corrupting the judiciary.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Plaintiffs are NOT petitioning this Honorable Court regarding their legal matters currently before the State court.

The actual information about their cases is provided to demonstrate the necessity of this challenge.

For the purposes of this filing, any discussion/presentation of this information may be considered hypothetical as this court does not have jurisdiction in the State matter.

Do NOT be distracted. Do NOT be dismissive. Do NOT underestimate the Plaintiff.

The Pro Se Plaintiffs are fully aware of the CONSTITUTIONAL case being presented, and the necessity for it to be addressed in this forum at this time. We pray this Honorable Court will permit the factual situation where constitutionally protected rights have been usurped and undermined be presented.

To demonstrate the unconstitutional aspect, the Plaintiff presents their cases:
- Terance Healy A divorce action commenced in Family Court
- Todd M. Krautheim A foreclosure action commenced in Civil Court


CASE OF PLAINTIFF, TERANCE HEALY

6. HEALY v. HEALY is a divorce action which has been in the courts since May 2007.

7. The matter has involved 18 judges from the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas with over 400 docket entries.

8. An Appeal filed in August 2011 was ignored, neglected by the Prothonotary and not forwarded to the Superior Court.

9. An Appeal filed in May 2013 is currently before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

10. The lower court has commenced a series of obstructive acts to prevent the Appeal
a. acting without jurisdiction,
b. abuse of power – deliberate issuance of void orders,
c. abuse of power - intimidation to prevent court reporters from producing transcripts for the Appeal,
d. conspiracy - prothonotary has failed to forward all documents and necessary exhibits to the Superior Court.

11. When Rule 1.6 is applied to the above injustices, they are lawful and a required necessity as they protect the integrity and reputation of the judiciary.

12. From the perspective of the Pro Se litigant constitutionally protect rights have been usurped.

13. A Motion to Compel the Production of Documents is pending with the Superior Court.

14. The Rules of Appellate Procedure require the complete court record to be transmitted to the Superior Court.

15. The complete court record is a necessity for proper review of the Appeal by the Superior Court.

16. Rule 1.6 lawfully excuses the failure to transmit the court record, even when Ordered by the Superior Court.

17. Rule 1.6 lawfully excuses the Superior Court from compelling the production of the court record.

18. Rule 1.6 lawfully excuses the lower court failure to follow an order compelling production of the court record.


19. Rule 1.6 lawfully undermines the production of the complete court record, and further nullifies the authority of the Superior Court.

20. Rule 1.6 lawfully obstructs the production of the court record.

21. Rule 1.6 lawfully nullifies the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

22. The Pro Se litigant has no recourse with the Superior Court.

23. The Pro Se litigant has no recourse through the Rules of Appellate Procedure.


( NOTE: This is the point where the litigation in this matter is currently. )


SUPREME COURT MANDAMUS PETITION

24. The Pro Se litigant could prepare and deliver a Mandamus Petition to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to compel the production of the court record.

25. Rule 1.6 lawfully excuses the failure to transmit the court record when ordered by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

26. Rule 1.6 lawfully excuses the Supreme Court from enforcing a Mandamus Order compelling the production of the court record.

27. Rule 1.6 lawfully prevents the Supreme Court from issuing a Mandamus Order.

28. Rule 1.6 lawfully undermines any action by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

29. Rule 1.6 lawfully and effectively nullified
Pennsylvania Law,
The Rules of Appellate Procedure,
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania,
and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.


JUDICIAL REACTION

30. Rule 1.6 lawfully undermines the judiciary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

31. Rule 1.6 lawfully destroys the integrity and reputation of the judges.

32. The judiciary is clearly placed into a moral and ethical situation where saving the integrity and reputation of the judiciary is more important to society than justice for a Pro Se litigant.

33. Rule 1.6 provides the law to support their decisions which they cannot in good conscience defend or explain.

34. The Pro Se litigant feels victimized because the Pro Se litigant has been victimized without reason or explanation. .

35. The judge has likely failed to recognize that the Pro Se litigant before his court has lost ALL of their legal rights.

36. The judges actions further prevent recognition of the loss of the Pro Se litigants rights.


JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD

37. Rule 1.6 lawfully prevents the investigation, action, or response by the Judicial Conduct Board to any complaint by a Pro Se Litigant.

38. Complaints with the Judicial Conduct Board when undeniable, documented misconduct was discovered were not addressed.

39. Rule 1.6 permits complaints to be dismissed without explanation.


DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

40. Rule 1.6 lawfully prevents the investigation, action, or response by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania.

41. Complaints with the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania when undeniable, documented misconduct was discovered were not addressed.

42. Rule 1.6 permits complaints to be dismissed without explanation.


THE LAW OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

43. Rule 1.6 indirectly denies a Pro Se litigant of the protection of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and further prevents any recourse to address the loss of civil rights.


( It became necessary for me to find out exactly where I lost my legal rights )


UP TO THIS POINT IN THIS DOCUMENT I HAVE USED THE PHRASE “RULE 1.6”.

I HAVE DONE SO WITH NECESSITY, A PRO SE LITIGANT REALIZES EVERY WORD IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO BE IGNORED.

RULE 1.6 REFERS TO
“CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION”


THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

MY REVIEW OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

44. I reviewed the CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and the effect of the rule for my own understanding.

45. Reducing the code to the most basic statements returned four reasonable phrases which were logical, ethical and reasonable.

Lawyers are required and responsible to report all misconduct; (The Code)
unless it affected the integrity of the judicial system; (Rule 1.6 )
unless it was self-incriminating; (Rule 1.6 )
unless it adversely affected the client. (Rule 1.6 )

46. Each phrase could support it's logical, ethical and reasonable existence.

47. The first phrase actually started on very high ground, but the combined effect was empty as there are no other kinds of misconduct..


MY REVIEW OF MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

48. I reviewed my experience and the lawfulness of everyone's actions and came up with the practical simplified rule as it applied to my case.

Lawyers will take no action which reveals the misconduct of lawyers and judges.
Judges will take no action which reveals the misconduct of lawyers and judges.

49. The Code of Professional Conduct supported my two sentence review, when applied the excuse for the action, or in-action, always pointed to Rule 1.6.


THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE LEGISLATURE

50. Rule 1.6 legally prohibits correction as any effort to correct it would not be lawful.

51. The State Legislature is similarly unable to act to suspend the rule, modify the rule, or adjust the rule.

52. Rule 1.6 lawfully and effectively undermined The Pennsylvania State Legislature.

53. The Rule has a built in “self defense” mechanism which prevents lawful actions to fix the law.

54. Anyone who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct is lawfully prevented from lawfully taking any action to address this problem.

55. As soon as the law was enacted it was untouchable


THE PROBLEM IS MINE TO FIX

56. Rule 1.6 was my problem. It needed to be fixed.

57. Upon realization that the legislature could not lawfully take action to address Rule 1.6, the Plaintiffs decided to go to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:
to demonstrate the problem,
to show the necessity of the solution,
to seek out and meet the author,
to request an immediate change.

58. Anyone who could take any action would recognize that their efforts were going to expose misconduct, and as such, they could not lawfully make the change.

59. In order to be lawful, Plaintiff's efforts were going to require precision.


HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

60. Defendant, Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General, refused to meet with the Plaintiffs.

61. Plaintiffs proceeded to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania.

62. Paul J. Killion, Chief Disciplinary Counsel was not in the office and unavailable to schedule a meeting.

63. The Plaintiffs left the message of their experience and the necessary resolution in hopes of finding the proper person with whom they could meet.

64. Plaintiff's proceeded to the RULES department seeking and receiving guidance on how to properly format a document requesting a change to a rule.

65. Plaintiff's were informed that Rule 1.6 was not part of that office's responsibility.

66. Plaintiff's proceeded to the Judicial Conduct Board.

67. Robert A. Graci, Chief Counsel, was not in the office and unavailable to schedule a meeting.

68. The Plaintiffs left the message of their experience and the necessary resolution in hopes of finding the proper person with whom they could meet.


THE OVERALL AFFECT OF RULE 1.6

69. Rule 1.6 is obstructing justice, denying justice, preventing access to the courts, denying civil rights, denying constitutional rights and constitutionally protected liberties.

70. Rule 1.6 protects the integrity of the judiciary by sacrificing the integrity of the judiciary.

71. Rule 1.6 protects the reputation of the legal profession by sacrificing the reputation of lawyers.

72. Rule 1.6 has lawfully provided the opportunity to deny the rights of Pro Se litigants.

73. EVERY Pro Se litigant IS NOT SUBJECTED to the loss of civil and constitutional rights.

74. RULE 1.6 DOES NOT MANDATE the denial of the rights of Pro Se litigants.

75. RULE 1.6 allows, endorses, and conceals the denial of the rights of “SELECTED” Pro Se litigants.


CRITERIA FOR LOSS OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS

76. ALL citizens of the United States are AT RISK of being affected by this failure in the legal system.

77. ALL litigants in state courts are AT RISK of being affected by this failure in the legal system.

78. The loss of rights is not evident until the litigant attempts to assert their 'lost' rights, at which point the loss is absolute, undeniable, and impossible to address with anyone within the judiciary, or at any level of government, as the judicial and legislative branches are legally prevented from acting to correct Rule 1.6.

79. Certain ordinary criteria must be met to cause the potential for loss.
1. There must be a judicial error, or misconduct, of any degree.
2. One litigant files to proceed Pro Se while the other is represented.

80. It is not important which event occurs first, or at what point in the legal matter one party moves to proceed Pro Se..

81. Once the criteria are met, the Pro Se litigant is as the extreme disadvantage as every failure by the represented party is excused; every opportunity to address it is ignored, denied or prevented.

82. All rules, laws, procedures, orders and due process can be ignored leaving the Pro Se litigant with no recourse.

83. The Code of Professional Conduct (Rule 1.6) can be invoked to protect the failures of the lawyers and the judiciary effortlessly, but the extreme force undermines the Constitutionally protected rights of the Pro Se victim.

84. This risk for loss of rights is ONLY experienced by a Pro Se litigant.

85. It is incomprehensible that a citizen of the United States who has committed no crime can lose everything.

86. The potential ability of a lawyer INTENTIONALLY committing or causing an act of misconduct which triggers the loss of constitutionally protect rights when facing a Pro Se litigant creates a situation which would demand strict actions regarding any misconduct.

87. An attorney facing a Pro Se opponent does not require full knowledge of how this situation occurs to trigger an act of misconduct and undermine their adversary's case.

88. An attorney who committed repeated acts of misconduct would clearly be demonstrating their knowledge of the power of the action, and the failure to realize the redundancy of their repeated misconducts being unnecessary.

89. Plaintiff, Terance Healy, offers the series of acts of extreme and deliberate attorney misconduct on the court record, in the court docket, available in the transcripts of hearings in the matter during hearings in February 2013 which were held improperly during the pendancy of an ignored appeal to seek enforcement of a void order issued during the pendancy of that ignored appeal, where that void order was based on a prior void order, which was further based on a void order for equitable distribution which was based on a void and defective divorce decree.

90. The subsequent Order issued in that matter being Appeal to the Superior Court and described on the docket as:
“In an action to enforce an order where the court lacked jurisdiction, the court failed to address the lack of jurisdiction to deny, obstruct and conceal prior jurisdiction issues and failures during the pendancy of an Appeal.”

91. As the misconduct used to trigger the loss of rights for Plaintiff Terance Healy (Pro Se Defendant /Appellant) created a loss of jurisdiction, the Defendant was without rights but not without recourse until the appeals court became affected by the case.

92. When the authority of the Appeals court was impacted, Plaintiff Terance Healy would have standing and a cause for relief to present his case to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania where a Petition for Mandamus action could lawfully be ordered and lawfully be ignored.


ACTING LAWFULLY, WITH PROPER STANDING, WITH VALID CAUSE FOR RELIEF

93. Plaintiff, Terance Healy, hereby asserts and presents the as evidence of proper standing the aforementioned true and factual circumstances and actions before

The Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Norristown, Pennsylvania
Docket #2007-12477

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Docket # 1330 EDA 2013

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Docket # (Filing Concurrent with this Constitutional Challenge)

94. Plaintiff, Terance Healy, asserts and presents as a proper cause for relief the aforementioned true and factual circumstances and actions to

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania


CASE OF PLAINTIFF, TODD M. KRAUTHEIM

95. BANK OF AMERICA, National Association v. TODD M. KRAUTHEIM is a foreclosure action which has been in the courts since January 2011.

96. The matter has involved 4 judges from the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas with over 100 docket entries.

97. A Judgment entered in May 2011 was unknown to the Defendant until November 2012.

98. After a hearing where documented acts of misconduct were presented, the Court recognized the standard had been met for a “petition to strike” and ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment be stricken.

99. The failure of service to the defendant was excused by the court. This is evident and admitted and documented on the record by the attorneys for the plaintiff.

100. An act of fraud relating to the transfer of the mortgage for the property created the misconduct necessary under Rule 1.6 to undermine the Pro Se defendant in the matter.

101. Efforts to expose, address or resolve the matter have been hindered as any effort to resolve will expose the fraudulent title transfer.

102. Plaintiffs subsequent submission of another fraudulent title continue this hindrance of preventing resolution and providing them the opportunity to assert Rule 1.6
- in their defense, or
- in the defense of their client, or
- in the defense of the judge who signed the initial judgement.

103. In this matter, any effort to proceed to a resolution is prevented as the assertion of Rule 1.6 prevents any discussion of the misconduct, or any action which addresses the misconduct.

104. The matter could eventually escalate to a higher court where the same Rule 1.6 would prevent any discussion of the misconduct, or any action which addressed the misconduct.


ACTING LAWFULLY, WITH PROPER STANDING, WITH A VALID CAUSE FOR RELEIF

105. Plaintiff, Todd M. Krautheim, hereby asserts and presents as evidence of proper standing the aforementioned true and factual circumstances and actions before

The Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Doylestown, Pennsylvania
Docket # 2011-00193

106. Plaintiff, Todd M. Krautheim, asserts and presents as a proper cause for releif the aforementioned true and factual circumstances and actions to

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

A GREAT RESPONSIBILITY

107. Plaintiffs have filed this Constitutional Challenge to Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General, and the Attorneys General of the United States of America as Rule 1.6 appears to have been made law in each state and territory.

108. Attorneys General in States where Rule 1.6 has not been enacted into law, are ON NOTICE of this Constitutional Challenge and the impact the Rule can have on the citizens they are sworn to protect.

109. The exact title “Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information” appears in the laws of States, other than Pennsylvania, indicating the potential for inadvertent loss of civil rights exists for the people of those States.

110. Additionally, Plaintiffs recognize the existing and potential worldwide scope of this rule of law, and as citizens uniquely positioned to act lawfully on behalf of the people of the world, assert their lawful proper standing, with cause for relief upon the International Court of Justice to take lawful action to restore the rights or people everywhere.


DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS

111. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information causes an denial of the constitutionally protected right to petition the Government for redress of grievances. (First Amendment)

112. Rule 1.6 causes a denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law. (Fifth Amendment)

113. Rule 1.6 causes a denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law by a State. (Fourteenth Amendment)

114. The US Constitution is the absolute supreme law of the land.

115. Federal laws are also the supreme law of the land if they do not violate the Constitution.

116. Treaties cannot violate the US Constitution. If they do, they are not valid treaties.

117. State legislatures and State courts are bound by the US Constitution, federal laws and federal treaties.

118. State constitutions cannot violate the US Constitution.

119. State laws cannot conflict or overrule federal laws.

120. 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.


OBSTACLES TO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

121. Plaintiffs assert and allege that any obstacles to the presentation, acceptance and consideration of this Complaint – Constitutional Challenge are unconstitutional
-based on the Plaintiffs constitutionally protected right to petition the Government for redress of grievances;
-based on the Plaintiffs constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law;
-based on the Plaintiffs constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law by a State.

122. Plaintiffs assert and allege that any defense by the Defendants against this Complaint – Constitutional Challenge, unless directed at
- the Plaintiff's lawful position to file this claim;
- the Plaintiff's demonstrating a valid cause for relief;
- the Plaintiff's petitioning in the proper forum for this matter to be addressed
is an action which is unconstitutional in that it causes
- a denial of a constitutionally protected right to petition the Government for redress of grievances;
- a denial of life, liberty or property without due process of law;
- a denial of life liberty or property without due process of law by a State.

123. Plaintiffs are under no obligations under the challenged Rule 1.6 as they are not bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct placing them in the unique position of being lawfully able to present this matter to the Honorable Court..

124. Defendant, Kathleen Kane, and the Attorneys General, are bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 and as such are limited in the actions which they are permitted to take in defense of this challenge as any action could or would be a violation of Rule 1.6. - the constitutionality of which is in question.

Plaintiffs, Terance Healy and Todd M. Krautheim, on behalf of
Mark McBride, Helene Finno, Darren Moyer, Karen Baxter Randall, Michael LaBbate
and the People of the United States of America hereby present for the consideration and review to this Honorable Court their Complaint – Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

/Terance Healy/	/Todd M. Krautheim/
c/o 871 Mustang Road	207 Woodspring Circle
Warrington, PA 18976	Doylestown, PA 18901
(215) 262-0938	(215) 489-9790

The Letter sent to US Government Officials

I am reaching out to inform you of the Complaint / Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on August 8, 2013.

Rule 1.6 causes a complete loss of constitutionally protected rights for litigants when there has been any misconduct by lawyers or judges in the matter.

The Plaintiffs look forward to working with the Attorneys General to address the challenge as our goals are not in opposition and the task before us is great.

The Plaintiffs view the Defendant Attorneys General not as adversaries, but fellow patriots, who can see and respect a sincere interest in returning the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the judicial system, delivering to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to manage the law, and restore the rights of all citizens in the state.

As such, Plaintiffs are reaching out to inform the Senate of their action and their intent. Where the legislature has lost the opportunity to take lawful action, the plaintiffs are returning the ability to act on behalf of the citizens they represent.

The official documents have been served on the Attorneys General. A copy is attached for your review.

Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

Time for Integrity. Time for Respect. Time for Justice.
www.work2bdone.com/live

Sent to US Senators Sent to PA Senate Sent to AL Senate Sent to AK Senate Sent to AZ Senate Sent to AR Senate Sent to Co Senate Sent to De Senate Sent to HI Senate Sent to IL Senate Sent to IA Senate Sent to KS Senate Sent to LA Senate Sent to ME Senate Sent to MD Senate Sent to MA Senate Sent to MN Senate Sent to MO Senate Sent to MT Senate Sent to NV Senate Sent to NH Senate Sent to NM Senate Sent to NY Senate Sent to NC Senate Sent to ND Senate Sent to OK Senate Sent to OR Senate Sent to RI Senate Sent to TN Senate Sent to UT Senate Sent to VT Senate Sent to VA Senate Sent to WA Senate Sent to WV Senate Sent to WI Senate Sent to WY Senate