Rule 1.6 has NOT been Misinterpreted or Misunderstood

The Constitutional Challenge is NOT misinterpreting or misunderstanding Rule 1.6.

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

These lawyers are WRONG.

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judicial Independence a necessity for Jurisdiction

The judicial branch was established in the U.S. Constitution as a co-equal third branch of our government.

The primary purposes of the judicial branch are to solve disputes by making fair and impartial decisions based upon facts, uphold the rule of law, and protect our rights.

"Judicial independence does not just happen all by itself. It is tremendously hard to create, and easier than most people imagine to destroy." Justice Sandra Day O'Connor The National Voter February 2008

Rule 1.6 - CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION causes a loss of constitutional rights to a litigant where there has been acts of judicial misconduct, corruption and injustice. Once that occurs any attempt to address the loss of rights is ignored by the courts. Rule 1.6 was enacted into law by the state supreme courts and rolled out during a period which started in 1984 (New Jersey) and continued through 2009 (Maine).

Kids for Cash - injustice ignored
Foreclosure Crisis Nationwide - based on fraudulent documents
Injustice in the Family Courts - Suicides, Homelessness, ...
Child Trafficking - What the Sandusky Report kept confidential
etc....


A Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed in August 2013. The federal courts improperly dismissed the matter after 56 state attorneys general had defaulted. Rule 1.6 injustice continues. The Constitutional Challenge will next be submitted to the US Supreme Court and the US Congress.

---

Since the founding of our nation, a system of checks and balances has ensured that each branch of government can function effectively, but cannot overpower the other branches. The main check that the judicial branch has on the other two branches is the power to declare executive or legislative acts unconstitutional.

There is no authority outside of the judiciary for declaring acts unconstitutional.

The judiciary has the authority for writing the laws to conduct the business of the judicial branch.

Judicial authority to self-legislate is limited only in that it can not infringe upon constitutional rights secured by state constitutions and the Constitution of the United States of America.

THE PROBLEM:
Where the judiciary, acting within their self-legislative authority, enacts a law which is unconstitutional, there is no authority to review the 'law'.

- Their law violates the US Constitution.
- Their law violates the federal authority to self-legislate.
- Their law violates state constitutions.
- Their law violates the state authority to self-legislate.
- There is no preliminary review.
- No checks and balances.

THE ANSWER: THE JUDICIARY IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO VIOLATE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. BUT, THEY DID.

The 'LAW' was written by the American Bar Association whose membership is mandated to silence and profits from the unconstitutional law. Prior to being enacted confidentiality was discretionary, as a 'law' IT IS A MANDATE WHICH IS AGGRESSIVELY ENFORCED.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE JUDICIARY ENACTS A LAW WHICH VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?

1. They ignore it.
2. They conceal it.
3. They retaliate.
4. They conspire on appeal.
5. They deny the facts, the law, and rights.
6. They prevent judicial review.
7. They lose judicial independence.
8. They sacrifice integrity.

WHERE THAT LAW MANDATES THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF LAWYERS
9. They undermine impartiality.
10. They undermine the facts.
11. They undermine the rule of law.
12. They undermine people's rights.

They undermine judicial independence.

The judiciary, upon proper petition to address the unconstitutional aspects of ONE law enacted by EVERY state supreme court, has prevented any review by ignoring the facts, not applying the rule of law, and undermining people's rights.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN EVERY STATE JUDICIARY ENACTS A LAW WHICH VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?
INESCAPABLE INJUSTICE.
JUDICIAL CORRUPTION.
CONSTITUTION RIGHTS IGNORED.
FEDERAL COURTS IMPROPERLY DISMISS CHALLENGE.

Judicial independence is an essential element of jurisdiction. Where the court lacks jurisdiction, they lack authority to issue any ruling, order or opinion in the matter. Their actions are void ab initio and have no validity.

Where the courts refuse to address their lack of lawful authority and corruption, the victim is subject to retaliation and continued terror while denied any opportunity to address the loss of constitutional rights.

Injustice does not end injustice. It extends it.