I spoke with an attorney representing one of the Attorney Generals the other day. I don't know if he was joking, or not, when he indicated over the course of his career with the AGs office he has never encountered a case where a person had lost their rights. I responded that he was likely correct because THEY DO NOT GET IN THE DOOR. I had tried for years to get the Attorney General to help in my situation the closest I got was the Consumer Form Letter. When every report was dismissed as beyond the realm of any possibility without ever meeting - how would he know a real one when it came along?
I told him that I had met many people who had lost their rights and had been able to recognize their stories and the loss of rights/liberties. I suggested we get together to review the circumstances which have occurred.
It got me thinking. How do you identify the victim of a loss of civil rights? I asked people who had been through the experience. Their responses were accurate, a few off-the-wall quips, all accurate. The first thing you must face. CRAZY. It's the word you are called (though you are not crazy). It's the word people say when you tell them about any experience. "They can't do that." "Well They Did!" "That's crazy." At which point there is no point in continuing that conversation. You cannot validate a situation which should NOT have occurred by throwing even more 'crazy' at it.
The second part is the dismissal - They can't do that. That's not right. You agree, BUT it did happen. People who witness the events confirm the experience. They realize and understand completely when they tell people about what they witnessed and they are told. 'That's crazy' "They can't do that."
No one is following the procedure. No one is following the law. No one explains their actions which are contrary to anything anyone believes, knows, or researches.
The third part was that no situation ever improved. Things just kept getting worse because every one acting against the expectation (and the law) was also acting as if it was you that did no understand... and they were not going to tell you. Nothing happened 'correctly'. No one helped. No one corrected their previous error.
I realized the answer to my question of how to identify the victim was in front of me every day and had been there for years. There was one message I needed to put out with every post to the web because it was exhausting AND DEMORALIZING to go through the "They Can't - They Did - That's Crazy" routine. The Header of the web site since it was started read:
"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."
The statement describes accurately what identifies the victim.
As the call was ending, I again asked about meeting to review the case. The response: I will meet with you to discuss the case, ONLY IF YOU WILL AGREE TO DROP KATHLEEN KANE FROM THE MATTER. Umm. YES, that is crazy. It was repeated/confirmed that I heard correctly. A meeting could not provide any relief - whether he believed the evidence or not. The Constitutional Challenge was a necessity. Dropping Pennsylvania is ... He had to be joking. Yea.
In almost every situation since 2007, I have had to endure a diminishing remark, disrespect, further injustice, or a humiliation of some sort. The victim of a loss of his rights loses everything. The hopelessness brings many to their end. The American belief in justice is strong. The victim of injustice keeps going back knowing they will be delivered further injustice, BUT STILL BELIEVING IN JUSTICE.
There have been times where the only person in the courtroom who expects justice is the victim. Everyone else knows they are participating in the injustice against him. They know their testimony is lies and their evidence is fraud. And they will WIN... because Rule 1.6 mandates lies, fraud, lawlessness and injustice. Rule 1.6 rapes the integrity of the court and compels judges to perpetuate that loss of integrity.
Those who have stood up against Rule 1.6 have been disbarred. Ethics and morality have no place in a court where Rule 1.6 TRUMPS EVERYTHING. LAWFULLY TRUMPS EVERYTHING. My Constitution finds Rule 1.6 repugnant.
We won't be having that meeting. I do look forward to introducing myself.
I'll be the first victim he has seen. He will be so excited. I'll also be his last.
JUSTICE IS COMING.
