Death Row Moratorium... with Rule 1.6 Awareness

How do you explain to a governor that the prisoner on death row faces no real risk of execution, because an injustice may only be concealed where there is no risk of death. If we learn of intent to execute, we may no longer conceal the injustice and any fraudulent efforts which have concealed it.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

If you want to conceal something evil, put it inside something boring.

The previous post about the Pennsylvania District Attorneys started out 'light' - some humor at the grand drama. Lady with a crazy face asking if they had no self recognition or perception... and it finished with a breakdown of the District Attorneys who have failed me personally. It was through their inaction that I realized the loss of any protections under the law. Every crime reported to the township police, the county detectives, or the DA's office was ignored outright OR the response was that their boss instructed them to do nothing.

There was no doubt about the crimes. BUT, they would not say any reason for NOT investigating/prosecuting. Car theft, identity theft, custody violations, burglary - involving minor children, computer intrusions, home intrusions, private investigators, fraud, false allegations to police, ... and more. ALL committed against me and IGNORED at the direction of the District Attorney.

The reports of corruption and constitutional violations of several judges when reported to township police went nowhere. The evidence of the court documents PROVING their crimes were ignored because that person is a judge and if a cop takes the complaint, the judge will retaliate. Yes, I understand that, they are retaliating against me for surviving their retaliation.

Improperly enacted and unconstitutional - ONE LAW
has undermined the judiciary and usurped their authority
while mandating confidentiality and excusing fraud to prevent exposure.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

I have no admiration for Risa Ferman. I find her involvement with childrens aid organizations a potential for conflict of interest involving human trafficking and placing children in jeopardy. As a judge, she would have more ability to conceal lawlessness and corruption. Her record indicates failure to enforce the law while concealing judicial corruption. Why would she be any different with MORE power and less oversight? Her failures since 2008, demonstrates no understanding of good and bad, right and wrong and selective disregard for constitutional rights and the rule of law.

The District Attorneys usurped the authority of the Sheriff - the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the County - and began referring to themselves as Chief Law Enforcement Professional in the County. The authority of the Sheriff was diminished out of necessity. The Sheriff was the only non-lawyer in law enforcement with authority to investigate and arrest - their jurisdiction pre-dates the constitutions and is only affected when specifically indicated within a law that the sheriff has restrictions or limitations regarding enforcement. Otherwise, The Chief Law Enforcement Officer has full authority while relegated to transporting prisoners and guarding the hostages who occupy the bench. They need protection because they have no independence, no jurisdiction, no power, BUT still present the illusions while denying justice without explanation.

It was easy and discreet to convince the Sheriffs of diminished authority than to re-write every law, or amend the constitution. November 25, 1997, the Attorney General informed the sheriffs. There were cases brought to courts where case law was misrepresented to substantiate the ruling - THAT then became the cited case. The Judiciary decides what the constitution does and does not mean - they are permitted to error. This time because it was necessary to remove the last remaining non-lawyer with any authority from law enforcement. Where the judiciary could not remove the corrupting law without violating it, they concealed it.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information

Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION controls and maintains the non-disclosure and silence of lawyers and legal professionals. It does so without regard for the effect on the constitutional rights of litigants without obligation to abide by the law while its collateral effect prevents disclosure, mandates confidentiality and excuses fraud to conceal fraud to conceal fraud... all confidential to them, while known to the litigant, they are obligated to IGNORE..

Once a victim experiences judicial corruption and injustice, Rule 1.6 prevents the rule of law and constitutional rights. FOREVER.

Rule 1.6 victims faces only 3 possible outcomes... 1) Homeless/Destitute 2) Incarcerated and 3) Suicide. There can be no life when a person can be attacked at any time and have no recourse, no protection, no escape. It's unimaginable and hard to explain, because that is not supposed to even be possible. Rule 1.6 is about keeping things quiet.

WHY THE HUBBUB, BUB?

The moratorium on executions and the review of Death Row Cases requested by the Governor was explained - multiple hearings mis-used courts and stalling processes occurring post sentencing. The exoneration of prisoners nationwide has been a shock.

PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY. The law allows prosecutors to do anything to get a conviction - within or outside the law, the prosecutor can't be prosecuted for such crimes, deliberate or intentional or malicious or corrupt. Those issues are reported to the Disciplinary Board and IGNORED.

Where Prosecutors are protected from prosecution, why would they respond to Gov Wolf's announcement as they have done.

- Aggressive.
- Misinformation.
- Disinformation.
- Indicating a Cause For Public alarm and fear.
- Listing the major reported crimes - sentenced and not yet heard.
- Calling out the police widows - their grief is not a tool - it is disrespectful to upset them with misinformation.
- The tweets suggesting the governor lacks authority, or is acting like a king,

the extremes of their grandstanding are absurd. They know what is at stake.

The 'worst kept secret in Pennsylvania', where the lawyers can't explain the law which mandated their confidentiality and non-disclosure while mandated to non-disclosure and confidentiality by the law.

The Silence of Rule 1.6 is not something to ignore while lawyers are allowed to lie to get you to ignore it.

The public knows who is on death row. Once they are there, no one cares. No one gives a damn about anyone in prison. If a person in prison has anyone who does care, that person is required to explain to everyone everywhere. They know most don't listen or give a damn how they waste their time trying to exonerate any prisoner. Against those incredible odds, it has happened. More frequently than is acceptable. How does a society apologize to a man improperly jailed for decades, subjected to the indignities of prison life, the disrespect by everyone??? Society is grateful those select winners have not been angry and retaliated. In itself, that's remarkable.

The Governor is seeking a conversation which the District Attorneys cannot have and are not permitted to explain.

The Attorney General has a court order preventing investigations, prosecutions and involvement and is not permitted to explain.

The Governor has made no accusation or expectation for the review. He explained his reasons.

His attorney general is afflicted by court orders - secret orders from unidentified courts which expose her to personal liability and REQUIRE her neglect of the duties of her office but deny any explanation.

The Attorney General cannot share the orders, ... are they secret, or imaginary? Pennsylvania Courts do not operate like that. The courts are transparent and open, which reinforces their judicial independence to reach just and lawful decisions.

The Governor asked about the people in prison who no one cares about.
The Attorney General is moot with an overactive imagination, or secret orders indicating she is fearful of speaking.
The District Attorneys are paranoid and highly confrontational and calling names.

THE DA's have clearly over reacted... WHY?

"What's not being said" - IS the issue.

I'm sane (with papers) permit me to explain because it all started when I found this one bad law. Rule 1.6 I call it the needle in the haystack of injustice. I'm allowed to talk and have done so often to excess. Here goes...

THE AFFECT OF ONE LAW

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure results in the victims of injustice losing all protection of the law and their rights secured and protected by the US Constitution are ignored. IGNORED by every in law enforcement, lawyers and the courts.

This casual open neglect by judges and prosecutors is reported everywhere by people who don't understand why the judges and lawyers are getting away with it.

Lawyers don't like to take some cases, because they have no chance of winning where they are required to maintain CONFIDENTIALITY and cannot explain the injustice. If they get hit with litigation from a client, the judge realizes their misconduct was due to Rule 1.6 confidentiality and lets the lawyers slide. The realization likely occurred in an ex parte conversation.

The injustice grows... from the first instance. Rights were lost at that point. Never regained. Everything ignored to conceal the error/crime/injustice. The lawyers are getting paid anyway until the person runs out of money. Self representing while fraud is permitted to conceal fraud puts a litigant in a court where the only person needing justice is the person denied it to conceal prior injustice without explanation.

It's not buddy lawyer and buddy judge. Rule 1.6 mandated non-disclosure and confidentiality even conceals fraud to conceal fraud. It is not personal. It is not what you said, or what you did not say. You cannot affect the continued injustice you receive. Every lie ever told may be offered as explanation while they are not permitted to disclose the truth.

Rule 1.6 requires non-disclosure of acts in the furtherance of fraud to conceal fraud. The fraudulent efforts to cover up the injustice are required to be kept confidential. The fraud cannot be prosecuted because it, and effort to conceal it, must remain confidential.

Rule 1.6 requires non-disclosure of information which would rectify the fraud and efforts to conceal are permitted endorsed excused and held confidential.

To the victim of injustice, there is no escape from further injustice. Escape can be imagined. But the reality can occur at any moment where the prior injustice can be leveraged for further injustice WHILE REQUIRED TO BE CONCEALED. It's bad because there was no way out then. You cannot control it. They cannot control it. If someone uses it, you will lose every time. They cannot say why. (Most don't know why it works, they just know it works.) It may undermine the remainder of your life. #INJUSTICE #CORRUPTION

Most people are safe. Injustice is not supposed to occur, the judge is responsible to guard against it. Often, lawyers negotiate the situation into something else entirely, an agreement. The victim of injustice is ALWAYS in jeopardy. You have no protection of the law. People may commit crimes against you and suffer no consequences. Not paranoia, this is reality.

The protection of the law and civil/human/constitutional rights are things which you only seek when you need them. EVERYONE KNOWS THE BASICS. BUT, most do not know that there's a LAW which makes it OK to ignore, and REQUIRES that the law and your rights be ignored. IF you get any explanation, it can be horseshit (fraud in the furtherance). If it didn't make sense. The law excuses every non-sensical illogical misinformation when concealing injustice. The person making it up is under no obligation to tell you truth when the law says they can't reveal the injustice.

ONLY ONE CONDITION VOIDS CONFIDENTIALITY

The victim of injustice may not be killed.

The victim of injustice may not be killed. Disclosure is MANDATED in that instance. ALL PRIOR CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON-DISCLOSURE IS NOT APPLICABLE.

But as long as the victim of injustice is not to be murdered or killed, Rule 1.6 confidentiality is aggressively enforced.

Suicides do not void confidentiality.
- You may be tormented to that decision by non-disclosed fraud and injustice. It's the choice of the person to commit suicide. It is not murder. Suicide does not end Rule 1.6 Confidentiality and non disclosure... it only stops further injustice.
.
If the victim is dead already, there's no disclosure permitted. Confidentiality starts to conceal at that initial injustice. #Ferguson
- So when a lawyer misguides a grand jury about an innocent victim being shot, the lies, misinformation and disinformation are permitted. It is called fraud in the furtherance to conceal prior injustice/fraud/corruption.

THE PENNSYLVANIA DA's REACTION

The injustice described above is concealed according to the law. That law applies to lawyers and legal professionals ONLY. They must follow the law, unless the KNOW that it is unconstitutional to them.

Unconstitutional to you does not provide standing for a lawyer to challenge the constitutionality. The lawyer can't litigate unconstitutional to you while the law is the law; because, the law requires non-disclosure and confidentiality of lawyers.

You could do it yourself, BUT the court staff follow the law and they can intercept and interfere. The judge may not ever see it, or
you.

YOU DID NOTHING TO CAUSE THIS PROBLEM. Most likely, when the trigger occurred, you were not informed at all. Everything just stopped being lawful.

Everyone must follow the law.

Confidentiality prevents District Attorneys from any effort to remove the law.
District Attorneys follow the law. The DA's did not enact the law, and they cannot change the law.

How do you explain to a governor that the prisoner is on death row and faces no real intention to execute the death sentence.

An Injustice is keeping the prisoner on death row alive. BUT, if we learn of intent to execute, we may no longer conceal an injustice and any fraudulent efforts which conceal it.

So maybe they don't belong on death row? Under Rule 1`.6 we can't say unless he's going to be killed.
What was the Injustice? We can;t say. Rule 1.6 mandates non-disclosure and confidentiality.

By not executing a prisoner on death row and where there is no real intent to kill the prisoner, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality and non-disclosure conceals fraud and injustice.

Keeping a victim of injustice alive on death row permits RULE 1.6 to conceal the 'fraud' that there is no real intent to execute.

THE PEOPLE ON DEATH ROW WHO MAY NOT FACE THE REAL RISK OF EXECUTION COULD BE VICTIMS OF CONCEALED RULE 1.6 INJUSTICE AND FRAUD TO COVER IT UP.

While there is no intent to kill, non-disclosure and confidentiality are mandated.

The Secrets are safe, unless the victim is going to be killed.

A PRISONER ON DEATH ROW

Where a prisoner on death row has been there for a prolonged time and no execution has been scheduled, the liklihood of there being an undisclosed injustice or corruption involved in the case is very strong.

EVERYONE MUST FOLLOW THE LAW... and lawyers and legal professionals are following Rule 1.6.

Lawyers cannot have anything to do with the review of the case? We can, but we would have to conceal the corruption and injustice. It would be kind of pointless I suppose.

NOW EXPAND THE LAW DOWN TO ALL PRISONERS

Rule 1.6 may concealing the injustice of a person who lost protection of the law, and their rights, and is incarcerated.

NOW EXPAND TO ALL PEOPLE

Rule 1.6 may concealing the injustice of a person who lost protection of the law, and their rights. Likely destitute/homeless as any crimes could take everything they owned and be ignored.

The cruelty of Rule 1.6 is that it prevents justice by mandating silence to keep the victim under attack, and prevents their death which would relieve them of further misery.

---

IT HAPPENED. IT IS HAPPENING EVERYWHERE.RE

Where the lawyers silently conceal the courts injustice and corruption, there is no protection of the law and constitutional rights are ignored.

KIDS FOR CASH... thousands of families, children jailed, no law no rights.

COMMISSION REPORT... lawyers mandated to not reveal Rule 1.6 Confidentiality failed to see the silence was mandated by law.

Foreclosures based on fraudulent documents... lawyers silently observed the courts injustice. Once the fraud was committed in the court, it could not be addressed.

The lawyer could conceal their client, non-existent or who could be themselves, forging fraudulent documents, all frauds in the furtherance of fraud prevented the rule of law and constitutional rights. Preventing prosecution where it would expose the injustice and corruption.

Could this be why no one was prosecuted during the Foreclosure Crisis, while robo-signed fraudulent documents were known to have been used, yet the courts allowed the foreclosures. Where lack of standing was ignored to conceal injustice.

Rule 1.6 INJUSTICE is the Constitutional Crisis Americans are witnessing.

If you want to hide something evil, do it inside something boring.

THEY CAN'T DO THAT! YOU KNOW THEY DID.

RULE 1.6 IS THE LAW. It is an aggressively enforced mandate of Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure.

Rule 1.6 trumps every law - no protection under the law.

Rule 1.6 trumps every right and privilege secured and protected by the US Constitution.

Rule 1.6 is Confidentiality concealing injustice from which there can be no relief.
- Lawyers cannot help you while mandated to participate against you.

Purporting to be necessary, and ethical, it is often suggested to be only "attorney-client privilege", but is far broader and cross referenced throughout the 'Rules'. One law enacted in each state which must be followed by federal attorneys and investigators and is part of the local rules in federal courts.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 - GOT 1.6'd

The District Court was unprepared for the pro se litigant with evidence proving Rule 1.6 UNCONSTITUTIONAL
- Dismissed. Unsigned, Unsubstantiated. Fraud in the furtherance by lawyer in the clerks office.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and did not permit Reconsideration.
- Affirmed. Reconsideration Denied. Unsigned. Efforts to witness the delivery of the case to the judges resulted in the US Marshalls being called. The Marshalls were already aware of the 'problem' - like the sheriffs have been convinced of diminished responsibilities

Rule 1.6 Challenge got Rule 1.6'd.

The Constitutional Challenge was pre-emptory, and intended to prevent the corruption and loss of integrity within the higher PA courts.

Not until the lower court cases were before the Superior Court of PA did Rule 1.6 play before out before our eyes in Superior Court.
The supporting evidence of unconstitutionality occurred in the lower courts, and the Attorney General notified that it would be involved in the Appeal.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEMONSTRATION IN SUPERIOR COURT

The Central Legal Staff demonstrated a judiciary held hostage. The activities of the court staff - violations of Appellate Rules, PA law and interfering with the administration of the courts, obstruction of justice, et al. The actions were on the record. While every document must be submitted through the staff, the dismissals and responding documents were clearly not the product of the judiciary .Unsigned and violating the judicial canons, neglecting applicable law. When challenged for evidence of judicial involvement, failure to comply and failure to explain would indicate Rule 1.6 non-disclosure.

Using Rule 1.6 to conceal their violation of my constitutional rights, PROVED THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AFFECT OF THE LAW. Rule 1.6 had the collateral affect of denying a litigant of constitutionally protected rights and privileges and denied the protection of the law.

WHY DIDN'T THE JUDGES COVER FOR THEIR STAFF?

Where the lower court acted in the clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction, in violation of Pennsylvania law, and issued a defective and void order, obstructed a primary appeal, failed to provide court records, et al. there would not be any availability of absolute judicial immunity. This judge neglected every aspect , and prevented any resolution. She retaliated with cruelty, and irreparable damage. She's exposed 20 judges ion the lower court to the loss of immunity. Yes, there were 20 judges in the matter. No, not rich. Destitute now. Just didn't suicide, like he was supposed to.

If the Superior Court Judiciary concealed up for the actions of the staff, they faced liability due to the lack of absolute judicial immunity caused in the lower court.

The level of fraud in the furtherance in Healy v Healy may have been very extreme. So much so that it caused him to discover Rule 1,6 was at the center of everything. 8-9 years now, and going...

Criminal Complaints

Requests for signed documents were ignored, the court informed of the offenses/complaint, and complaints sent to the Us Attorney and the District Attorney of Philadelphia and Bucks County, and the Attorney General of PA, and others.

Appellate procedure/law required the Pennsylvania Attorney general be notified of the challenge to the constitutionality of the law being an element of the appeal. Healy v Healy(Carluccio), Healy v Healy(Page) and Healy v Miller(Weilheimer) were some of the appeals.

Two unidentified court orders from unidentified courts silence the AG, and prevent her investigation and responsibilities of her office. They are under appeal. Little is known about the documents. There is also a grand jury issue which is silencing the attorney general - from Montgomery County - same as Healy v Healy and Healy v Miller.

There are documents entered into the dockets and removed which have not been provided to the parties. The Court responded with an Order, but did not copy the Appellant. Requests for production of the documents are DENIED. No Signatures.

The Attorney General now well informed of the unconstitutional effect, Rule 1.6 is no law, and provides no mandate for confidentiality and non-disclosure as a lawyer. HOWEVER, two secret court orders from two unidentified courts mandate her silence. They must be followed until appealed and removed.

There is no allowance for the courts to issue secret orders on cases which are not heard obligating person who are not a party to the action.

The law is the law until it is not the law.

Until declared unconstitutional or suspended by the legislature, Rule 1.6 permits fraud to conceal fraud. Rule 1.6 conceals fraud in the furtherance or to prevent rectifying the fraud, so secret court orders must be followed.

Without necessity to adhere to an unconstitutional law, the courts have issued two secret court orders which must be obeyed until they are stricken on appealed. The court orders mandate the participation of Kathleen kane in the violation of constitutional protected rights from which there can be mo immunity or protected from demands for releif. A conspiracy to deny and prevent constitutional rights is created and evidenced by the documents. The orders require Kathleen Kane to violate her oath of office and the responsibilities and duties of the Office of the Attorney General. The Orders prevents her from exposing the documents or discussion.

While ther has been no official confirmation of the documents relating to my cases or appeals, the possibility of coincidence is null.

Powerful secret orders... summed up by Kathleen Kane as follows:

“I am shocked at the level of public corruption.”

“I am shocked at how deep it goes.
I am shocked at how powerful it is.
I have never seen anything like this. It’s breathtaking.
It has been described by the people familiar with what is happening as shameful.”

“But, if this can be done to me as Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of the 5th largest state in the country, I am sickened to think what can and may be done to regular, good people who don’t have the resources that I have to challenge it.”

The DA's know what the Governor may find.

The DA's know what the Governor may find. They will not be permitted to explain. Innocent persons on death row with no escape. The inability to explain, silenced by LAW, will be unacceptable, and embarrassing and revealing. Rule 1.6 will be further exposed to the pubic, but not by lawyers.

Those who attack the silenced Attorney General will be seen under a different perspective.

So far, THE DA's have failed to investigate and prosecute the Superior Court Staff. IGNORED pursuant to Rule 1.6.

They are participating in a conspiracy to deny constitutional rights, based on a law which when proven unconstitutional involves them in the federal crime. They are refusing to investigate and prosecute the crimes and the unconstitutional acts. Their professional responsibilities creates a personal liability.

They continue to participate in a conspiracy to deny constitutional rights, a federal offense, because of their participation in preventing constitutional rights.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE for denying a person of the constitutional rights, or participating in a conspircy to deny rights.

Yes, the law gets very spun around under Rule 1.6

WHO WROTE THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ABOMINATION?

There is no legislative immunity available for the authors who were not member of the legislature, or those supreme courts who improperly enacted and unconstitutional law.

Rule 1.6 was enacted nationwide from 1984 to 2009, promoted by the American Bar Association as a code of ethics while they knew it lacked ethics - they removed the 'fraud provisions' - their membership and affiliates exist in every jurisdiction of state and federal courts.

While enacted by the state supreme courts, they could not repeal according to their own law.

The judiciary have been held hostage ever since. Concealed by their participation which sacrifices their integrity, the injustice caused by the inability to escape a law which was their undoing. Lawyers preventing the judges from escape when the unconstitutional law was challenged.

The ABA is a trade organization with its purpose to promote the profession. They earned their membership piles of money, at the cost of the professional reputation. Injustice is a goldmine. Justice - not so much.

Holding the judiciary hostage after they violated the public trust and leveraging continued injustice for Americans in violation of the US Constitution where it benefited their members financially. The sedition of the American Bar Association will go down as the biggest scandal in US history... as soon as we can discuss it. The lawyers are not talking, and not allowing the courts to address the issue.

Justice is Coming.

Did anyone else notice that the Attorney General had no comment on the moratorium? The Chief Law Enforcement Officer? The lawyer who represents the Governor and the Commonwealth? Do you suppose those secret court orders extended somehow to prevent effort which will expose Rule 1.6 in any way? There is no explanations for her failure to address the issue in Superior Court FOR THE THREE APPEALS and others. Documents submitted on her behalf in the Constitutional Challenge create a liability for her for conspiring to prevent the constitutional rights of EVERY AMERICAN. The lawyers removed 55 attorneys general from the challenge docket AND the appeal. One heck of a PERSONAL liability builds while the court orders are appealed. So that's why she got those high falootin lawyers... thje whole country has her in their sights, and the courts are creating her liability, preventing her actions and silencing her. It's a shame the courts and lawyers cannot say anything of this Rule 1.6 unless they recognize it is unconstitutional. Secret court may need to print alot of secret orders. Secretly of course. Darryl Metcalfe - Kanes got bigger concerns than bigots trying to impeach her. Seems you are continuing to prevent and obstruct constitutionally protected rights, and lamenting a proven unconstitutional law.

Standing can be tricky... It is personal. It requires direct effect. I had it and it was dismissed anyway, Rule 1.6'd.

A Report on Death Row could reveal cases... possibly standing for the Gov?

Or maybe just the evidence the Legislature needs to suspend the law.
Constitutionally The Legislature has the only authority to suspend the law.
PLEASE STOP ASKING the judiciary committees - they are lawyers mandated to commit fraud in the furtherance to conceal it.

That's why Stewart Greenleaf refuses to talk to me, and his office was informed of the terror of my divorce for years. He knew the terror... so it had to be a law that made him ignore a constituent begging for help. Me finding Rule 1.6 after 7 years of litigation harassment and terror show Greenleaf is not a total ass, he just a corrupt evil politician that helped hide this for 30 years.

Todd Stephens believes people don't have constitutional rights unless the judge says so. He made me laugh. How many years did he work with District Attorney Bruce Castor to become that misinformed? Lawyer Stephens wins Funniest Fraud in the Furtherance. Where it made him out to be completely and totally stupid, he was just being a disrespectful asshole because the law required it.

Are you stupid, or are you a lawyer
(committing fraud on the furtherance)
who thinks that I am?

Still waiting for that meeting with the other local officials...
How am I ever going to litigate against all of those people who conspired to deny my constitutional rights? even when not excused by an unconstitutional law? I'm ashamed for them... on the wrong side of an egregious rape of the public trust and unwilling to save the judiciary from their captors and restore their integrity.
I wasn't trying to gain defendants, I wanted you to do your job, follow your oath. Why did you get into politics if you didn't believe in the US Constitution? Did the lawyers scare you off? Do you realize HOW HUGE this issue is?



Rep. Katherine M. Watson
Rep. Marguerite Quinn
Rep. Todd Stephens
Rep. Tina Davis
Rep. Scott Petri
Rep. John T. Galloway
Rep. Thomas Murt

Rep. Steven J. Santarsiero
Rep. Frank Farry
Rep. Paul Clymer
Rep. Gene DiGirolamo
Rep. Bernie O’Neill
Rep. Kate Harper

Sen. Bob Mensch
Sen. Robert Tomlinson
Sen. Charles McIlhinney
Sen. Stewart Greenleaf

Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick
Senator Bob Casey
Senator Pat Toomey

It’s about how we represent ourselves to the world. - McCain

“I believe the American people have a right – indeed, a responsibility – to know what was done in their name; how these practices did or did not serve our interests; and how they comported with our most important values.

“I commend Chairman Feinstein and her staff for their diligence in seeking a truthful accounting of policies I hope we will never resort to again. I thank them for persevering against persistent opposition from many members of the intelligence community, from officials in two administrations, and from some of our colleagues.

“The truth is sometimes a hard pill to swallow. It sometimes causes us difficulties at home and abroad. It is sometimes used by our enemies in attempts to hurt us. But the American people are entitled to it, nonetheless.

“They must know when the values that define our nation are intentionally disregarded by our security policies, even those policies that are conducted in secret. They must be able to make informed judgments about whether those policies and the personnel who supported them were justified in compromising our values; whether they served a greater good; or whether, as I believe, they stained our national honor, did much harm and little practical good.

“What were the policies? What was their purpose? Did they achieve it? Did they make us safer? Less safe? Or did they make no difference? What did they gain us? What did they cost us? The American people need the answers to these questions. Yes, some things must be kept from public disclosure to protect clandestine operations, sources and methods, but not the answers to these questions.

“By providing them, the Committee has empowered the American people to come to their own decisions about whether we should have employed such practices in the past and whether we should consider permitting them in the future. This report strengthens self-government and, ultimately, I believe, America’s security and stature in the world. I thank the Committee for that valuable public service.

“I have long believed some of these practices amounted to torture, as a reasonable person would define it, especially, but not only the practice of waterboarding, which is a mock execution and an exquisite form of torture. Its use was shameful and unnecessary; and, contrary to assertions made by some of its defenders and as the Committee’s report makes clear, it produced little useful intelligence to help us track down the perpetrators of 9/11 or prevent new attacks and atrocities.

“I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering. Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights, which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not only joined, but for the most part authored.

“I know, too, that bad things happen in war. I know in war good people can feel obliged for good reasons to do things they would normally object to and recoil from.

“I understand the reasons that governed the decision to resort to these interrogation methods, and I know that those who approved them and those who used them were dedicated to securing justice for the victims of terrorist attacks and to protecting Americans from further harm. I know their responsibilities were grave and urgent, and the strain of their duty was onerous.

“I respect their dedication and appreciate their dilemma. But I dispute wholeheartedly that it was right for them to use these methods, which this report makes clear were neither in the best interests of justice nor our security nor the ideals we have sacrificed so much blood and treasure to defend.

“The knowledge of torture’s dubious efficacy and my moral objections to the abuse of prisoners motivated my sponsorship of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which prohibits ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ of captured combatants, whether they wear a nation’s uniform or not, and which passed the Senate by a vote of 90-9.

“Subsequently, I successfully offered amendments to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which, among other things, prevented the attempt to weaken Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and broadened definitions in the War Crimes Act to make the future use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ punishable as war crimes.

“There was considerable misinformation disseminated then about what was and wasn’t achieved using these methods in an effort to discourage support for the legislation. There was a good amount of misinformation used in 2011 to credit the use of these methods with the death of Osama bin Laden. And there is, I fear, misinformation being used today to prevent the release of this report, disputing its findings and warning about the security consequences of their public disclosure.

“Will the report’s release cause outrage that leads to violence in some parts of the Muslim world? Yes, I suppose that’s possible, perhaps likely. Sadly, violence needs little incentive in some quarters of the world today. But that doesn’t mean we will be telling the world something it will be shocked to learn. The entire world already knows that we water-boarded prisoners. It knows we subjected prisoners to various other types of degrading treatment. It knows we used black sites, secret prisons. Those practices haven’t been a secret for a decade.

“Terrorists might use the report’s re-identification of the practices as an excuse to attack Americans, but they hardly need an excuse for that. That has been their life’s calling for a while now.

“What might come as a surprise, not just to our enemies, but to many Americans, is how little these practices did to aid our efforts to bring 9/11 culprits to justice and to find and prevent terrorist attacks today and tomorrow. That could be a real surprise, since it contradicts the many assurances provided by intelligence officials on the record and in private that enhanced interrogation techniques were indispensable in the war against terrorism. And I suspect the objection of those same officials to the release of this report is really focused on that disclosure – torture’s ineffectiveness – because we gave up much in the expectation that torture would make us safer. Too much.

“Obviously, we need intelligence to defeat our enemies, but we need reliable intelligence. Torture produces more misleading information than actionable intelligence. And what the advocates of harsh and cruel interrogation methods have never established is that we couldn’t have gathered as good or more reliable intelligence from using humane methods.

“The most important lead we got in the search for bin Laden came from using conventional interrogation methods. I think it is an insult to the many intelligence officers who have acquired good intelligence without hurting or degrading prisoners to assert we can’t win this war without such methods. Yes, we can and we will.

“But in the end, torture’s failure to serve its intended purpose isn’t the main reason to oppose its use. I have often said, and will always maintain, that this question isn’t about our enemies; it’s about us. It’s about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. It’s about how we represent ourselves to the world.

“We have made our way in this often dangerous and cruel world, not by just strictly pursuing our geopolitical interests, but by exemplifying our political values, and influencing other nations to embrace them. When we fight to defend our security we fight also for an idea, not for a tribe or a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion or for a king, but for an idea that all men are endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights. How much safer the world would be if all nations believed the same. How much more dangerous it can become when we forget it ourselves even momentarily.

“Our enemies act without conscience. We must not. This executive summary of the Committee’s report makes clear that acting without conscience isn’t necessary, it isn’t even helpful, in winning this strange and long war we’re fighting. We should be grateful to have that truth affirmed.

“Now, let us reassert the contrary proposition: that is it essential to our success in this war that we ask those who fight it for us to remember at all times that they are defending a sacred ideal of how nations should be governed and conduct their relations with others – even our enemies.

“Those of us who give them this duty are obliged by history, by our nation’s highest ideals and the many terrible sacrifices made to protect them, by our respect for human dignity to make clear we need not risk our national honor to prevail in this or any war. We need only remember in the worst of times, through the chaos and terror of war, when facing cruelty, suffering and loss, that we are always Americans, and different, stronger, and better than those who would destroy us.

“Thank you.”

John McCain December 9, 2014

The Illusion of Hope

The illusion of hope I present exists as much for myself as for the others who endure it.

A rare emotional presentation of information.

---

When the GATEKEEPER who answers the phone and becomes TOTALLY CLUELESS and doesn't even know his supervisors name - the walls prevent information from getting to those who can make a change.

Spencer. We have tried for over a month to get in touch with people in your office. Computers and phones are hacked here. Internet is blocked and emails prevented. The Pennsylvania Republicans BLOCK this web site - making it impossible to inform them. So we go to their offices with information. We endure the scheduling issues and the insulting innuendo.

I face the impossibility of contacting those who can make a difference on a daily basis. Do you think maybe people are calling about an issue of importance and deserve an answer? Some respect? I have been doing this since 2007, you are not the first GATEKEEPER.

---

The first GATEKEEPER experience in 2007 had exposed the ridiculous pretend investigation by the DEA while purporting to be the FBI. No one at any FBI office knew Agent "Rose" when I called. After speaking with her for over a month, I left a message on her phone to buy donuts for her office because they did not know who she was. She never called back.

---

Rep Kathy Watson, YES, it took 10 months to get a meeting with you. After repeated contact and visits to your office because the phones are intercepted. I have no cell phone. Most homeless and destitute folks have no phones. The messages were left at my mother's house. So Yes, after being ignored in person and on the phone for months, I again walked into your office. When confronted, your staff strongly indicated it was my fault for not repeatedly contacting them - though I had. ONLY THEN DID WE GET THE MEETING.

You finally met with us and understood the issue.

During that meeting, I had to accept criticism for raising my voice at your staff about their neglecting to contact me. I had to accept criticism about how I was dressed. I am homeless. I have no money in my pocket. You are talking about the expense of replacing your desk. My underwear is ripped. My clothes are clean, but there ARE NOT MANY HOMELESS FOLKS IN BUSINESS SUITS. I was not supposed to live through the experience - and I wish I hadn't. Forgive me for taking things personally but I am experiencing it personally. The interference is personal. The ability to not fall apart completely fails on occasion. Because I am human like that.

There is never enough time to meet to discuss the issues. There is always time to make excuses and criticize the victim who is begging for help. I realize the perception that because I write about what happened, I'm the ungrateful one. EVEN THOUGH, I noticed and appreciated your preparedness and knowledge of the issue.

I receive the disrespect and rudeness from strangers on a daily basis. You cannot imagine what it is like to spend an hour in my existence. I wouldn't wish it on you or anyone.

---

Rep Marguerite Quinn. I am not the enemy. You could have been prepared for the meeting.

You accused me of bashing lawyers. Though I present WHY lawyers are perceived to be corrupt and the law which mandates that participation in corruption.

You suggested I was about to insult your uncle when I began to speak about the Federal case. When I am presenting how this issue affects the integrity of the judiciary by mandating judges to conceal the injustice and corruption of prior judges in the matter. IT IS PROBABLE THAT "UNCLE JUDGE" NEVER EVEN SAW THE MATTER BECAUSE IT WAS INTERFERED WITH BY THE COURT CLERKS - LAWYERS MANDATED TO CONCEAL INJUSTICE.

Your preconceived notions of me were dead wrong. I demonstrated that and didn't shy away from anything you raised about ME. You realized that whatever information you thought you knew was incorrect. POINTS to Archbishop Wood Class of 81. Me too.

Then the game of send information by email begins - when the information is in your hands. Our Computers and phones are hacked. We cannot trust the technology. ( Think about what Snowden reported and put it in the hands of the local bar association and the private investigators who are outside the law. )

Why are the Pennsylvania Republicans blocking the Work2BDone web site? That same information blocking program prevents email from getting through also.

BIG SURPRISE WHEN THE VICTIM IS NOT LASHING BACK POINTLESSLY AND CAN EXPLAIN THE MISTREATMENT EXPERIENCED BY EVERYONE IS CAUSED BY THE VERY ISSUE BEING PRESENTED.

---

Rep Todd Stephens. Clueless and trained stupid. In practice, the judges can destroy people by ignoring the law and the constitution. In law, they cannot. The law we are talking to the lawyer about causes this injustice to be ignored BY MANDATE. AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE which requires lawyers to ignore the rights of the litigants.

---

Senator Stewart Greenleaf. You prevent resolution while sitting on the judiciary committee. You are a coward who cannot even face the victim of the injustice you proliferate, endorse and maintain. Your staff are well informed about the experience. They watched as I begged for help. They watched as I found the problem. They watched as I presented numerous examples of the injustice WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. YOU ARE MORE THAN PART OF THE PROBLEM. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM PERSONIFIED.

---

Senator Chuck McIlhinney. What gives? We ask you to bring the issue to the PA legislature in December 2013. We meet. We keep you informed. You stall. You delay. You stop responding. We hand deliver letters. You tried to pawn it off onto Senator Greenleaf instead of working together. He's a lawyer. You are not. He is prevented by law. You are not. You both know the seriousness of the issue. Could the 'Bucks County Machine' really tell you to SHUT UP and stop meeting with those guys. And is that what you've done?

---

Attorney General Kathleen Kane. You've seen first hand in this issue how the staff of the Attorney general's office can undermine justice, the law and a persons constitutional rights. It was done on a public stage with 55 other attorneys general. And still you hide behind a law which has been demonstrated to be unconstitutional and corrupt and affecting millions. You cannot be disciplined for addressing what will be deemed a nullity. It's not a law, it's a nullity.

---

We have provided documentation about the issue to:
every Governor,
every US Senator,
every US Representative,
every Pennsylvania legislator,
every Pennsylvania Sheriff,
every US Attorney,
every judge in Bucks County Pennsylvania,
every judge in Montgomery County Pennsylvania
SILENCE IS CONSENT.

The homeless and destitute victim was able to communicate the issue, file in federal court, repeatedly refile motions in Superior court to address 'pretend' per curiam orders, the paper, postage, copying, the expense of enduring the lawlessness, and of courser they don't have to provide the court records so prepare your appeal without the documents necessary for the appeal.

You are fighting for your rights.

The courts think you are trying to expose their corruption when THEY are providing the evidence of their own corruption. You are just trying to survive it.

---

The lies of the American government agencies are tremendous. DOJ tells us to write to the US Attorney. The US Attorney indicates that they only have jurisdiction where a federal law has been broken. The US Constitution is a federal law - the supreme law of the land.

Doesn't the US Attorney know that? Once you lose your constitutional rights, the refusal to commit suicide is considered spite. The disappointment at your not going 'mad' so they can arrest you is clear. They will make you homeless, destitute and alone... writing stupid letters if you still have an address. You were not supposed to survive and expose the problem. And ONLY a victim would have standing to present it in court - without any lawyer involved. You are not supposed to have survived this long.

No one helps. I AM SO SICK OF SURVIVING.

---

The walls and blockades erected by the lawyers to whom everyone turns for advice. THEY ARE MANDATED TO CONCEAL THE PROBLEM. And I know this. I have experienced this. I excuse them because their twisted unconstitutional law MANDATES they do this to people and to me.

I excuse the govt officials who are prevented from exposing that the judiciary has failed because they may not expose the collapse of the govt. WHILE ALL AROUND US WE SEE THE FALL.

The inhumanity of their actions and how they turn a society at will.

---

Lawyers can create a economy. Have a cop shoot an unarmed kid and the lawyers revenue goes through the roof. Riots, media, govt officials, victims, innocent bystanders, all brought together and needing a lawyer.

The only ones who are getting paid are the lawyers.... and by those who have not got the money to afford it.

---

I persevered thru the nightmare, I found the cause of the issue, not just for me but for millions. I have endured the hatred the misinformation and the redirection. Been denied simple respect from people who were afraid once they heard that the LAWYERS HAVE UNDERMINED THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT. I exposed HOW they did it. I backed up every statement with well-known examples and evidence.

And still... The injustice continues. I was not supposed to survive. Family friends and everyone are gone. They were exhausted and frightened by the experience.

I sit alone most days. Trying to live. Explaining the corruption of an entire society and a country. A deliberate crime committed by the lawyers, the American Bar Association. They have the ability to block every resolution and prevent exposure by the media.

The reasons to ignore the issue are overwhelming. The ability to present it are quickly undermined by misconceptions, misinformation, or a simple expression. I am accused of everything that THEY are doing to me. I walk in the front doors. I ask for help. I try to summarize the issue. They ask for more information and when they hear it they become more and more frightened by what they are hearing.

No one has ever said I was wrong. Yes, I have thought about most every angle. I have explanations for every scenario. Not because I am a know-it-all... but because I have lived this nightmare.

Accuse me of anger. You're wrong but the reality is that I am supposed to be angry - who wouldn't be angry after going through this experience. That's how they usually have the victim thrown in jail.

There is no happiness in the isolation of the prison of information to which I am confined. And no one gives a damn until they are in the 'next cell' and no one is listening to them either. I understand the suicides.

There's no joy. The illusion of hope I present exists as much for myself as for the others who endure it.

I persevere. JUSTICE IS COMING.

This document has been sent to every Pennsylvania Senator via their web based form. This web site is blocked by the Republicans in the legislature. Though, Democrats can see it. Email to the legislature is blocked and prevented by a similar program. I receive over 11,000 emails per day which prevent me from receiving email - the mailbox is always full. The reason this issue has not seen the light of day is because they have made it impossible to maintain effective communications with anyone. Phones and computers are hacked. You cannot trust the technology.

The Pennsylvania Senate. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity." Alloway, Richard L. (R) Argall, David G. (R) Baker, Lisa (R) Blake, John P. (D) Boscola, Lisa M. (D) Brewster, James R. (D) Browne, Patrick M. (R) Brubaker, Mike (R) Corman, Jake (R) Costa, Jay (D) Dinniman, Andrew E. (D) Eichelberger, John H. (R) Erickson, Edwin B. (R) Farnese, Lawrence M. (D) Ferlo, Jim (D) Folmer, Mike (R) Fontana, Wayne D. (D) Gordner, John R. (R) Greenleaf, Stewart J. (R) Hughes, Vincent J. (D) Hutchinson, Scott E. (R) Kasunic, Richard A (D) Kitchen, Shirley M. (D) Leach, Daylin (D) McIlhinney, Charles T. (R) Mensch, Bob (R) Pileggi, Dominic (R) Rafferty, John C. (R) Robbins, Robert D. (R) Scarnati, Joseph B. (R) Schwank, Judith L. (D) Smith, Matt (D) Smucker, Lloyd K. (R) Solobay, Timothy J. (D) Stack, Michael J. (D) Tartaglione, Christine M. (D) Teplitz, Rob (D) Tomlinson, Robert M. (R) Vance, Patricia H. (R) Vogel, Elder A. (R) Vulakovich, Randy (R) Wagner, Scott (R) Ward, Kim L. (R) Washington, LeAnna M. (D) White, Donald C. (R) Wiley, Sean (D) Williams, Anthony H. (D) Wozniak, John N. (D) Yaw, Gene (R) Yudichak, John T. (D)

Conspiracy and Parties

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 - The Conspiracy to prevent constitutional review and exposure of the injustice caused and ignored by an improperly and unlawfully enacted 'law'.


THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE
Title 18 U.S.C. § 371

The Elements
1. Two or More Persons
2. Knowledge and Intent
3. The Agreement
4. Unlawful or Fraudulent Means or Objective
5. The Overt Act

.Parties To Criminal Offenses
.AIDING AND ABETTING (18 U.S.C. § 2( A ))
.CAUSING THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME (18 U.S.C. § 2( B ))
.ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT (18 U.S.C. § 3)
.MISPRISION OF FELONY (18 U.S.C. § 4)

The crime of conspiracy was created because of the inherent dangers posed to society when two or more individuals join together to violate the law. A person who joins with others to commit a crime strengthens the criminal scheme and enhances the potential success of the scheme. Furthermore,
once an individual joins with others, that person is less likely to change their mind than one who has made a solitary decision to violate the law. Once conspiracies are formed, there is the danger they will get out of control, recruit other criminals, and become more dangerous and difficult to immobilize. For all these reasons, the identification and targeting of multi-defendant criminal networks is essential to successful law enforcement.

To conceal the denial of constitutionally protected rights and ignore injustice, every judge and lawyer in the United States are all mandated by the same confidentiality as soon as they become lawyers./ They must follow the Law - the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Advantages
In any investigation involving two or more defendants, agents should consider the following advantages of a conspiracy charge:

1. Get Beyond The First Layer
In many cases the organizers and brains behind a criminal organization insulate themselves from those members whose actions are more visible, thus making them less susceptible to getting caught.

The Author, the American Bar Association is insulated behind each state supreme court which enacted their rules into LAW.

The law of conspiracy enables the investigator to get beyond the first layer of visible members
of a conspiracy and immobilize the entire criminal organization.

2. Past, Present, and Future
The criminal investigator will often initiate a case on a criminal organization where the objectives of the conspiracy are still ongoing (a fraudulent investment scheme). In other cases, the goal of the conspiracy will have already been accomplished OR the criminal objectives may still be in the planning stage.

In a conspiracy investigation the investigator can go in any direction, past, present or future. Because the conspiracy statute is pro-active in nature, criminals may be apprehended prior to any substantive criminal offense being consummated.

So an ongoing national conspiracy started at different times in each state. Rollout by state.

3. Allow Juries to See the Entire Operation
In presenting a conspiracy case to a jury the prosecution can describe the roles and relevant conduct for each member of the conspiracy. The entire scope of the operation can be spelled out, even though some of the members of the conspiracy may not be on trial. An additional benefit to a conspiracy charge is that multiple defendants can be tried at the same time. Having the members of the conspiracy sitting together as the prosecution describes each one‘s role in the criminal enterprise
strengthens the government‘s position that they were all acting in concert together, albeit some members had larger roles than others.

4. Use of the Grand Jury
Through the grand jury, the investigator can obtain documentary evidence not easily obtained without the power of a grand jury subpoena. Witnesses who are reluctant to provide information can be subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury.

Sworn testimony of witnesses can be preserved for trial or become the basis of a perjury charge.

Disadvantages
Developing a successful conspiracy investigation may be severely hampered due to certain limiting factors, many of which the investigator has no control over. Some of these disadvantages may be:

1. Time Consuming
In many conspiracy investigations, the overt acts that furthered the conspiracy were performed in the past. Further, members of the conspiracy take great pains to conceal their criminal scheme. It will be very time consuming for the criminal investigator to organize their goals, identify their targets, develop witnesses, corroborate the witnesses and gather evidence to strengthen the case.

It will be more time consuming to address the injustice caused by the conspiracy to deny justice.

2. Witness Difficulties
Successful conspiracy investigations depend on developing key witnesses. More often than not, the most knowledgeable witnesses are co-conspirators. Unfortunately, these witnesses are difficult to manage and control and often can be an embarrassment to the government. They are easily impeached and possess very little appeal to the jury. There will be times when even the hardest working investigator will be unable to provide enough corroboration to make these witnesses believable.

The evidence is available on the court dockets for each case or appeal which was affected.

3. No Instant Results
A primary goal of the conspiracy investigation is to prosecute all (or as many as possible) who willingly participated in the criminal venture. The larger the number of participants in a conspiracy, generally the longer it takes to develop the case. Consequently, there will not be the instant results commonly associated with single arrests for substantive offenses.

In spite of these disadvantages, the conspiracy investigation is one of the most effective weapons in the law enforcement officer‘s arsenal. It is designed to immobilize and eliminate those that bind together to strengthen their criminal endeavors. Remember, it was a conspiracy investigation that
prompted Richard M. Nixon to resign as president of the United States.

A CONSPIRACY THAT BINDS PEOPLE TOGETHER TO STRENGTHEN THEIR CRIMINAL ENDEAVORS. EXACTLY.

---

The Statute
A. Title 18 U.S.C. § 371 1
There are a number of federal statutes that criminalize certain types of conspiracies, such as 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Civil Rights) and 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Controlled Substance Conspiracy).

This class is concerned only with the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371.

This statute reads as follows:
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to
defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or
more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both.

When two or more lawyers and judges conspire to prevent the prosecution of judicial corruption...

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a
misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

The plain language of the statute prohibits two distinct types of conspiracies. First, it prohibits any conspiracy to violate a civil or criminal federal law. Second, the statute prohibits any conspiracy to defraud the United States or any agency of the United States, including conspiracies formed for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful functions of any department of the United States government.

The conspiracy violates the US Constitution. OK. The conspiracy did not intend to impair, obstruct or defeat the US Govt. OK. The conspiracy undermined the integrity of the judiciary, impacted the reputation of lawyers and caused an inability to address injustice in the entire judicial system. The conspiracy destroyed people to the point where suicide was their only exit.

The statute provides a maximum punishment of not more than five years, as well as a fine up to $250,000.00, but only if the intended or committed substantive offense is a felony. If the
offense committed or intended is a misdemeanor, the maximum punishment for the conspiracy charge cannot exceed the maximum possible punishment for the misdemeanor.

Think per offense... over 25-30 years.

B. The Elements
There are five essential elements the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to establish a violation of §371. A conspiracy exists when:
- Two or More Persons
- Intentionally
- Agree
- To Violate Federal Law or Defraud the United States
and
- Commit an Overt Act in Furtherance of the Agreement

Once these elements have been met, the crime of conspiracy is COMPLETE.

The Clerk of Courts filed an Opinion which denied the Court the opportunity to review the constitutional matter presented by the litigants. The misinformation, fraud and inaccuracies of the Per Curiam unsigned Opinion IS AN OVERT ACT intended to conceal the conspiracy.

In other words, once a co-conspirator commits an overt act in furtherance of the agreement, all of the co-conspirators may be prosecuted for conspiracy, even if they take no further steps to accomplish their ultimate goal.

That one Opinion/Action permits the prosecution of everyone involved in the conspiracy. Everyone. Every lawyer. Every Judge. Every court. Since the conspiracy began in the 80's.

Two or More Persons
A conspiracy requires the participation of two or more persons.
The persons need to be capable of forming the necessary criminal intent to agree to the objects of the conspiracy. One person cannot be convicted of conspiring with himself, an undercover law enforcement officer, or a cooperating informant. Because a government agent or an agent of the
government (cooperating informant) does not truly intend to commit the ultimate crime of the conspiracy, they cannot be counted as a conspirator. Likewise, individuals who do not have the mental capacity to form the criminal intent to conspire may not be one of the required two or more persons in a conspiracy. Minors and mentally ill persons could fall into this category.

The two persons need not meet. They need not know each other‘s identities. But, they must be aware of, or must reasonably foresee of, each other‘s existence and roles. For example, in a conspiracy to hijack goods, the person who steals a tractor-trailer from a truck stop may not know the person on
the inside who advised when the tractor-trailer could be easily taken nor would he necessarily know the person who was purchasing the stolen goods. Further, as long as there are at least two members, a conspiracy continues even if the members change.

Knowledge and Intent
The government must prove that the defendant had knowledge of the conspiracy and intended to participate in it.
(a) Knowledge
To be a party to a conspiracy, an individual must know of the conspiracy‘s existence and its overall plan or purpose.

The misinformation, fraud and inaccuracies of the Per Curiam Order demonstrates the authors knowledge of their assigned task in the conspiracy.

However, each conspirator need not know all of the details of the plan. While the defendant must know that at least one other person is involved in the conspiracy (so that an agreement is possible), there is no requirement that the defendant know the identity, number, or role of all co-conspirators.

Secrecy and concealment are features of a successful conspiracy.

RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. Secrecy and concealment are the very issue.

Accordingly, the law allows the conviction of individuals without requiring that they have knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy or of all those participating in it.

(b) Intent
The defendant must intend to participate in the conspiracy. The government must present evidence that the defendant joined voluntarily, by agreeing to play some part with the intent to help it succeed.
The mere showing that a defendant was aware of the plan or that the defendant approved of the plan is not enough to prosecute, without showing intent to participate in the conspiracy. A defendant‘s intent may be proven through circumstantial evidence, such as the defendant‘s relationship with other members of the conspiracy, the length of the association between the members, the defendant‘s attitude and conduct, and the nature of the conspiracy. Acts committed by the defendant that furthered the objective of the conspiracy are strong circumstantial evidence that the defendant was a knowing and willing participant in the conspiracy.

Each member of the Bar Association joined voluntarily and followed the mandate which permitted the injustice to continue unaddressed and unresolved. Those responsible for eh conspiracy mandated continued silence and disciplined any who dared try to expose the conspiracy.

3. The Agreement
The essence of any conspiracy is the agreement.

Conspiracy is different than substantive crime. In substantive crime the act is criminal. In conspiracy, the mere agreement to violate the law becomes criminal once an overt act in
furtherance of the agreement takes place. Seldom, if ever, is there proof of a formal agreement. The agreement does not have to be put into words, either oral or written. The agreement is often established through circumstantial evidence and can be as loose as a mutual understanding.

The Conspiracy was documented in the law, improperly enacted because it resulted in the loss of constitutional rights. Volumes of documents exist in every state which demonstrate the development of the 'agreement' in every state by the American Bar Association.

Association with members of a conspiracy is helpful in establishing a defendant‘s willing participation; however, mere presence at the scene is not enough to show agreement. A subject can be present with other known conspirators without intending to join or further the objects of the conspiracy.

A subject can also do something to help the conspiracy without actually joining. For example, an individual may rent an apartment to members of a conspiracy. The conspirators use the apartment to set up their operation. As such, the apartment owner has aided the conspiracy. However, absent a showing that he had a stake in the venture (doubled the rent) or knew of the conspiracy and intended to help it by providing a hiding place, he has not joined in the agreement.

So an organization of lawyers pretending to fight for Civil Liberties would help the conspiracy. The unions and organizations being created at the same time as the Rule became Law is evident.

Mere presence and helping without joining in the agreement are common defenses to conspiracy charges. Efforts must be made to establish a defendant‘s joining in the agreement. This can be shown directly by co-conspirators‘ testifying about the defendant‘s role in the organization or indirectly by
documenting a series of acts or events that demonstrate the defendant acted in concert with and must have been in agreement with other members of the conspiracy.

4. Unlawful or Fraudulent Means or Objective

To successfully prosecute under § 371, either the objective of the conspiracy or the means to accomplish the objective must (1) be an offense against the United States or (2) tend to defraud the United States. If neither the objective, nor the means to accomplish the objective, violate federal law or tend to defraud the United States, prosecution under § 371 is not available.

The means to accomplish the conspiracy - Violation of the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution AND making it illegal to prosecute judicial corruption and the resulting injustice violates federal law.

This illustrates an important concept; the objective of the conspiracy does not have to be a crime. It is sufficient to show that the contemplated objective would impede, impair, defeat, or obstruct the proper functions of the United States Government.

This could be accomplished through a scheme such as bid-rigging or through an agreement to obstruct the regulatory functions of a government agency, such as the Internal Revenue Service, which is often a civil violation of law.

It is not a defense that the objective was factually impossible to achieve. For example, if the objective of the conspiracy is to kill an individual who, unknown to the conspirators, is already dead, then it is factually impossible for the conspirators to carry out their plan.

While factually possible to accomplish (IT HAPPENED)... Who would believe they would actually do it and avoid exposure for over 25 years.

However, the conspiracy charge was complete the moment the first overt act in furtherance of the agreement was committed.

The First overt act.... or the latest overt act by the Clerk of Courts in the Third Circuit.

5. The Overt Act
The final element in a conspiracy prosecution under §371 is that, following an agreement, one of the conspirators committed an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. The overt act demonstrates that the conspirators have moved from a thought crime to one of action.

Instead of simply talking about the crime, the conspirators have actually taken a step towards making it a reality. An overt act shows that the agreement is not dormant, but is actually being pursued by the conspirators.

The misinformation, fraud and inaccuracies of the Per Curiam Order demonstrates the authors knowledge of their assigned task to conceal the exposure of the conspiracy.

Only one overt act must be committed to complete the crime of conspiracy. An overt act is any act done for the purpose of advancing or helping the conspiracy. A single overt act is sufficient to complete the conspiracy for all members, including those who join the conspiracy after it has begun. The overt act must occur after the agreement. The government may not rely on acts committed before the agreement to complete the conspiracy.

Additionally, the overt act need not be criminal in nature to complete the conspiracy, but may, in fact, be entirely lawful.

The Overt act of "The Per Curiam Opinion" is lawfully filed. It is also inaccurate, misleading, and represents a fraud upon the court.

For example, the overt act may be preparatory in nature, such as buying a car or mask to use in a bank robbery. If the substantive offense is actually committed, that offense may be used as the overt act necessary to complete the conspiracy. For instance, if two persons agree to rob a bank and did so, the bank robbery would be the overt act necessary to complete the conspiracy.

III. The Law of Conspiracy
In addition to the elements to be proved in conspiracy cases, there is significant law you should know when undertaking a conspiracy investigation. The following sections provide the criminal investigator some additional legal principles to guide investigations.

The Doctrine of Merger/Double Jeopardy
A conspiracy charge is a separate and distinct offense from the crime being planned and does not merge with the substantive offense, should it ultimately be committed. The Doctrine of Merger holds that inchoate offenses (those committed to lead to another crime) such as solicitation and attempts to commit crimes merge into the substantive offense if that offense is committed. Conspiracy, an inchoate offense, does not merge into the substantive offense. In addition, conspiracy to commit a substantive offense has different elements than the substantive offense and will survive a double
jeopardy challenge when both are charged utilizing the exact same evidence.

Pinkerton Theory of Vicarious Liability
Conspirators are criminally responsible for the reasonably foreseeable acts of any co-conspirator that was committed in furtherance of the overall plan. This is known as the Pinkerton Theory of vicarious liability. For example, if the plan was to smuggle counterfeit computer software into the United States, bribing a U.S. Customs Inspector would be a reasonably foreseeable act. In such a case, each conspirator would be liable for the substantive act of bribery, regardless of who
actually committed the bribery. If an act was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the overall plan, a defendant could not be held liable for that act unless he or she was the individual who actually committed it. The benefit of this rule is that all foreseeable acts of the conspiracy can be introduced at trial even though those on trial may not have participated in the acts. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946).

Co-Conspirator‘s Statements
The Federal Rules provides, in pertinent part: of Evidence (Rule 801(d)(2)(E)) 2
A statement is not hearsay if ... the statement is offered against a party and is ... a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Even though hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible, there are a variety of exclusions and exceptions to that rule. One of those exclusions is that everything said, done, or written by a conspirator during the existence of the conspiracy and in furtherance of the conspiracy is admissible against all co-conspirators. When deciding whether a co-conspirator‘s statement is admissible
under this rule, five questions must be asked:

Was there a Conspiracy? YES
Was the Defendant a Member of the Conspiracy? YES
Was the Person who made the Statement a Member of the Conspiracy? YES
Was the Statement made during the Conspiracy? YES
Was the Statement made in Furtherance of the Conspiracy? YES

If the answer to each of the above questions is yes, then the statement is admissible. If the answer to any of the above questions is no, then the statement is not admissible under this rule, although it may be admissible under another exception or exclusion to the hearsay rule. The co-conspirator, against whom the statement is admitted, need not have been present or even heard the statement when it was made.

The logical reason for the disappearance of 55 Attorneys General from the Constitutional Challenge. Admissable evidence. As the AGs have been served with the documents, and have filed documents indicating their conference calls on the matter, plausible deniability is not likely a factor.

Furthermore, any witness who heard the statement may testify regarding it, irrespective of whether the witness is a member of the conspiracy. Thus, if A and B conspire, and B makes statements to C during and in furtherance of the conspiracy, C may testify about B‘s statements at A‘s trial, even though C was not a member of the conspiracy. In contrast, things said or done by a conspirator only in his self-interests, not meant to help the conspiracy, are called ?frolics? and are not admissible
evidence against the conspiracy.

Likewise, a post-arrest statement is not admissible under this rule because the statement was not made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Late Joiners to a Conspiracy
The law recognizes that an individual may join a conspiracy after it has begun but before it has been terminated.

Such an individual is referred to as a late joiner to the conspiracy. They do not have to commit an overt act, only join in the agreement. Late joiners take the conspiracy as they find it. Late joiners are criminally responsible; not only for the conspiracy charge, but for any reasonably foreseeable acts done by any co-conspirator while the late joiner is a member of the conspiracy.

Late joiners are not criminally responsible for the criminal offenses of co-conspirators committed prior to their joining the conspiracy. Nonetheless, the prior acts of the co-conspirators are admissible at the trial of the late joiner, in order to show the existence of the conspiracy.

Were the late joiners informed before or after they were admitted to the practice of law. Or on a need to know basis.

Withdrawal from a Conspiracy
Just as the law recognizes that individuals may join a conspiracy after it begins, the law also recognizes that individuals may withdraw from the conspiracy prior to its termination. Withdrawal from a conspiracy requires more than simply no longer participating. A valid withdrawal from a
conspiracy has two basic requirements. First, the individual must do some affirmative act inconsistent with the goals of the conspiracy. Unless a conspirator produces affirmative evidence
of withdrawal, his or her participation is presumed to continue.

Rule 1.6 is for LIFE. There is no withdrawal from the mandate to maintain confidentiality.

Second, the affirmative act must be reasonably calculated to be communicated to at least one other known conspirator or law enforcement personnel. Withdrawal is an affirmative defense that must be proved by the defendant.

Rule 1.6 made it illegal to communicate the issue, AND at the same time made it illegal for law enforcement to take any action to address the issue had it been reported.

If an individual validly withdraws from a conspiracy, the statute of limitations on the conspiracy charge for that individual will begin to run the date of the withdrawal. Further, the withdrawal of a conspirator does not generally change the status of the remaining members. The valid withdrawal of a
single conspirator from a two-person conspiracy however, will result in the termination of the conspiracy, because the requisite ?two or more persons? are no longer present. Once a valid withdrawal occurs, the withdrawing defendant will escape liability for any subsequent criminal acts of the remaining conspirators, but remains liable for conspiracy and for any criminal acts committed while a member of the conspiracy.

Only by withdrawing from the agreement before the commission of the overt act will the individual escape liability for the conspiracy charge.

Statute of Limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3282)
The statute of limitations for the crime of conspiracy is five years. Generally, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date the conspiracy is completed, terminated, or abandoned. Typically, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date the last overt act was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy (e.g., dividing the money from the bank robbery).

As the actions relating to the conspiracy continue, the conspiracy is not completed, terminated or abandoned. The statute of limitations has yet to begin tolling.

The conspiracy itself may, depending on the nature of the agreement, continue past achieving the objective, in order to conceal the crime or to destroy or suppress evidence. In such
cases, the statute of limitations would be extended and would not start to run until such time as the last overt act (i.e., the last act of concealment) occurs.

For substantive offenses committed during the time frame of the conspiracy, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date the offense was committed.

The action which triggered the injustice for many was a fraud upon the court. As the court was acting without proper jurisdiction, the orders of the court are void ab initio.

Venue
The Sixth Amendment requires that prosecution occur in the State and District wherein the crime shall have been committed.

The Conspiracy should then be addressed in Philadelphia where the latest 'overt act' occurred.

Because the legal basis for a conspiracy is an agreement and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement, venue for a conspiracy charge exists in the district where the agreement was entered into, or in any district in which an overt act in furtherance of the agreement was committed. Since the
act of one conspirator is an act of all conspirators, an act in a district by one will result in venue in that district for all conspirators, even where the others were never physically present in the district.

Litigants in each federal district will need to seek relief in the district where the injustice, or 'error', occurred.

If a substantive offense is committed, venue for the substantive offense will be in the district where it occurred. As a practical matter, cases are charged in the district where venue for both the conspiracy and the substantive offense overlap.

IV. Investigating Conspiracies
The general approach to conducting a conspiracy investigation is to identify the members within the organization along with their respective roles for achieving the criminal objectives. Criminals attempt to conceal their plans and avoid detection so recruiting and developing witnesses is critical to any conspiracy investigation. You will need to locate and obtain evidence to corroborate witnesses and support the theory of the case that the defendants were acting together in agreement, toward a common criminal objective.

To accomplish these goals, you need to be organized.
Documenting the activities of the organization and charting the members of the organization can simplify these tasks.

Each state court should have the records required within the docket for each case.

A. Chronology
Documenting the criminal activities of an organization is accomplished through the use of ?overt act sheets.

An overt act sheet is a single sheet of paper that summarizes an overt act one in furtherance of the conspiracy. It includes the date and synopsis of the overt act, the defendant(s) involved, the primary and corroborative witnesses and the type of evidence whether oral, documentary or physical. Maintaining a notebook compilation of overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy will provide a chronology or time line of the conspiracy. This chronology is of utmost importance in presenting the case to an AUSA for prosecution and in identifying the weaknesses and strengths in the government‘s proofs.

B. Organizational Chart
Prepare an organizational chart identifying all known and ?unknown members of the organization. In identifying known members of the conspiracy, you should strive to determine each player‘s particular role in the criminal scheme. Identifying roles will assist in targeting the main members of the conspiracy.

Further, identifying member‘s role in the offense facilitates establishing how they all worked together to accomplish the criminal venture.

C. Recruit and Develop Witnesses
Always attempt to identify and recruit the broadest base of witnesses to ensure the most expansive and credible amount of testimony available. Be conscious of being compromised when interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence. When interviewing new witnesses, you should not instantly identify
the targets? of the investigation by name or showing them photo spreads of the subjects being investigated. Maintain the spirit of strict confidentiality with the witness and what they
disclose. Do not divulge the identity of other witnesses in the investigation even if the witness being interviewed knows their identity.

In most cases, the most knowledgeable witnesses will be members of the conspiracy themselves. Unfortunately these witnesses come with a lot of ?baggage? and are easily impeachable. They often have prior criminal histories, are testifying for some particular benefit to themselves and give
incomplete or inconsistent statements. Every effort must be made to corroborate these witnesses.
Generally speaking, witnesses can be discredited; documents don‘t lie. Extract details from witnesses and obtain documents to corroborate their testimony. Never cut corners when you have located documentary evidence that could become invaluable in corroborating your witness‘s testimony. Use the proper search warrant or subpoena to obtain evidence.

Statements made by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy are some of the most damaging evidence in a conspiracy prosecution. Make a concerted effort develop this testimony and corroborate it through supporting co-conspirator testimony and non-conspirator testimony. As always, any supporting documentary or physical evidence should be pursued. For example, a witness could testify to conversations she heard from a co-conspirator describing how he and a third co-conspirator murdered an individual who hadn‘t paid his drug debt.

Testimony from evidence technicians and the coroner as to where the shell casings were found and the
trajectories of the bullets entering the body would corroborate the co-conspirator witness‘s account of the shooting conversation to establish the defendant had to have been present to possess that particularized knowledge.

D. Locate and Acquire Evidence
Locate and acquire evidence in support of the witness‘s testimony. Utilize whatever law enforcement techniques are available to obtain evidence of the conspiracy. Use search warrants, grand jury subpoenas, trash pulls, evidence purchases, consensual recordings, ?clone pagers, wire-taps,
and evidence seized by other agencies to further the case. Bank accounts, credit cards, tax records, toll call records, photographs, real property records, airline tickets, car rentals, hotel records, vehicle, boat, aircraft registrations, to name a few, should all be explored in support of the investigation. The more you can independently corroborate each witness‘s testimony the greater the chances for a successful prosecution.

At times you will encounter a suspect who knowingly helps a conspirator commit a target crime, but it is unclear if the suspect has JOINED the conspiracy. Consider arresting that suspect for aiding & abetting the target crime.

V. Attempt to Commit a Crime
An attempt to commit a crime is a crime, although it is not defined by statute. To prove a person attempted to commit a crime, the government must show the defendant‘s intent to commit a crime together with the commission of an act that constitutes a substantial step towards commission of the
crime. The government‘s burden of proving the defendant took a substantial step toward commission of the crime protects a defendant from being convicted for mere thoughts, desires or motive.

The degree of a defendant‘s performance of a substantial act in furtherance of the illegal activity is a factual issue depending on the circumstances of each particular case.

Generally speaking, something less than a completed transaction supports an attempt, provided there is a substantial step toward completion of the crime.

Princeton

Hey Princeton... send a comment. Identify yourself.

If you are who I think you are...

The answer is YES. THAT STORY IS GOING TO BE ONLINE... but it won't be here.

And then what....

I have been asked what will happen if the Federal Court grants Attorney General Kathleen Kane's Motion to Dismiss.

The answer. Appeal.

Which continues in front of another Federal court. SCOTUS?

Rule 1.6 is a parasite that feeds on the integrity of the court. It craves the higher court. It fears only one thing - exposure.

So much effort is placed in concealing it's existence. The smokescreen of the way it is written. The ridiculous notion that keeping lies a secret builds trust between lawyer and client. It's even called CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. Clearly, Rule 1.6 wants to be unknown.

There is only one method which prevents Rule 1.6 from consuming the integrity of the court.

In my case, it spread through 18 judges in Montgomery County. Only one (1) judge in my case in Montgomery County suffered no loss of integrity. He was also the one best positioned to KNOW what occurs when Rule 1.6 is involved in a matter.

He did NOTHING.

He was the only one who did NOT make it worse. No better. But uniquely, Judge Haaz is the only one who did not make it worse. Which was the best move for everyone involved. He suffered no loss of integrity - because he did not hold the hearing; he did not respond to letters; he ignored the case.

I keep thinking "First, do no further harm" best describes Judge Haaz handling of the case. Immediately. When the criteria for RULE 1.6 were presented in his court, Judge Haaz did nothing. The best he could do in the situation.

Judge Bertin did not go willingly into the corruption of my case. He could not make things better. Rule 1.6 prevents it.

Judge Carluccio delighted in the malice and destruction. Her intent was clear - suicide. When I could not oblige, the case was prevented from the Superior Court. A temporary situation waiting for the target to ... go away.

Judge Page thought he had integrity, even after being warned that each judge had sacrificed their integrity to protect the integrity of the prior judges. Ironically, his was the fastest, most informed and most blatantly visible loss of integrity.

The integrity of the Superior Court was about to be served. Salvaging the integrity of the Superior Court, and the Supreme Court of PA which was next could only be accomplished in a Federal Court with jurisdiction, standing and a cause for relief etc... no divorces... Yes, we had a constitutional complaint as soon as we find the law that caused everything. Rule 1.6 was clearly responsible.

Rule 1.6 is NOT a good thing. Look what it does to good people. Judicial integrity, ethics, morals sacrificed to conceal the injustice cause by Rule 1.6. No redeeming qualities. Rule 1.6 could cause a holocaust and avoid exposure. Kids for Cash in Luzerne County comes immediately to mind.

The only way to bring mandatory lawful injustice to an end is to face it as a nation. The current Attorneys General have the opportunity to act lawfully to address the situation. IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 1.6, THEY TAKE NO ACTION WHICH REVEALS MISCONDUCT AND CORRUPTION.

---

The recent decision and order by Judge Thomas O'Neill demonstrates an understanding of the situation. Yes, I noticed. Well played, your Honor.

When issuing the order to extend the deadline for AG Kane to respond, and further extending the deadline for the remaining responses to 30 days after his decision on AG Kane's motion, Judge O'Neill did not indicate a due date for AG Kane's response. An indefinite hold? It would do no further harm.

That thought is sincerely appreciated and respected.

Todd Krautheim and Terance Healy filed the Challenge on behalf of the United States of America and served it to the Attorneys General of the United States. All 56, because this state law is a national issue. Our cases are special only in that we survive. There are alot of Americans suffering under the injustice of Rule 1.6.

In the name of Thomas Ball of New Hampshire, I pray the court acts with all due haste. The efforts of the Attorneys General should be on what will happen once Rule 1.6 is declared unconstitutional, not on delaying the now inevitable resurrection of justice.

The problem has been discovered and identified and lawfully presented. Ordering AG Kane to provide her response sometime last year would immediately eliminate the injustice caused by Rule 1.6, by default, quietly, and with prevention to address the court. Rule 1.6 style. And the deadline for an appeal has passed. Thank You.

Let's fix this. Rule 1.6 does not affect every legal proceeding. Rule 1.6 should not affect ANY legal proceeding. Never again.