Castle Doctrine 'against an intruder in their home"

I hold a valid title and deed to my home and property, and those trespassing DO NOT.

The Court has indicated a lack of jurisdiction which has been affirmed by the Superior Court and denied Reconsideration, thus removing the courts from any involvement regarding the issue of possession.

The decisions and documents prevent any judicial intervention to my regaining possession of the property. Where the court lacks jurisdiction to decide possession, they also lack jurisdiction to prevent me from regaining possession.

Their decision is incorrect and/or the fraud and forgery of the Central Legal Staff. In the effort, they deny constitutionally protected rights - availability of the court for redress of grievances - and interfere with the administration of the courts while preventing and obstructing Pennsylvania law.
Rule 1.6 Injustice - no protection of the law. No constitutional rights.
No prosecution of the staff has yet occured in response to my criminal complaint to the US DOJ, two counties, two state and one other federal investigating agency.

Where the court negligence has deliberately prevented an Action in Ejectment which is proper when the Plaintiff does not have possession. A Quiet Title is only permitted to be filed by the person in possession. Well the one's with the INVALID DEED are not likely to do that. I must regain possession and quiet the title from the multiple fraudulent filings and forgeries by Genuine Title.

I have written to the Governor, the state Attorney General and the Montgomery County Sheriff requesting their assistance in regaining possession of the property. The Executive Branch of Government enforces the law.

The question remains if the 'secret orders' from unidentified courts will prevent the attorney general from her responsibilities - a broad pre-emptory SECRET overreach and violation of the separation of powers determined to prevent my rights and the law. (Rule 1.6 Corruption)

The Castle Doctrine ...

The Castle Doctrine assumes that an “attacker” or “intruder” intends great bodily harm if he/she either: 1. unlawfully and forcefully enters a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle, or 2. is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove someone from a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle Either of these circumstances results in an initial presumption that a person (who is aware that 1. or 2. above have occurred) is justified in using deadly force in self defense against the “attacker” or “intruder.” NOTE: This rule does NOT APPLY if ANY of the following apply: • the “attacker” or “intruder” is another resident or has a right to be in the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; • the “attacker” or “intruder” is a parent, grandparent or other guardian removing a child from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; • the “attacker” or “intruder” is actually a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his duties; OR • the “attack” or “intrusion” is related to criminal activity in the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle (e.g., an “attacker” breaks into a home to steal drugs from a drug dealer).

Some state self defense laws include provisions that address duty to retreat from an intruder in one’s home or from an attacker in other places.

The common law principle of “castle doctrine” says that individuals have the right to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to protect themselves against an intruder in their home. This principle has been codified and expanded by state legislatures.

Florida’s law states “a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”



Laws in at least 22 states allow that there is no duty to retreat an attacker in any place in which one is lawfully present. (Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.)

At least nine of those states include language stating one may “stand his or her ground.” (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.)

Pennsylvania's law, amended in 2011, distinguishes use of deadly force outside one’s home or vehicle. It provides that in such locations one cannot use deadly force unless he has reasonable belief of imminent death or injury, and either he or she cannot retreat in safety or the attacker displays or uses a lethal weapon.

Self defense laws in at least 22 states (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee West Virginia and Wisconsin) provide civil immunity under certain self defense circumstances.

Statutes in at least six states (Hawaii, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota and Tennessee) assert that civil remedies are unaffected by criminal provisions of self defense law.

Fake Documents Provide No Protection and Create Peril

The repeated filing of fraudulent documents by Genuine Title Company does not change anything about the fraudulent conveyance of MY PROPERTY.

The improper ruling by the Miller's friend GAIL WEILHIEMER fails to indicate that they own the house. It only says that the issue is dismissed. Improperly done and with no basis in law. Keeping me homeless and their family in a perilous situation.

PERIL: ... because they may attempt to set me up for their murders. We are dealing with twisted law enforcement so clearly bent on perverting truths based on their poorly thought out fiction. The Miller family is at risk from the known sociopaths in the County.

There's is no safety or security in fraud. There is great peril in exposure and massive county efforts to conceal a crime.

There is no lawfulness attained by repeated filing of fraudulent documents with the Recorder of Deeds. Certainly not when the ROD knows that the fraudulent conveyance crime occurred... ROD referred the case to the FBI... ROD referred the case to the County Detectives... ROD knows the county corruption which creates the 'madman' and pushes him to act. ROD doesn't validate or verify. ROD records even when they know the documents are fraud.

Over 40 Million Foreclosures

Over 40 million foreclosures nationwide were based on forged and robosigned fraudulent documents presented by lawyers and title companies and upheld in courts mandated to confidentiality under Rule 1.6 - permitting fraud in the furtherance of fraud - mandating non-disclosure. - preventing efforts to rectify. Those 'fraud provisions' removed from the minimum ethical standard - Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Written and promoted by the American Bar Association whose members profited as they stole people's homes.

"Career lawmen think strategically. They don’t go for the immediate gratification of a personal attack, instead preferring to set the board up just right and striking at the precise moment where the object of the attack cannot recover." - Bruce Castor
 

The lawyers from Zarwin, Baum, DeVito, Kaplan, Schaer & Toddy presented no rights to ownership and had no defense - a situation which would result in sanctions - yet, the matter was dismissed. On Appeal is became even more evident and involved more 'judges' who covered for the lawyers who acted without any basis and could face sanctions and damages. BUT the judges took no part in it.

The forged documents filed by the court staff without judicial review showed the interference with the administration of justice and other constitutional offenses. Reported to multiple law enforcement agencies -county, state and federal levels. The issue is pending. The silence grows louder and louder.

These are the corrupt acts which place people and their family in peril and at risk. The efforts to cover up the crimes is often greater than the initial crime and continues until someone is dead.

A person protecting their own property is a stand your ground situation... only if they own the property. Trespassers have no property rights and may be dealt with accordingly.

Bear in mind, the corrupt law enforcement folks don't give a damn about the lives of the people they use to manipulate their corruption. Those they cause to be killed only serve to provide a false grandstand decked out in red white and blue with a District Attorney at the microphone spouting rhetoric without facts... attacking and assassinating the character of the puppet they created.

A dead family gives them the headlines they crave and the audience who falls for their theater of self-righteousness. The six people who were murdered by Bradley Stone are not available to tell you about their success in court and the great efforts of the county personnel who caused their deaths... and who went home from work and celebrated their holidays with their families.

With everyone dead, the County never even have to prove that Bradley Stone did it. Case closed.

"Career lawmen think strategically. They don’t go for the immediate gratification of a personal attack, instead preferring to set the board up just right and striking at the precise moment where the object of the attack cannot recover." Former District Attorney Bruce Castor. In his New Years Eve manifesto written days before he announced he was running for the position of District Attorney again. The same position he held when Healy v Healy began in 2007.

The efforts to undermine me continue... I am sane. I have the paperwork to prove that. The continued efforts to attempt to have someone assigned power of attorney to conceal the crimes is not unnoticed. It's not even cleverly calculated and executed. The local Warrington police seem to have had enough of being improperly used and manipulated into the corrupt games of Montgomery County. They know what is happening. They have been informed of every development. Every false report involving them has been addressed without hesitation or delay. The lengths that corrupt Montgomery County officials and officers will go to has no limit.

I am capable of perseverence.
They are capable of far more heinous acts.

Governor Wolf, SHUT DOWN THIS COURTHOUSE.

The terror of their injustice is unrestricted and boundless and concealed by corrupt manipulation of the willing judiciary.

“But I will tell you this. Even 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.”

- Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane on two court ordered mandates from unidentified judges and unidentified courts.

Governor Wolf, Shut down the Montgomery County Courthouse.

Assemble the Pennsylvania Legislature... Suspend Rule 1.6 and arrest and prosecute the monsters who terrorize this county and bring shame upon the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Thank the lawyers in the Legislature for their service and accept their resignations. Sen. Stewart Greenleaf and Rep. Todd Stephens should be at the front of the line... followed by the Judiciary Committees who ignored the issue... and then every lawyer in the Senate and Legislature. They have all participated in 'the worst kept secret in Pennsylvania'.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron Castille can expose the Judges and Judiciary who prevented the Pennsylvania Attorney General from performing the responsibilities of the Office of Attorney General by issuing 'secret' orders to promote corruption and perversions of justice in violation of law, the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States of America.

When you stop payment of the pensions to the corrupt, and seize the property obtained using their ill-gotten gains, you'll find the money to pay for that shortfall in the budget.

Proclaim JUSTICE throughout All the Land
Unto All the Inhabitants thereof.

... Don't be distracted by the petty stories of naughty emails and the infighting from those bullies already evicted from the AG's office. Friends of the last AG who ignored the massive corruption for years...

The Worst Kept Secret In Pennsylvania

STATEMENT BY PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KATHLEEN KANE
Monday, November 17, 2014
Norristown, Pennsylvania
=========================================
As many of you know, I initiated an independent inquiry into the way the Sandusky investigation was conducted -- a central concern raised during my campaign for Attorney General. During that investigation, thousands of emails were discovered sent and received by Pennsylvania public officials that contained pornographic materials. As a result of multiple requests to the Office of Attorney General under Pennsylvania's broad Right to Know Law, I released most of these emails to the media and the public.

The Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a recently published opinion, described the attachments to these emails as "clearly pornographic" and possibly criminal. As a result, many senior public officials involved in these emails resigned. But others remain on the public payrolls, as the Chief Justice pointed out.

Today I am due to testify before a Pennsylvania Grand Jury, as has been publicly reported. However, due to continuous, even overlapping court orders since last March, I am not allowed to explain why I am testifying or what my testimony has to do with the release of the pornographic emails under the Right to Know law. These court orders also expose me to legal risk if I do my job as Attorney General that I was elected and trusted by the people of
Pennsylvania to do. I am not allowed at this time to explain why.

The Office of Attorney General has cooperated from the beginning of this process and I will do the same. I will tell the Special Prosecutor the truth and the facts surrounding the disclosure of information to the public that was done in a way that did not violate statutory or case law regarding Grand Jury secrecy.

Despite my present situation that restricts my ability to answer your questions, I remain committed to the central theme of my campaign -- transparency in government. The public has a right to know what public officials are doing or not doing with taxpayer dollars and whether they are doing their jobs properly or attempting to investigate or prosecute possible criminal conduct.

I promised I would expose corruption and abuse of the legal system. I understand that there are those on the public payroll who stand to lose their jobs and who may feel threatened by our commitment to expose them. I will not be deterred. The winds of change can only blow through open windows. My administration is being prevented from prying open the windows that corruption has nailed shut. But that change is coming.

The right of the public and media to know what public officials are doing is vital and should be protected by public officials, the media, and the people of Pennsylvania. I am fighting for the right of the Attorney General to do my job without interference.

But more importantly, I am fighting for an end to abuse of the criminal justice system, for transparency, and for better government. That doesn't come without cost to us. 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.

In conclusion, I wish I could say more and answer all your questions but I cannot. But I can promise you this: The truth and the law will prevail.

ex tenebris ad lucem

Where those who permit injustice while ignoring the rule of law and the principles contained in the Constitution are causing liberty to be in peril; holding justice hostage; undermining the essence of judicial independence; and usurping the authority of the judicial branch while concealing continued corruption by unethical, immoral and unscrupulous actions in the name of 'integrity',...

Every American has a responsibility to take action to preserve, protect, support and defend the integrity of the judiciary from any further jeopardy.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct was improperly enacted by the state Supreme Court(s) when presented by the American Bar Association within their Model Rules of Professional Conduct causing the collateral, indirect, and absolute denial of rights secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States while denying and preventing any protection of the law to a litigant who has been the victim of fraud concealed from disclosure by every person, and organization, directly mandated to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct – who include all lawyers, all judges, and all law enforcement within each state, within each state government, and within the federal government.

By freeing the courts from a crippling shameful burden and further self-sabotage, we restore the integrity of the judiciary, reestablish authority and jurisdiction, and return the government provided by the Constitution of the United States to purpose: to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

By our own necessity, and on behalf of the People of the United States of America,
We respectfully and sincerely petition for your immediate attention and action.

PERSEVERE. JUSTICE IS COMING.

But if this happens, where is the remedy?

What happens if the Supreme Court imposes ITS will upon the nation, contrary to the specific provisions of the Constitution? The Founders knew this possibility existed, and Alexander Hamilton wrote:

"The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."

Hamilton had already pointed out that an unconstitutional act of the legislative body is null and void. It should be clear, then, that an unconstitutional edict by the Supreme Court would be equally invalid.

But if this happens, where is the remedy? By what means do the people protect themselves against an unconstitutional edict by the Supreme Court? Apparently the Founders were so concerned about an overzealous Congress that they neglected to protect themselves from an overzealous judiciary. The only checks and balances provided in the Constitution are as follows:

All judges have to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Article III, section 2, authorized the Congress to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but this has been rarely attempted.

The Congress can impeach judges for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," but not for an unpopular decision. Even when the Supreme Court has seriously violated its constitutional limitations by making new laws through judicial decree, no effective congressional action has been asserted.

From this it will be readily seen that insofar as checks on the judiciary were concerned, a major loophole was left in the basic structure of the Constitution. Perhaps the Founders were too busy to read an article in a New York paper signed "Brutus" (believed to have been Robert Yates) which said:

"It is of great importance to examine with care the nature and extent of the judicial power, because those [Supreme Court judges] are to be rendered totally independent, both of the people and the legislature, both with respect to their offices and salaries. No errors they commit can be corrected.... The only causes for which they can be displaced [are] convictions of treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.... The power of the judicial will enable them to mold the government into almost any shape they please."

---

While the loophole is acknowledged, the Founders likely never imagined that the American Bar Association would present a constitutional calamity where over 25 years (1984-2009) EVERY state supreme court would enact one (1) law which violates a litigants rights protected by both the state Constitution AND the Constitution of the United States with all enforcement actions being kept Confidential with every level of state and federal law enforcement prevented from prosecuting the crimes (injustice and judicial corruption) by a Federal Law enacted by the US Congress and FURTHER prevented from addressing the litigant's loss of constitutional rights by LOCAL RULES enacted by the Federal District and Appeals Courts which incorporated the one (1) repugnant law.

The only remaining constitutional law enforcement authority, THE SHERIFF, has been convinced of a greatly diminished role by their lawyers and the state judiciary.

This type of circumstance does not happen by chance.

These were the deliberate and secret retaliatory actions of the American Bar Association after the FBI's Operation Greylord investigated and prosecuted such extreme judicial and courthouse corruption within the Cook County Courthouse in Chicago.

The US Congress can address a repugnant law by modifying the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to exclude jurisdiction to hear actions based on the Courts ability to create law for the operation of the courts.

BUT, this is a state law. IN EVERY STATE. Federalism may be a factor which prevents federal intervention into a state law.

THE STATE Supreme Court is not permitted by law to adversely affect their own integrity by exposing the most egregious violation of the public trust by any government.

This repugnant state law MUST be suspended by the Legislature pursuant to their EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND LAWS.

Article I, Section 12 "No power of suspending laws shall be exercised unless by the Legislature or by its authority."

Article I, Section 26 "Neither The Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right."

Article I, Section 1 "All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness."

Article I, Section 2 "All power in inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper."

Article I Section 20 "The citizens have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble together for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance."

Article II, Section 7 "No person hereafter convicted of embezzlement of public moneys, bribery, perjury or other infamous crime shall be eligible to the General Assembly, or capable of holding any office of trust or profit in this Commonwealth."

THE PEOPLE will accept resignations from Senators and Representatives who are members of the American Bar Association and affiliated federal, state and local organizations whose seditious and treasonous actions - have undermined the state and federal judiciary and compromised the integrity, judicial independence and jurisdiction of the courts; - who have violated, neglected and ignored their oath of office; - who have conspired, obfuscated, prevented and denied without mercy, empathy or conscience the inherent rights of the people which are protected and secured by the US Constitution and the Constitution of Pennsylvania; - who have deliberately ignored their sworn responsibilities to the Constitution in a persistent and intentional dereliction of the public trust; - who have failed to act to address, resolve or discuss the situation created by their organization

The actions of other public officials / members of the American Bar Association and affiliates were mandated by the state Supreme Court to inaction and conflicting legality without opportunity to expose, address and resolve the issue. Their circumstances should be reviewed by a citizens committee/organization with recommendations to the House of Representatives with regard to impeachment and prosecution.

Senators and Representatives had the information and knowledge of the situation and the constitutional authority YET FAILED TO MEET with litigants, AND FAILED TO TAKE ANY ACTION to suspend the repugnant unconstitutional law permitting the problem to persist within the courts on a state and federal level without concern for the irreparable damage done to the People.

Pennsylvania Senator Stewart Greenleaf who had full knowledge of the matter of Healy v Healy and the effect of the loss of constitutional rights on a litigant AND was the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary should be prosecuted criminally and civilly for his criminal abuse of power.



JUSTICE IS COMING.

Murder by Litigation

The volume of paperwork required to survive the corruption and injustice... to survive, to stay out of prison, to persevere... to not grant them the suicide which they seek.

Non-stop litigation since 2007. Over 20 judges. 3 undecided appeals. Every level of state court. federal district court and court of appeals. The US Congress contacted for intervention.

Direct communication with every law enforcement agency in the government - nationwide, Department of Justice and US Attorney within each and every state. Direct communication with every state representative and senator. Direct communication with every state Attorney General. ( <<< - - All in the last 3 weeks)

Over 30 archive boxes of paperwork. Computers and phones hacked and intercepted. No end in sight. No explanations. No rule of law. No escape.

This is one month of litigation.... Sometimes the Bitstrips are too accurate.

What is this all about anyway...

A law enacted by the state supreme court in every state without proper construction, without constitutional review, without involvement of any state legislature and without the signature of any governor designed to ignore judicial corruption and injustice which includes an aggressively enforced MANDATE of silence for all lawyers while ignoring, denying and preventing the constitutional rights of litigants.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6

Rule 1.6 affects civil, criminal, family, federal district and federal appeals courts making it impossible to address the loss of constitutional rights when committed by a judge.

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

The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, the Attorney General’s office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers and the public. Clients.

This is why Kids for Cash was ignored by the Attorney General, the Luzerne County District Attorney, and every lawyer in Luzerne county.

This is why the Sandusky Report released in 2014 failed to indicate any improper conduct. The Report also failed to include a disclaimer that Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandated the silence of the Attorney General regarding information about the Office of the Attorney General, the Governor, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, etc...

This is why millions of foreclosures were ignored by the Attorneys General nationwide with no prosecutions while millions of people lost their homes based on fraudulent and robo-signed deeds and other documents.

Rule 1.6 has undermined law enforcement and the judicial branch in the states and federally.

---

Rule 1.6 is a core part of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct. All rules point back to Rule 1.6 by cross reference.

The ABA presented the Rules to each state supreme court for promulgation into law. The American Bar Association took their trade laws which were discretionary and the supreme courts turned them into lawful mandates. Aggressively enforced mandates which denied people's constitutional rights. BUT, the silence prevented anyone in law from acting on behalf of the victim of the loss of their constitutional rights.

Rule 1.6 causes an inescapable loss of constitutional rights.

Listen - The Silence of the News Media

The following media outlets have received all of the letters to state and federal law enforcement and government.

Response to PA Chief Deputy Attorney General

August 1, 2014

Gregory R. Neuhauser
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Litigation Section
15th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120

RE YOUR FILE # 3600

I have received your acknowledgment of the Notice pursuant to Rule 521.

Your letter misspells my name in every location, including the caption of the case. I understand this is often done to make it appear that the case does not exist and allow for prompt disregard of these matters. I request that you correct the spelling error in order for your office to review the actual matter.

Also, in the letter sent I included all of the associated case references.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania #1330 EDA 2013 Healy v Healy
Superior Court of Pennsylvania #900 EDA 2014 Healy v Miller
Montgomery County #2007-12477 Healy v Healy
Montgomery County #2013-29976 Healy v Miller
Third Circuit Court of Appeals # 13-4591 Healy, Krautheim v The Attorneys General
Eastern District of Pennsylvania #13-4614 Healy, Krautheim v The Attorneys General

Superior Court of Pennsylvania #943 EDA 2014 First Savings Bank v T. Krautheim

I am including copies of related correspondence from this week with President Barack Obama, The United States Senate, The Sentate Committee On the Judiciary, The United States House of Representatives, The House Committee on the Judiciary, The Governors of the United States, The Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee, and The Sheriff’s of Pennsylvania.

Addressing the injustice of Rule 1.6 is an inevitability. Rule 1.6 causes a loss of constitutionally protected rights and prevents law enforcement from action. Facing it responsibly will affect the public reaction to this realization. We ask your involvement, or where your direct action is ‘unlawful’, whatever assistance of support and resources which will permit us to succeed for the betterment of the nation in the best interests of every American.

We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the issue in further detail.



Terance Healy

PDF Version with all attachments

Letter to Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee

July 31, 2014

Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee
Senator Stewart Greenleaf, Chariman
Harrisburg, PA

Committee Members
John. C. Rafferty, Jr., Joseph B. Scarnati, III, Richard L. Alloway, II, John H. Eichelberger, Jr., John R. Gordner, Dominic Pileggi, Randy Vulakovich, Gene Yaw, Daylin Leach, Lisa M. Boscola, Lawrence M. Farnese, Jr., Wayne D. Fontana, Michael J. Stack

For Distribution to all members and all Senators and Representatives.


Senators,

Please permit us to present a document sent to President Barack Obama which has national impact relating to the judiciary. The situation has evolved to where it defies any corrective action by the judiciary. Since 2013, Senator McIlhinney had been informed and holding meetings with us on this issue.

In August 2013, a Constitutional Challenge to Rule 1.6 was filed and served upon the Attorney General for every state, fifty six in all, to address a law enacted by the state supreme courts without benefit of the state legislature or the signature of any governor. The unconstitutional aspects were not taken into consideration during construction of the law.

Every state attorney general failed to respond to the summons and challenge by the deadline, yet the district court refused to accept or acknowledge their deliberate default action. The Challenge was concealed and then dismissed based on unsubstantiated doctrine and fictional misinformation. That decision only served to harm the integrity of the court. The very integrity which the Challenge had sought to restore while re-securing the constitutional rights of all Americans.

The national foreclosure crisis is an example of Rule 1.6 confidentiality undermining the judiciary and removing people from their homes based on fraudulent and robo-signed documentation. Pennsylvania’s Kids for Cash scandal demonstrated Rule 1.6 even more cleanly.

The judiciary is mandated to follow the very law which is being challenged and to protect the integrity of the court by sacrificing the integrity of the court. A seriously flawed logic which prevents lawyers and law enforcement from addressing judicial corruption and injustice within the state and federal judicial system. The federal courts follow the local (state) Rules of Professional Conduct where Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is an indirect law which undermines the government and trumps EVERY law including the US Constitution.

Addressing the injustice of Rule 1.6 is an inevitability. Facing it responsibly will affect the public reaction to this realization. We ask your involvement, or where your direct action is ‘unlawful’, whatever assistance of support and resources which will permit us to succeed for the betterment of the nation in the best interests of every American.

We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the issue in further detail.

Sincerely,

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

Letter to Senate Committee on the Judiciary

July 30, 2014

Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

For Distribution to all members.


Dear Senators,

Please permit us to present a document sent to President Barack Obama which has national impact relating to the judiciary. The situation has evolved to where it defies any corrective action by the judiciary.

In August 2013, a Constitutional Challenge to Rule 1.6 was filed and served upon the Attorney General for every state, fifty six in all, to address a law enacted by the state supreme courts without benefit of the state legislature or the signature of any governor. The unconstitutional aspects were not taken into consideration during construction of the law.

Every state attorney general failed to respond to the summons and challenge by the deadline, yet the district court refused to accept or acknowledge their deliberate default action. The Challenge was concealed and then dismissed based on unsubstantiated doctrine and fictional misinformation. That decision only served to harm the integrity of the court. The very integrity which the Challenge had sought to restore while re-securing the constitutional rights of all Americans.

The national foreclosure crisis is an example of Rule 1.6 confidentiality undermining the judiciary and removing people from their homes based on fraudulent and robo-signed documentation. Pennsylvania’s Kids for Cash scandal demonstrated Rule 1.6 even more cleanly.

The judiciary is mandated to follow the very law which is being challenged and to protect the integrity of the court by sacrificing the integrity of the court. A seriously flawed logic which prevents lawyers and law enforcement from addressing judicial corruption and injustice within the state and federal judicial system. The federal courts follow the local (state) Rules of Professional Conduct where Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is an indirect law which undermines the government and trumps EVERY law including the US Constitution.

Addressing the injustice of Rule 1.6 is an inevitability. Facing it responsibly will affect the public reaction to this realization. We ask your involvement, or where your direct action is ‘unlawful’, whatever assistance of support and resources which will permit us to succeed for the betterment of the nation in the best interests of every American.

We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the issue in further detail.

Sincerely,


Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim


PDF version
PDF Letter to President
PDF Attachment

Letter to House Committee on the Judiciary

July 30, 2014

House Committee on the Judiciary July 30, 2014
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510

For Distribution to all members.


Dear Congressmen/Congresswomen,

Please permit us to present a document sent to President Barack Obama which has national impact relating to the judiciary. The situation has evolved to where it defies any corrective action by the judiciary.

In August 2013, a Constitutional Challenge to Rule 1.6 was filed and served upon the Attorney General for every state, fifty six in all, to address a law enacted by the state supreme courts without benefit of the state legislature or the signature of any governor. The unconstitutional aspects were not taken into consideration during construction of the law.

Every state attorney general failed to respond to the summons and challenge by the deadline, yet the district court refused to accept or acknowledge their deliberate default action. The Challenge was concealed and then dismissed based on unsubstantiated doctrine and fictional misinformation. That decision only served to harm the integrity of the court. The very integrity which the Challenge had sought to restore while re-securing the constitutional rights of all Americans.

The national foreclosure crisis is an example of Rule 1.6 confidentiality undermining the judiciary and removing people from their homes based on fraudulent and robo-signed documentation. Pennsylvania’s Kids for Cash scandal demonstrated Rule 1.6 even more cleanly.

The judiciary is mandated to follow the very law which is being challenged and to protect the integrity of the court by sacrificing the integrity of the court. A seriously flawed logic which prevents lawyers and law enforcement from addressing judicial corruption and injustice within the state and federal judicial system. The federal courts follow the local (state) Rules of Professional Conduct where Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is an indirect law which undermines the government and trumps EVERY law including the US Constitution.

Addressing the injustice of Rule 1.6 is an inevitability. Facing it responsibly will affect the public reaction to this realization. We ask your involvement, or where your direct action is ‘unlawful’, whatever assistance of support and resources which will permit us to succeed for the betterment of the nation in the best interests of every American.

We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the issue in further detail.

Sincerely,


Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

PDF version
PDF Letter to President
PDF Attachment

Letter to Senators

July 28, 2014

The Senators of the 113th Congress
Washington, DC 20510

Senators,

Please permit us to update you with a document sent to President Barack Obama. You may have also been informed of this issue by Senator Toomey and Senator Casey of Pennsylvania.

In August 2013, a Constitutional Challenge to Rule 1.6 was filed and served upon the Attorney General for every state, fifty six in all, to address a law enacted by the state supreme courts without benefit of the state legislature or the signature of any governor. The unconstitutional aspects were not taken into consideration during construction of the law.

Every state attorney general failed to respond to the summons and challenge by the deadline, yet the district court refused to accept or acknowledge their deliberate default action. The Challenge was concealed and then dismissed based on unsubstantiated doctrine and fictional misinformation. That decision only served to harm the integrity of the court. The very integrity which the Challenge had sought to restore while re-securing the constitutional rights of all Americans.

The national foreclosure crisis is an example of Rule 1.6 confidentiality undermining the judiciary and removing people from their homes based on fraudulent and robo-signed documentation. Pennsylvania’s Kids for Cash scandal demonstrated Rule 1.6 even more cleanly.

The judiciary is mandated to follow the very law which is being challenged and to protect the integrity of the court by sacrificing the integrity of the court. A seriously flawed logic which prevents lawyers and law enforcement from addressing judicial corruption and injustice within the state and federal judicial system. The federal courts follow the local (state) Rules of Professional Conduct where Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is an indirect law which undermines the government and trumps EVERY law including the US Constitution.

Addressing the injustice of Rule 1.6 is an inevitability. Facing it responsibly will affect the public reaction to this realization. We ask your involvement, or where your direct action is ‘unlawful’, whatever assistance of support and resources which will permit us to succeed for the betterment of the nation in the best interests of every American.

Sincerely,

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

PDF Letter to President
PDF Attachment

Letter to Governors

July 28, 2014

Dear Governor,

Please permit us to update you with a document sent to President Barack Obama.

In August 2013, a Constitutional Challenge to Rule 1.6 was filed and served upon the Attorney General for every state, fifty six in all, to address a law enacted by the state supreme courts without benefit of the state legislature or the signature of any governor. The unconstitutional aspects were not taken into consideration during construction of the law.

Every state attorney general failed to respond to the summons and challenge by the deadline, yet the district court refused to accept or acknowledge their deliberate default action. The Challenge was concealed and then dismissed based on unsubstantiated doctrine and fictional misinformation. That decision only served to harm the integrity of the court. The very integrity which the Challenge had sought to restore while re-securing the constitutional rights of all Americans.

The national foreclosure crisis is an example of Rule 1.6 confidentiality undermining the judiciary and removing people from their homes based on fraudulent and robo-signed documentation. Pennsylvania’s Kids for Cash scandal demonstrated Rule 1.6 even more cleanly.

The judiciary is mandated to follow the very law which is being challenged and to protect the integrity of the court by sacrificing the integrity of the court. A seriously flawed logic which prevents lawyers and law enforcement from addressing judicial corruption and injustice within the state and federal judicial system. The federal courts follow the local (state) Rules of Professional Conduct where Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is an indirect law which undermines the government and trumps EVERY law including the US Constitution.

Addressing the injustice of Rule 1.6 is an inevitability. Facing it responsibly will affect the public reaction to this realization. We ask your involvement, or where your direct action is ‘unlawful’, whatever assistance of support and resources which will permit us to succeed for the betterment of the nation in the best interests of every American.


Sincerely,



Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

PDF Letter to President
PDF Attachment

Rule 1.6 - Occam's Razor

"Occam's Razor" is a principle which suggests that "all things being equal, the simplest answer is usually the right one."

Rule 1.6 is the simplest answer to the corruption and injustice in the United States and the nationwide indications that the United States Constitution is being ignored and people are losing their constitutional rights.

Rule 1.6 demonstrates it's fault and can be applied to EVERY story of injustice, judicial corruption, failure of law enforcement to act and deliberate acts of lawlessness within the law enforcement community.

Kids for Cash Sandusky @ Penn State The National Foreclosure Crisis The Injustice in Family Courts The Injustice in Criminal Courts Malicious Abuse of Power Under Color of Law

If you have a matter which defies explanation, write it in the COMMENTS section below. I can likely explain it by applying Rule 1.6

Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional, unethical, immoral, corrupting, and an unnecessary mandate within any system of justice.

Rule 1.6 has undermined the Judicial Branch of the United States government. The actions in the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 has demonstrated that the federal courts refuse to address their responsibility for the 'law' and have further engaged in an unconstitutional and fraudulent conspiracy to deliberately deny, obstruct and prevent the rights and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

THE BEAUTIFUL THING is that once Rule 1.6 removed, all the laws currently in place are good.

Justice restored.

All the reforms which failed because of the secret override enabled by Rule 1.6 begin to actually function. As it stands the reforms may have only been attempts by the corrupt to misdirect attention from their conspiracy to conceal their involvement and responsibility.

Injustice doesn't end injustice. It extends it.

When authority figures distort truth, abuse their power, involve additional county personnel and departments in their treasonous acts and denial of due process, it creates helpless situation for honest, innocent individuals.

When law enforcement is too preoccupied with preventing their criminal liability from being exposed, they deny equal protection under the law and essentially become terrorists.

When you are left with no choice but to report the crimes to one of the co-conspirators involved with concealing the crimes, there is little hope of escape or survival.

Injustice doesn't end injustice. It extends it.

HEY, OVER HERE... we're suing AG Kathleen Kane too.

Everyone is suing Attorney General Kathleen Kane and their cases are mentioned in the television and news media and the blogs.

They neglect to mention that she is named in the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 which is now in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

How's that for a demonstration about how CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION works?

Rule 1.6 explains all of their actions... Lawyers using ridiculous speculation and posturing are politicizing justice and law enforcement. All a criminal needs to do is involve the judiciary in their crimes to mandate the law community into silence. While mandated to not disclose the known facts, that leaves speculation and fiction to get the front page.

It undermines truth. It undermines the constitution.

ARTICLE III REQUIREMENTS ARE MET

A case or controversy between the plaintiffs and the defendant is properly placed before the court.

(1) an “injury in fact”;

The Court acknowledged the Plaintiffs injury in the Memorandum of the Court dated October 29, 2013.
“[Plaintiffs] assert, inter alia, that Rule 1.6 denies a Pro Se litigant of an opportunity to petition the government for redress of grievances, denies a Pro Se litigant of life, liberty and or property without due process of law; causes a denial of constitutionally protected rights by the State and as such is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.”

(2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of – the injury had to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.

From Appellee Breif page 14.
“Attorney General Kathleen Kane has never has anything to do with Healy or Krautheim themselves, or with their previous litigation efforts (in which they allegedly were injured)”

Attorney General Kane acknowledges the failure to take any action to address the injuries to the Plaintiffs, to investigate the extensive reports of the judicial misconduct and corruption, and the damage caused to the plaintiffs because of the failure of the Attorney General to enforce the laws of the commonwealth.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The office has the responsibility for the prosecution of crime prosecuted by the commonwealth, including organized crime, public corruption, and consumer protection. The Attorney General represents the commonwealth in all actions brought by or against the commonwealth, reviews all proposed rules and regulations by commonwealth agencies.


The failure of the Attorney General to enforce the laws of the commonwealth, and also the Attorney General's failure to follow the law, directly caused the resultant injury to the plaintiffs.

The Attorney General's inaction in the matter further causes the inescapable injustice to the plaintiffs which continued for years.

Once an act of misconduct occurred within a courtroom, the failure of the Attorney General to enforce the law and to address the injustice and resultant public corruption sacrificed the integrity of the judiciary and caused the plaintiffs situation to worsen without any possibility for resolution.

(3) A showing that it 'be likely, as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable outcome.

A ruling that Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL resolves the matter for the plaintiffs and returns them to the state with their previously denied rights and liberties available with equal protection under the law.

A ruling that Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL permits the Attorney General to perform the law enforcement responsibilities required of the office of Attorney General.

A ruling that Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL permits the judiciary to acknowledge address and resolve matters before their courts without a mandate to ignore and deny injustice, judicial misconduct and public corruption.

A ruling that Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL permits the legislature to resume responsible management of the laws of the commonwealth

---

RETURN TO REPLY BRIEF INDEX

RULE 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION

RULE 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION

Lawyers are required and responsible to report all misconduct
- unless it affects the integrity of the judicial system
- unless it is self incriminating
- unless it adversely affected their client

The Attorney General must be a lawyer.

The Attorney General must follow the U.S. Constitution, their state Constitution and the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane is the chief law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is responsible for law enforcement, prosecution and review while representing the Commonwealth in all actions brought by or against the Commonwealth.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane did not address the absolute failure of the Supreme Court to take any action to address the denial of constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.
RULE 1.6 Lawyers are not required to report 'misconduct' where it affects the integrity of the judicial system

Attorney General Kathleen Kane did not address the failure of the Attorney Generals office to act to address the denial of constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.
Rule 1.6 Lawyers are not required to report 'misconduct' where is is self-incriminating.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane took no action to address the law which causes her to take no action as that would reveal the improper actions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania when the law was enacted.
Rule 1.6 Lawyers are not required to report 'misconduct' where it adversely affects the client.

Rule 1.6 prevented Attorney General Kathleen Kane from acting to address the loss of constitutionally protected rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs which the Rule itself was causing to be denied.

Rule 1.6 has a 'self-defense mechanism' which prevents it from being addressed by anyone who is required to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. No Lawyer, District Attorney, or Attorney General could 'lawfully' take any action to address the loss of constitutionally protected rights and privileges of the plaintiffs.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information prevents the Attorney General from taking any action to address the plaintiffs loss of rights as any action taken
- would reveal the unconstitutional actions of The Supreme Court;
- would adversely affect her client, The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and
- would be self-incriminating as the Attorney General is responsible for law enforcement.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court who had enacted the law could not take any action to address the unconstitutional law as Rule 1.6 prevented them from any action which was self-incriminating.

The Judicial Conduct Board and the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania are subject to Rule 1.6 which renders them without authority to address the injustice when constitutional rights are being affected.

The author of Rule 1.6 who presented The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Supreme Courts of the other states, with the law to enact was equally protected from exposure as any action to reveal the unconstitutional result of the law was protected by Rule 1.6 - CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

Every aspect of Rule 1.6 prevents the Attorney General, the Supreme Court, every District Attorney and every lawyer subject to the rule from taking responsible and ethical action to address the loss of the constitutional rights of the litigant.

Violations of Rule 1.6 subject a lawyer to disciplinary action, causing the plaintiffs to be denied the assistance of legal professionals to assist them in their effort.

Rule 1.6 is an unconstitutional 'law' which of and through itself defies any effort to address its unlawful and unconstitutional status UNLESS petitioned by persons who are not required by law to follow Rule 1.6... Non-lawyer, pro se plaintiffs acting lawfully with proper standing with a valid cause for relief in the proper forum with jurisdiction for the Unconstitutionality of the law to be presented.

---

RETURN TO REPLY BRIEF INDEX