This week we traveled around Bucks County stopping to deliver packages of the letters and the newspaper from Scranton/Wilkes-Barre and requesting meetings with Congressmen, State Senators and Representatives regarding the unconstitutionality and the injustice of Rule 1.6.
We appreciate the interest and the support we are receiving from those who have been informed and anticipate further cooperation and effort from those who are only now learning about this national constitutional issue.
US Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick received a copy of the documents and newspaper in his office near Newtown. Then, as luck would have it, we ran into him at the Courthouse in Doylestown to hand deliver a set and quickly discuss the urgency of meeting on the issue. A meeting with the congressmen has not yet been scheduled by his office.
Representative Scott Petri's people had some time to sit with us for a discussion of the issue. A meeting with the representative was requested.
Representative Marguerite Quinn has scheduled a meeting.
Representative John T. Galloway's assistant Brenda sat with us and reviewed the documents left for the representative. A meeting with the representative was requested.
Representative Tina Davis's Chief of Staff met with us and heard an overview of the issue. The package was left with him to review with the representative. A meeting with the representative was requested.
Representative Steven J. Santarsiero's people had some time to review the issue. Chief of Staff Rosemary Wuenschel accepted the paperwork to review with the representative and schedule a meeting to discuss the topic.
Our neighbor in Doylestown, Senator Chuck McIlhinney, was not available to meet. We left updates and documents with his staff and AGAIN requested an opportunity to discuss the silence from the Pennsylvania Senate since December 2013 regarding the issue.
Senator Robert Tomlinson's assistant accepted the paperwork and the request for a meeting on the topic.
Representative Frank Farry's office manager sat down for a very good meeting and discussion of the topic. After reviewing the documents and newspaper articles, a meeting with the representative was requested.
Representative Kathy Watson had obviously reviewed the documentation delivered prior to our meeting. A very productive discussion and explanation and review of the issue ended with a request for the PA Legislature to be formally informed of the issue. Representative Watson understood and recognized the problem we were reporting and attempting to address. We anticipate her involvement in the resolution of the matter for the sake of the Commonwealth and the country.
Representative Clymer's office was not open when we visited.
Senator Bob Mensch's office is on our list for Montgomery County visits.
Senator Stewart Greenleaf's office refuses to schedule a meeting on the issue. As head of the Judiciary Committee this is NOT ACCEPTABLE. We will continue to pursue the involvement of Senator Greenleaf while questioning his deliberate, intentional and well informed avoidance of the issue. His silence demonstrates complicity.
Representative Todd Stephens was caught in his office and denied meeting with Healy before in 2011 about the corruption in Montgomery County. That was when Healy v Healy had only involved 16 judges. Now it's at 20 with two appeals in Superior Court pending. Rep. Stephens has been trained to believe that judges may deny people's rights which are protected by the US Constitution. TODD STEPHENS IS WRONG. After that foolishness was addressed, the impromptu meeting ended abruptly. A meeting with the representative was requested to further discuss the issue.
While we were out enjoying the back roads of beautiful Bucks County, the fax was sending copies to EVERY Pennsylvania State Representative. Confirmations received.
The government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has been notified of the issue.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Thursday, August 14, 2014
The Impact of Retellings
We are meeting with local politicians and presenting the issue of Rule 1.6 undermining the American Judicial system. To accomplish this requires the repetition of the experience, the facts, the results - homelessness, incarceration and suicides.
It requires me to do something I have tried avoiding. The retelling of my experience causes me to relive the stress and emotion. The purpose of the web site was so that i did not have to explain the details to people who wanted to know more - or who couldn't imagine surviving the truth of the story.
A person who has lost their rights can best be identified by the following statement:
The message is getting out... Those we have spoken to have been emotionally moved. Those who refuse to meet and discuss the problem can be categorized and described in one word - LAWYERS.
The lawyers know what has happened. The law prevents them from any action to resolve the situation UNTIL THEY RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND STAND UP LIKE AN AMERICAN AND FACE THE MESS THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION HAS CREATED.
The non-lawyers need to rescue the US before the divisive tactics of those who seek the country's destruction succeed.
We are Americans. We don't allow injustice to persist. We can fix the mess created and resolve the damage done to millions of Americans stripped of their Constitutional Rights.
Through countless retellings, I persevere. JUSTICE IS COMING.
It requires me to do something I have tried avoiding. The retelling of my experience causes me to relive the stress and emotion. The purpose of the web site was so that i did not have to explain the details to people who wanted to know more - or who couldn't imagine surviving the truth of the story.
A person who has lost their rights can best be identified by the following statement:
| I am a sane man dealing with an absolutely insane situation. Every person in a position to help has acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter… they each make the situation worse… NO ONE HELPED… |
| NO ONE COULD HELP… until the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 |
The message is getting out... Those we have spoken to have been emotionally moved. Those who refuse to meet and discuss the problem can be categorized and described in one word - LAWYERS.
The lawyers know what has happened. The law prevents them from any action to resolve the situation UNTIL THEY RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND STAND UP LIKE AN AMERICAN AND FACE THE MESS THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION HAS CREATED.
The non-lawyers need to rescue the US before the divisive tactics of those who seek the country's destruction succeed.
We are Americans. We don't allow injustice to persist. We can fix the mess created and resolve the damage done to millions of Americans stripped of their Constitutional Rights.
Through countless retellings, I persevere. JUSTICE IS COMING.
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
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.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Reports of Another Family Court Suicide
Will the Family Courts ever stop their destruction of lives and families?
| Robin Williams, post-divorce, back in rehab in Minnesota - posted in High Asset Divorce on Friday, July 11, 2014. Robin Williams was divorced in 2009, after he and his wife filed for divorce the year before, and he has said that he believes it was because of his drinking problems. He did note that he could tell his wife that he was sorry, but he said that that just was not always enough to get rid of the issues. The official reason for the divorce has been listed as irreconcilable differences. The actor did give up both drugs and alcohol at some point in the 1980s. However, he has not been been completely off them since then. Most notably, he began to drink again back in 2003. He was in Alaska, doing a movie, and he started drinking because he felt lonely. He then went to a rehab center in Oregon in 2006. The actor's long battle appears to be continuing, as recent reports indicate that he is at the Hazeldon Addiction Treatment Center, which is close to Lindstrom, Minnesota. However, the program that he is doing seems to be one that is aimed at helping people refocus before they relapse, so he may not have started using alcohol again. A photo recently surfaced of the actor at a Dairy Queen near the treatment center, which was taken with a female employee of the shop. |
| Statement by President Obama on the Passing of Robin Williams Robin Williams was an airman, a doctor, a genie, a nanny, a president, a professor, a bangarang Peter Pan, and everything in between. But he was one of a kind. He arrived in our lives as an alien – but he ended up touching every element of the human spirit. He made us laugh. He made us cry. He gave his immeasurable talent freely and generously to those who needed it most – from our troops stationed abroad to the marginalized on our own streets. The Obama family offers our condolences to Robin’s family, his friends, and everyone who found their voice and their verse thanks to Robin Williams. |
Meeting with Congressman Fitzpatrick
A chance encounter with Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick outside the Courthouse in Doylestown today gave Todd an opportunity to explain the Rule 1.6 issue and pass along the letters which have been sent to all levels of state and federal government nationally. The letters had been hand delivered to his Newtown office last week.
A meeting will be arranged this week to have a full discussion of the topic.
PDF of the Letters delivered to Rep. Fitzpatrick.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/REVIEW OF PER CURIAM ACTION
Philadelphia Office
| Terance Healy | : NO: 900 EDA 2014 |
| : | |
| V. | : |
| : | |
| David R. Miller | : |
| Jennifer K. Miller | : |
| : |
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/REVIEW OF PER CURIAM ACTION
Regarding the Per Curiam Order attached.
The caption is INCORRECT.
The decision is UNEXPLAINED.
The per curiam order is UNSIGNED.
The per curiam order is UNDATED.
The motion was UNCONTESTED.
Please identify the judge, the motions panel, and/or the member(s) of the Central Legal Staff involved in the careless preparation of the document.
Attached are copies of the following Superior Court Of Pennsylvania which demonstrate the previous decisions of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania with regard to procedurally defective orders where the court lacked jurisdiction.
| J-A01019-14 | Kozel v. Kozel | #461 WDA 2013 |
| J-A27027-13 | Wagner v. Wagner | #235 MDA 2013 |
| J-S17007-13 | Hauck v. Hauck | #1984 WDA 2011 |
| J-A02029-13 | Reece v. Reece | #987 WDA 2012 |
| J-S21041/08 | Danz v. Danz | #1506 WDA 2007 |
| J-A14035/09 | Bingaman v Bingaman | #1644 MDA 2008 |
| J-A30006/02 | Lazaric v. Lazaric | #263 EDA 2002 |
The evidence is clear. The law is clear. The precedents are well established.
Every action of the courts demonstrate the efforts to obstruct, misinform and misdirect somehow made ‘lawful’ by Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct causing the denial of life and liberty and terrorizing every aspect of life.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio issued a deliberately defective and void order. The court record indicates that she clearly lacked jurisdiction. The court record demonstrates the obstruction of the appeal filed on August 15, 2011.
There is no escape for the litigant. The court is mandated to terrorize and destroy the litigant ‘to protect the integrity of the courts.’ pursuant to Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
A deliberate, intentional and malicious court order issued by Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio without jurisdiction has terrorized the litigant from the day it was issued. An action done without jurisdiction to conceal the actions of fifteen prior judges in the matter which have attacked their victim since 2007.
The County & Court then went to work to obstruct and deny the appeal of that order issuing further void orders based on the defective and void orders. Those who enforced the defective and void orders becoming involved in criminal acts for doing so. The mandate for protecting integrity of those without integrity growing exponentially.
The Court personnel and all lawyers are mandated to obstruct and deny the victim ‘to protect the integrity of the court’. In doing so, they become involved in the obstruction of justice.
Each court believing the litigant is causing their involvement in this crime. Not the ‘judge’ acting without jurisdiction… not the Courts which mandated their participation in the denial of justice. Each ignoring the law and the US Constitution in the process of self-preservation and sacrifice of their own judicial integrity.
The Appellant is being denied Life, Liberty and equal protection under the law. He is experiencing the complete loss of rights and privileges protected by the Constitution of the United States, and the Pennsylvania Constitution.
The inability to accomplish anything with regard to the Appeal is caused by the courts, enabled by the court, endorsed by the courts, made ‘lawful’ by the courts as everyone involved in the denial of constitutionally protected rights is mandated to conceal the corruption, injustice and lack of jurisdiction of the court.
The victim can do nothing to escape the game of “The order is not void until we say it’s void’. There have been over 80 attempts to have the court take the lawful action to void the order. Every attempt has been ignored.
The Superior Courts are mandated to obstruct and deny the victim ‘to protect the integrity of the court’. In doing so they became involved in the obstruction of justice. Their knowledge of the void and defective orders mandated that they address the issue. A mandatory action, not a discretionary issue for the court.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is mandated to do the same. The Supreme Court enacted the law and in doing so must follow it. This prevents the Supreme Court from repealing the law or addressing the injustice.
And so it goes, that every effort to prevent any interaction with the judiciary is the primary focus. It is essential to ‘protect the integrity of the judiciary’. The denial of justice to the litigant is a consequence. The continued peril and jeopardy of the victim is not a concern.
The chaos injected by the letter dated August 8, 2014 and the improperly captioned, unexplained, unsigned, undated decision to the uncontested motion.
The Montgomery County Court has neglected to provide the full court record to the Superior Court and has obstructed efforts to produce the documents and transcripts to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
This Court has been notified of the litigation in the Federal Courts which is now before the United States Congress and the President to provide the only escape from the nightmare created when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and EVERY state supreme court, enacted the Rules of Professional Conduct into law without ANY constitutional review, construction by a legislature or signature of any governor. Copies of notices attached.
I respectfully request review of this matter based on the fact that Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct results in the absolute denial of right and liberties protected by the United States Constitution and that the supporting staff of this Court cease from unexplained and unsubstantiated actions to obstruct, prevent and deny justice in this matter.
AN ORAL ARGUMENT ON THIS MOTION IS DEMANDED
Respectfully,
Terance Healy
NB: The game of the Prothonotary deliberately improperly captioning the matter is obvious and tiresome. Please correct all records and documents accordingly.
The matter has left the appellant homeless and destitute and forced to respond to the Courts.
The appellant has no choice but to persist as he is not capable of suicide.
J-A01019-14 Kozel v. Kozel #461 WDA 2013
J-A27027-13 Wagner v. Wagner #235 MDA 2013
J-S17007-13 Hauck v. Hauck #1984 WDA 2011
J-A02029-13 Reece v. Reece #987 WDA 2012
J-S21041/08 Danz v. Danz #1506 WDA 2007
J-A14035/09 Bingaman v Bingaman #1644 MDA 2008
J-A30006/02 Lazaric v. Lazaric #263 EDA 2002
Letter to United States Attorneys August 8, 2014
Letter to President Barack Obama July 28, 2014
Letter to US Senators Patrick Toomey and Robert Casey July 28, 2014
Letter to the Senators of the 113th Congress July 28, 2014
Letter to US Senate Committee on the Judiciary July 30, 2014
Letter to Sheriffs of Pennsylvania July, 31, 2014
Letter to Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee July 31, 2014
Letter to United States House of Representatives July 30, 2014
Letter to US House Committee on the Judiciary July 30, 2014
Letter to Governor of EVERY state July 28, 2014
Letter to Governor Tom Corbett August 2, 2014
Letter to EVERY Pennsylvania Senator August 2, 2014
Letter to the Pennsylvania Legislature – Representatives August 2, 2014
Letter to Governor Tom Corbett, the Sheriffs of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Legislature, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania August 3, 2014
Friday, August 8, 2014
Wilkes-Barre Scranton Independent Gazette
YES, AMERICA, WE ARE IN A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
Rule 1.6 has NOT been Misinterpreted or Misunderstood
The Constitutional Challenge posed by us, Todd Krautheim and Terance Healey, is NOT misinterpreting or misunderstanding Rule 1.6 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the association’s most important confidentiality rule.
These are the dismissive suggestions of lawyers with regard to the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6. It is what they tell people who ask them about it. They offer no further information to back up their statement. They further indicate that we will never succeed (and neglect to explain why we won’t).
These lawyers are WRONG. . . . READ MORE
Letter to United States Attorneys
August 8, 2014
The United States Attorneys
It has been one year since the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed to address the Constitutional Crisis in the United States.
A law enacted 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.
Filed and served upon every state Attorney General yet the federal courts undermined the preemptive challenge, concealed the matter from fifty six state attorneys general and improperly dismissed the matter without substantiation while ignoring the relevant doctrine. The actions by the court confirmed the deliberate intent and purpose of the law and it’s denial of constitutional rights without regard for the injustice served upon the people of the United States..
Enclosed are letters to the President, the US Congress, the Governors of the United states, et al.
Please review and respond. This issue will not go away on it’s own.
The Constitutional rights of the American People are being denied by the courts and held hostage by a mandate of confidentiality for all attorneys in state and federal courts which has effectively undermined the United States Government.
Your attention to this matter is anticipated and expected. Please contact us to arrange a meeting.
Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim
PDF Version with ALL attachments
The United States Attorneys
It has been one year since the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed to address the Constitutional Crisis in the United States.
A law enacted 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.
Filed and served upon every state Attorney General yet the federal courts undermined the preemptive challenge, concealed the matter from fifty six state attorneys general and improperly dismissed the matter without substantiation while ignoring the relevant doctrine. The actions by the court confirmed the deliberate intent and purpose of the law and it’s denial of constitutional rights without regard for the injustice served upon the people of the United States..
Enclosed are letters to the President, the US Congress, the Governors of the United states, et al.
Please review and respond. This issue will not go away on it’s own.
The Constitutional rights of the American People are being denied by the courts and held hostage by a mandate of confidentiality for all attorneys in state and federal courts which has effectively undermined the United States Government.
Your attention to this matter is anticipated and expected. Please contact us to arrange a meeting.
Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim
PDF Version with ALL attachments
One Year Later... The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks others have thrown at them.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Breadcrumbs ... The Rules of Professional Conduct
Each time there has been a prosecution or the public has been made aware of judicial corruption, misconduct and injustice, the state Supreme Courts modify Rule 1.6 and the Rules of Professional Conduct to close the loophole. This leaves a trail of 'breadcrumbs' which demonstrates the true purpose for enacting the 'rules' into law without constitutional review, legislative oversight or a governors signature.
Where in the Constitution does it permit the Judiciary to enact trade rules for any profession. Just because lawyers conduct 'some' work in courts, WHY DO THE JUDICIARY BELIEVE THEY CAN MAKE THE LAW FOR THE ENTIRE LEGAL PROFESSION and allow those rules to deny constitutional rights.
There are toilets in the courthouses, does that place the plumbing code under the purview of the state supreme court? I don't think so.
WHO PERMITTED THE JUDICIARY TO DENY PEOPLE's RIGHTS IN ANY PROCESS? That's not in any constitution that I have read.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality has caused the Constitutional Crisis in America.
Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional.
As such, the state supreme courts had no authority to enact law.
Why did the American Bar Association put them up to it? Why have the state and federal Courts neglected and ignored the Constitutional rights of EVERY AMERICAN simply because they made a HUGE mistake and refuse to own up to it?
Nationwide Foreclosures based on fraudulent documents.
Kids for Cash in Luzerne County PA.
Incarceration of the Innocent to fill private prisons.
Widespead injustice causing families to be destitute, homeless and suicidal.
Where in the Constitution does it permit the Judiciary to enact trade rules for any profession. Just because lawyers conduct 'some' work in courts, WHY DO THE JUDICIARY BELIEVE THEY CAN MAKE THE LAW FOR THE ENTIRE LEGAL PROFESSION and allow those rules to deny constitutional rights.
There are toilets in the courthouses, does that place the plumbing code under the purview of the state supreme court? I don't think so.WHO PERMITTED THE JUDICIARY TO DENY PEOPLE's RIGHTS IN ANY PROCESS? That's not in any constitution that I have read.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality has caused the Constitutional Crisis in America.
Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional.
As such, the state supreme courts had no authority to enact law.
Why did the American Bar Association put them up to it? Why have the state and federal Courts neglected and ignored the Constitutional rights of EVERY AMERICAN simply because they made a HUGE mistake and refuse to own up to it?
Nationwide Foreclosures based on fraudulent documents.
Kids for Cash in Luzerne County PA.
Incarceration of the Innocent to fill private prisons.
Widespead injustice causing families to be destitute, homeless and suicidal.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
HAND delivered - US Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick & PA Representative Thomas Murt
Continued our delivery of the letters to US Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick at his office in Newtown, PA...
On the way back we stopped for a delivery and DISCUSSION of the issues at the office of PA Representative Tom Murt in Hatboro, PA.
The following letters were included in the package. Each is different and exposes a different aspect of the Unconstitutional Effect of Rule 1.6.
- Letter to Governor Tom Corbett, Sheriffs of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Legislature, and the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. PDF version
- Letter to President Barack Obama. PDF version
- Letter to US Senator Toomey and Senator Casey. PDF version
- Letter to the Senators of the 113th Congress. PDF version
- Letter to the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary. PDF version
- Letter to the Sheriffs of Pennsylvania. PDF version
- Letter to the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee. PDF version
- Letter to US House of Representatives. PDF version
- Letter to US House Committee on the Judiciary. PDF version
- Letter to Governors of the US. PDF version
- Letter to Governor Tom Corbett. PDF version
- Letter to the Pennsylvania Senators. PDF version
- Letter to the Pennsylvania Representatives. PDF version
On the way back we stopped for a delivery and DISCUSSION of the issues at the office of PA Representative Tom Murt in Hatboro, PA.
The following letters were included in the package. Each is different and exposes a different aspect of the Unconstitutional Effect of Rule 1.6.
- Letter to Governor Tom Corbett, Sheriffs of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Legislature, and the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. PDF version
- Letter to President Barack Obama. PDF version
- Letter to US Senator Toomey and Senator Casey. PDF version
- Letter to the Senators of the 113th Congress. PDF version
- Letter to the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary. PDF version
- Letter to the Sheriffs of Pennsylvania. PDF version
- Letter to the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee. PDF version
- Letter to US House of Representatives. PDF version
- Letter to US House Committee on the Judiciary. PDF version
- Letter to Governors of the US. PDF version
- Letter to Governor Tom Corbett. PDF version
- Letter to the Pennsylvania Senators. PDF version
- Letter to the Pennsylvania Representatives. PDF version
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Hand Delivery - State Reps & Senator Greenleaf
While the Fax machine was cooling off... We set out to hand deliver copies of the correspondence to the state representative and senators who have local offices.
First stop, Pennsylvania Representatives Marquerite Quinn's office. Hand delivered the following documents and reviewed the issue with a member of her staff.
- Letter to Governor Tom Corbett, Sheriffs of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Legislature, and the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. PDF version
- Letter to President Barack Obama. PDF version
- Letter to US Senator Toomey and Senator Casey. PDF version
- Letter to the Senators of the 113th Congress. PDF version
- Letter to the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary. PDF version
- Letter to the Sheriffs of Pennsylvania. PDF version
- Letter to the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee. PDF version
- Letter to US House of Representatives. PDF version
- Letter to US House Committee on the Judiciary. PDF version
- Letter to Governors of the US. PDF version
- Letter to Governor Tom Corbett. PDF version
- Letter to the Pennsylvania Senators. PDF version
- Letter to the Pennsylvania Representatives. PDF version
Next, Pennsylvania Representative Kathy Watson's office. Where a discussion about the failure to schedule a meeting for almost a year lead to a long discussion of the matter and the necessity to have a discussion with Rep. Watson. Hand delivered the same series of document as above.
Next, Pennsylvania Representative Todd Stephens was caught in his office. Delivered the letters to an unaware Todd Stephens who sat down for a brief meeting. The meeting reached the point where Rep Stephens attempted to indicate that the Courts can ignore constitutional rights because the courts decide if they are ignoring your constitutional rights. NO TODD, THEY CAN'T.
IS TODD STEPHENS A COMPLETE MORON WHEN IT COMES TO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?
REP TODD STEPHENS WAS WRONG ON EVERY LEVEL BUT MOST CERTAINLY CONSTITUTIONALLY. Upon that descent into ridonculous, the meeting ended.
Rep Todd Stephens is on the Judiciary Committee. He knows better. OR HE OUGHTA. Even in lawyer night school they surely teach that the constitution is the 'supreme law of the land'. NOBODY CAN DENY RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
Next, A stop at Senator Greenleaf's office. Where his Chief of Staff could be overheard to say "I DON'T WANT TO SEE HIM" - - which once overheard may explain the change of heart. Hand delivered the letters and asked AGAIN for a meeting with the Senator. Senator Greenleaf's office and staff know me. They know how disastrous and malicious the Montgomery County judiciary have been. Yet, they just won't schedule a meeting with the Senator.
Senator Greenleaf is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He knows exactly what problem I am raising. AND HE IS AVOIDING THE ISSUE... it seems he's been there since it was created. A knowledgeable co-conspirator?
Back to the office to check out the fax... which was taking a break after a long hard week.
About that Sandusky Report
August 3, 2014
Governor Tom Corbett
Sheriffs of Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Legislature
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information was applicable to the ‘Sandusky Report’. As such, the report presented a very skewed version of events because the mandate of confidentiality undermined it from any impact. For example, we present a possible disclaimer which clearly was not included with the report.
Disclaimer
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, the Attorney General’s office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers.
The Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandate confidentiality of client information where the information
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
- would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office,
- would expose individual liability,
- would adversely affect their client.
Office of the Attorney General
The Report from the Attorney General regarding the investigation of Gerald Sandusky may not legally present:
- anything which exposes a negative impact of the judiciary
- anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Tom Corbett
- anything which exposes misconduct of Governor Tom Corbett
- anything which exposes misconduct of Acting Attorney General William H. Ryan, Jr
- anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Linda Kelly
- anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Kathleen Kane
- anything which exposes misconduct of the Attorney General’s office
- anything which exposes misconduct of Frank Fina
- anything which exposes misconduct the Commonwealth
- anything which exposes misconduct of any state agency
- anything which exposes misconduct, participation or acts of obstruction by any of the above in their individual capacity, or as a conspiracy
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 3, 2009
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on May 2, 2009
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 9, 2012
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 18, 2012
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on June 16, 2012
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on July 4, 2012
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on November 21, 2013
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to create, modify or fine tune any “LAW” regarding the Confidentiality of Email concealed within the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Report Production
Further, acting as Attorney General, Kathleen Kane contracted the creation of the report to Widener University law professor and former federal prosecutor H. Geoffrey Moulton.
(You might say “Kathleen Kane is his client.” and that the Rules of Professional Conduct mandate his confidentiality for her protection. Because, SHE IS… and IT DOES.)
Constitutionally
The Report additionally will not contain any information regarding the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION which was filed in federal court on August 8, 2013 (by two men who do not have to maintain confidentiality) seeking to restore the constitutional rights of litigants while restoring the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession and to deliver to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.
The Challenge has been presented to President Barack Obama and the United States Congress where every level of the state and federal judiciary have ignored the clear evidence of the Courts’ denial of constitutional rights and demonstrated their own actions to prevent resolution of the matter which was served to fifty-six states attorneys general – all of whom defaulted on the matter -- YET, THE COURT IGNORED THEIR DELIBERATE DEFAULT.
Political Campaign
Yes, Kathleen Kane shot her mouth off during her campaign for Attorney General of Pennsylvania,
AND
Kathleen Kane promised to investigate Attorney General Tom Corbett’s mishandling of the Sandusky case,
AND
Kathleen Kane believed Corbett to be stalling the case so it would not impact his run for Governor,
AND
Kathleen Kane was elected to the position of Attorney General,
AND
Kathleen Kane has an obligation to the People of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
BUT, as Attorney General, these corrupt and incompetent horses asses are NOW her clients, her boss, and her staff… The RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT mandate her confidentiality.
Pennsylvania State Police
With regard to the non-participation of the Pennsylvania State Police in the preparation and assembly of this report…. Did someone tell the PA State Police that we wouldn’t publish anything they might have to say because of the confidentiality mandate? The State Police participation would have potentially required a great deal of redaction and editing.
The Pennsylvania State Police do NOT have a Confidentiality Mandate. If they were to issue a report, it would be different.
1.6 Confidentiality of Information – While the Model Rule 1.6(a) duty of confidentiality is closely related to the attorney-client privilege, it is broader in scope than the attorney-client privilege, “which is a rule of evidence,” or “the work product immunity which is a rule of procedure.”
Rule 1.6 causes a mandated confidentiality of information regarding injustice and judicial corruption.
This was demonstrated in Luzerne County where Kids For Cash was IGNORED by every judge, district attorney, prosecutor and lawyer… until Judge Ann Lokuta violated the law and called the FBI to report Ciavarella et al. Ann Lokuta was disciplined and removed from the bench for her violations of Rule 1.6.
The Foreclosure Crisis nationwide was caused similarly by an ACT OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT resulting in the loss of constitutional rights and the loss of homes to fraudulent actions filed by lawyers (and judges) MANDATED to maintain confidentiality.
THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS LET THIS HAPPEN TO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.
Rule 1.6 mandates that an Attorney General ignore judicial corruption and injustice
- without regard for the number of children improperly incarcerated by a judge,
- without regard for the number of homes foreclosed upon using fraudulent documents,
- without regard for basic constitutional, civil and human rights,
- without regard for the denial of equal protection of the law,
- without regard for the law,
- without regard for an oath of office,
- without regard for ethics or morality, and
- without mercy for the victims overwhelmed, destitute and pushed to their limits who commit suicide.
Rule 1.6 DELIBERATELY PREVENTS LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL…
You attention to this matter of national importance is anticipated and expected. We are available to meet with you at any time to discuss this issue at length. Please contact us directly.
Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim
Governor Tom Corbett
Sheriffs of Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Legislature
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information was applicable to the ‘Sandusky Report’. As such, the report presented a very skewed version of events because the mandate of confidentiality undermined it from any impact. For example, we present a possible disclaimer which clearly was not included with the report.
Disclaimer
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, the Attorney General’s office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers.
The Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandate confidentiality of client information where the information
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
- would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office,
- would expose individual liability,
- would adversely affect their client.
Office of the Attorney General
The Report from the Attorney General regarding the investigation of Gerald Sandusky may not legally present:
- anything which exposes a negative impact of the judiciary
- anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Tom Corbett
- anything which exposes misconduct of Governor Tom Corbett
- anything which exposes misconduct of Acting Attorney General William H. Ryan, Jr
- anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Linda Kelly
- anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Kathleen Kane
- anything which exposes misconduct of the Attorney General’s office
- anything which exposes misconduct of Frank Fina
- anything which exposes misconduct the Commonwealth
- anything which exposes misconduct of any state agency
- anything which exposes misconduct, participation or acts of obstruction by any of the above in their individual capacity, or as a conspiracy
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 3, 2009
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on May 2, 2009
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 9, 2012
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 18, 2012
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on June 16, 2012
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on July 4, 2012
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on November 21, 2013
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to create, modify or fine tune any “LAW” regarding the Confidentiality of Email concealed within the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Report Production
Further, acting as Attorney General, Kathleen Kane contracted the creation of the report to Widener University law professor and former federal prosecutor H. Geoffrey Moulton.
(You might say “Kathleen Kane is his client.” and that the Rules of Professional Conduct mandate his confidentiality for her protection. Because, SHE IS… and IT DOES.)
Constitutionally
The Report additionally will not contain any information regarding the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION which was filed in federal court on August 8, 2013 (by two men who do not have to maintain confidentiality) seeking to restore the constitutional rights of litigants while restoring the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession and to deliver to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.
The Challenge has been presented to President Barack Obama and the United States Congress where every level of the state and federal judiciary have ignored the clear evidence of the Courts’ denial of constitutional rights and demonstrated their own actions to prevent resolution of the matter which was served to fifty-six states attorneys general – all of whom defaulted on the matter -- YET, THE COURT IGNORED THEIR DELIBERATE DEFAULT.
Political Campaign
Yes, Kathleen Kane shot her mouth off during her campaign for Attorney General of Pennsylvania,
AND
Kathleen Kane promised to investigate Attorney General Tom Corbett’s mishandling of the Sandusky case,
AND
Kathleen Kane believed Corbett to be stalling the case so it would not impact his run for Governor,
AND
Kathleen Kane was elected to the position of Attorney General,
AND
Kathleen Kane has an obligation to the People of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
BUT, as Attorney General, these corrupt and incompetent horses asses are NOW her clients, her boss, and her staff… The RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT mandate her confidentiality.
Pennsylvania State Police
With regard to the non-participation of the Pennsylvania State Police in the preparation and assembly of this report…. Did someone tell the PA State Police that we wouldn’t publish anything they might have to say because of the confidentiality mandate? The State Police participation would have potentially required a great deal of redaction and editing.
The Pennsylvania State Police do NOT have a Confidentiality Mandate. If they were to issue a report, it would be different.
1.6 Confidentiality of Information – While the Model Rule 1.6(a) duty of confidentiality is closely related to the attorney-client privilege, it is broader in scope than the attorney-client privilege, “which is a rule of evidence,” or “the work product immunity which is a rule of procedure.”
Rule 1.6 causes a mandated confidentiality of information regarding injustice and judicial corruption.
This was demonstrated in Luzerne County where Kids For Cash was IGNORED by every judge, district attorney, prosecutor and lawyer… until Judge Ann Lokuta violated the law and called the FBI to report Ciavarella et al. Ann Lokuta was disciplined and removed from the bench for her violations of Rule 1.6.
The Foreclosure Crisis nationwide was caused similarly by an ACT OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT resulting in the loss of constitutional rights and the loss of homes to fraudulent actions filed by lawyers (and judges) MANDATED to maintain confidentiality.
THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS LET THIS HAPPEN TO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.
Rule 1.6 mandates that an Attorney General ignore judicial corruption and injustice
- without regard for the number of children improperly incarcerated by a judge,
- without regard for the number of homes foreclosed upon using fraudulent documents,
- without regard for basic constitutional, civil and human rights,
- without regard for the denial of equal protection of the law,
- without regard for the law,
- without regard for an oath of office,
- without regard for ethics or morality, and
- without mercy for the victims overwhelmed, destitute and pushed to their limits who commit suicide.
Rule 1.6 DELIBERATELY PREVENTS LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL…
You attention to this matter of national importance is anticipated and expected. We are available to meet with you at any time to discuss this issue at length. Please contact us directly.
Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Letter to Gov Corbett, PA Senators and Representatives
August 2, 2014
After meetings with Senator Chuck McIlhinney, it is clearly necessary to raise this issue to your attention directly.
The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was made up of lawyers (9 of 12) who heard information from county judges, district attorneys, public defenders and the Judicial Conduct Board. Attributing the blame to “silence, inaction, inexperience, ignorance, fear of retaliation, greed, ambition, carelessness.”, the lawyers on the commission maintained ‘confidentiality of information’ as required by law – Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Their realization was correct – “What good would [reporting] it do?” HOWEVER, the Commission’s report neglected to indicate the reason for the silence (Rule 1.6) and it also neglected to expose the cause (the Rule 1.6 mandate) , and as such their recommended reforms do nothing to prevent a recurrence of the judicial corruption.
Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information where it adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary, the reputation of legal professionals, self-incriminates, or negatively affects their client. Protecting the integrity of a judiciary which lacks integrity is foolishness. Mandating it has unconstitutional effects.
The Commission Report and Reform Recommendations amount to fraud – a deliberate effort to conceal the root cause of the failure of the justice system to address judicial misconduct, corruption and injustice.
Far more frightening and perilous, is that the lawyers associated with the Commission have now been ‘educated and trained’ in how to execute and conceal crimes such as those committed by Ciavarella and Conahan – who only went to prison because they had failed at money laundering.
The Supreme Court’s authority to enact law is limited to situations where ‘such rules are consistent with this Constitution [Pennsylvania] and neither abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of any litigant.’
The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who must follow the US Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Rules of Professional Conduct which were enacted by the Supreme Court.
For the Attorney General, the Rule 1.6 mandate of ‘confidentiality of information’ with regard to client information undermines ‘everything’ where an attorney general’s clients include (1) the public, (2) the Pennsylvania government, (3) the Office of the Attorney General, (4) government agencies and departments statewide, (5) personnel within those agencies and departments, (6) and themselves.
The Rules of Professional Conduct enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have substantially affected the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Attorney General preventing and obstructing law enforcement responsibilities when it relates to judicial corruption and injustice within the courts.
The Supreme Court, by the same mandate, has caused a ‘lawful’ requirement within every court and by every lawyer in the commonwealth to ignore injustice and judicial corruption.
Previous Codes of Professional Responsibility (among other titles) have included similar guidelines, BUT once enacted into ‘law’ in 1987 ignoring injustice and judicial corruption ceased being discretionary and was MANDATED BY LAW.
The result, the Rules of Professional Conduct collaterally affect and negate ‘the substantive rights of the litigant’. Specifically, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality causes a mandatory conspiracy of silence within the courts which ignores the damage and harm caused to litigants and further hinders and prevents any resolution.
The substantive rights of the children and families of Luzerne County were clearly ignored.
The Supreme Court lacked authority to enact Rule 1.6 into law as the substantive rights of the People have been ‘abridged’, ‘modified’, denied and ignored.
Additionally, the role of the Sheriff as Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the county has been negated and minimized by judicial decisions. Constitutionally, the Sheriff has the lawful authority and resources to enforce the law within the county.
Failing to act because the judiciary has convinced them of a greatly diminished role, the non-lawyer Sheriffs (reluctantly) defer authority to the county District Attorney who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.6. A necessity to prevent prosecution. District Attorneys take no action to investigate and prosecute the injustice and judicial corruption. Related crimes against the victims of injustice are ignored leaving the litigant with no protection under the law.
The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct were rolled out to the states and enacted into law nationwide without the involvement of the state legislatures, the signature of the governors or any constitutional review.
“What is right is not always the same as what is legal.” was offered by Edward Snowden as an explanation for his actions revealing unconstitutional activity. This statement may also apply to the failure of attorneys general, judges, district attorneys and lawyers to address the unconstitutional actions made ‘legal’ which have undermined justice over the last 25 years.
It is the responsibility of the Governor to represent the People, to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution and the state Constitution, and to recognize that collaterally Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional to the People.
The act of sedition which enacted Rule 1.6 and mandated the silent participation of all legal professionals, perverted the judiciary, sacrificed the personal integrity of every judge, and undermined justice can no longer be ignored and excused because of the intimidation and threats of disciplinary action by the corrupt who have deliberately violated the public trust.
The Commission on Juvenile Justice have not done what was requested of them. They have participated in concealing the truth. They have endorsed and enabled continuing injustice.
You, the members of the Legislature and the Judiciary who assembled the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice must review their report findings and recommendations. The deliberate knowledgeable failure of those lawyers to indicate the root cause of the problem in Luzerne County, which also less publicly affects every court in the Commonwealth, was caused by Rule 1.6 - An unconstitutional and repugnant law which has been improperly enacted by the state Supreme Court without proper review of its affect on constitutional rights.
You attention to this matter of statewide importance is appreciated.
Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim
After meetings with Senator Chuck McIlhinney, it is clearly necessary to raise this issue to your attention directly.
The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was made up of lawyers (9 of 12) who heard information from county judges, district attorneys, public defenders and the Judicial Conduct Board. Attributing the blame to “silence, inaction, inexperience, ignorance, fear of retaliation, greed, ambition, carelessness.”, the lawyers on the commission maintained ‘confidentiality of information’ as required by law – Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Their realization was correct – “What good would [reporting] it do?” HOWEVER, the Commission’s report neglected to indicate the reason for the silence (Rule 1.6) and it also neglected to expose the cause (the Rule 1.6 mandate) , and as such their recommended reforms do nothing to prevent a recurrence of the judicial corruption.
Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information where it adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary, the reputation of legal professionals, self-incriminates, or negatively affects their client. Protecting the integrity of a judiciary which lacks integrity is foolishness. Mandating it has unconstitutional effects.
The Commission Report and Reform Recommendations amount to fraud – a deliberate effort to conceal the root cause of the failure of the justice system to address judicial misconduct, corruption and injustice.
Far more frightening and perilous, is that the lawyers associated with the Commission have now been ‘educated and trained’ in how to execute and conceal crimes such as those committed by Ciavarella and Conahan – who only went to prison because they had failed at money laundering.
The Supreme Court’s authority to enact law is limited to situations where ‘such rules are consistent with this Constitution [Pennsylvania] and neither abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of any litigant.’
The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who must follow the US Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Rules of Professional Conduct which were enacted by the Supreme Court.
For the Attorney General, the Rule 1.6 mandate of ‘confidentiality of information’ with regard to client information undermines ‘everything’ where an attorney general’s clients include (1) the public, (2) the Pennsylvania government, (3) the Office of the Attorney General, (4) government agencies and departments statewide, (5) personnel within those agencies and departments, (6) and themselves.
The Rules of Professional Conduct enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have substantially affected the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Attorney General preventing and obstructing law enforcement responsibilities when it relates to judicial corruption and injustice within the courts.
The Supreme Court, by the same mandate, has caused a ‘lawful’ requirement within every court and by every lawyer in the commonwealth to ignore injustice and judicial corruption.
Previous Codes of Professional Responsibility (among other titles) have included similar guidelines, BUT once enacted into ‘law’ in 1987 ignoring injustice and judicial corruption ceased being discretionary and was MANDATED BY LAW.
The result, the Rules of Professional Conduct collaterally affect and negate ‘the substantive rights of the litigant’. Specifically, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality causes a mandatory conspiracy of silence within the courts which ignores the damage and harm caused to litigants and further hinders and prevents any resolution.
The substantive rights of the children and families of Luzerne County were clearly ignored.
The Supreme Court lacked authority to enact Rule 1.6 into law as the substantive rights of the People have been ‘abridged’, ‘modified’, denied and ignored.
Additionally, the role of the Sheriff as Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the county has been negated and minimized by judicial decisions. Constitutionally, the Sheriff has the lawful authority and resources to enforce the law within the county.
Failing to act because the judiciary has convinced them of a greatly diminished role, the non-lawyer Sheriffs (reluctantly) defer authority to the county District Attorney who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.6. A necessity to prevent prosecution. District Attorneys take no action to investigate and prosecute the injustice and judicial corruption. Related crimes against the victims of injustice are ignored leaving the litigant with no protection under the law.
The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct were rolled out to the states and enacted into law nationwide without the involvement of the state legislatures, the signature of the governors or any constitutional review.
“What is right is not always the same as what is legal.” was offered by Edward Snowden as an explanation for his actions revealing unconstitutional activity. This statement may also apply to the failure of attorneys general, judges, district attorneys and lawyers to address the unconstitutional actions made ‘legal’ which have undermined justice over the last 25 years.
It is the responsibility of the Governor to represent the People, to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution and the state Constitution, and to recognize that collaterally Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional to the People.
The act of sedition which enacted Rule 1.6 and mandated the silent participation of all legal professionals, perverted the judiciary, sacrificed the personal integrity of every judge, and undermined justice can no longer be ignored and excused because of the intimidation and threats of disciplinary action by the corrupt who have deliberately violated the public trust.
The Commission on Juvenile Justice have not done what was requested of them. They have participated in concealing the truth. They have endorsed and enabled continuing injustice.
You, the members of the Legislature and the Judiciary who assembled the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice must review their report findings and recommendations. The deliberate knowledgeable failure of those lawyers to indicate the root cause of the problem in Luzerne County, which also less publicly affects every court in the Commonwealth, was caused by Rule 1.6 - An unconstitutional and repugnant law which has been improperly enacted by the state Supreme Court without proper review of its affect on constitutional rights.
You attention to this matter of statewide importance is appreciated.
Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim
Friday, August 1, 2014
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)