A Terroristic Divorce

The Judiciary is not constitutionally or lawfully permitted to write, make or enact law.

SO HOW DID THE 1987 SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA GET AWAY WITH IT?

Can someone in the Pennsylvania legislature please explain how the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania enacted a law?
Title 204 Chapter 81?

…and how THAT law prevented the legislature from changing the law?
Title 204 Chapter 81?

…and how THAT law also prevents the executive branch from enforcing the law?
Title 204 Chapter 81?

And NOW inform the USA how it happened in every state?
It seems the State Supreme Courts have some ‘splaining to do.

Because the courts acted without authority and in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions… and the resulting injustice in undeniable… and the criminal misconduct and corruption were BEYOND LAWFUL PROSECUTION??? Protected and concealed by an illegal, unlawful, improperly enacted and executed law, which they failed to enforce.

EVIL IS NOT ILLEGAL. But it seems the State Supreme Court made it lawful. And who could declare it unlawful, but themselves. And who could expose the unlawfulness, when lawyers were not lawfully permitted to act? A couple of Pro Se litigants terrorized to the point of extinction.

IT’S CALLED UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS. and THAT’S NOT VALID.

Now who is gonna back up the Pro Se litigants that have lawfully filed this Challenge in Federal Courts?

And who is going to arrest the 1987 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and the Governor and Attorney General?

The nightmare of unconstitutional unprosecuted malicious and deliberate injustice and abuse of power under color of law is ending in the USA because it was always unconstitutional… and now it is clear why, when, where, who and how it happened.

NOW that it is exposed as unconstitutional. Lawyers may step up and assist without fear of disbarment for failing to follow Rule 1.6. Step Right UP! EXPOSE THE INJUSTICE.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct affects everyone… most certainly the unaware.

How would the alumni of Penn State University like to see the resurrection of the legacy of Joe Paterno?

Rule 1.6 prevented criminal prosecution of Jerry Sandusky and resulted in the fall of Joe Paterno for supposed inaction. Let’s hope they have not melted down that statue.

The Rule requires judicial misconduct to be concealed and ignored at every level of law enforcement within the state. Federal prosecutors rarely get involved unless invited by an Attorney General. This is not about immunity… it is all about misconduct. Unlawful misconduct. CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT.

Not one lawyer on or off campus could do anything to restore the reputation of Paterno. They are bouind by Rule 1.6 and face disbarrment for any violation of it.

BTW, Plaintiffs did not go to Penn State. Plaintiffs are also not lawyers. And they have demonstrated standing and a proper cause for relief in Federal Court.

Paterno was a legend who did not deserve to be destroyed. There was nothing he could have done to cause the legal prosecution of Jerry Sandusky. Rule 1.6 prevented lawful action to prosecute, but it also excused the misdirection and the tragedies which occurred to the direct and indirect victims.

www.work2bdone.com/live

www.facebook.com/groups/ChallengeRule1.6/

ChallengeRule16.blogspot.com