A Terroristic Divorce

Notice of Appeal (PDF)

Civil Appeal Information Statement (PDF)

Concise Summary of the Case (PDF)

Certificate of Service (PDF)

THE CASE

Terance Healy and Todd M. Krautheim have filed a Constitutional Challenge with the Attorneys General of the United States regarding Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct as the rule causes the complete denial of constitutionally protected rights while subverting justice and corrupting the integrity of the judiciary.

Healy and Krautheim seek a determination that the state law is unconstitutional which will restore their rights in the state, and restore the integrity of the judiciary and the reputation of professionals involved in the process and enforcement of law.

A finding of ‘unconstitutional’ will permit the state to address litigants with their civil rights in full force and effect without a ‘lawful’ mandate which denies law, obstructs justice and negatively affects the integrity of the courts.

Their cases in the state courts are presented as evidence of the denial of rights. Healy and Krautheim do not seek this courts direct involvment or action regarding decisions in those matters.

Healy and Krautheim act ‘in the name of the United States’ to challenge the same law in place in every state.

STATEMENT

The Court neglected CERTIFICATION BY THE COURT of the Constitutional Challenge pursuant to Rule 5.1(b).

The Court neglected INTERVENTION of the Constitutional Challenge pursuant to Rule 5.1(c).

The Court neglected to update the docket upon proof of service to all Attorneys General by the Plaintiffs.

The Court failed to acknowledge any intentional default by the Attorneys General, or to permit any indication of that intent.

The Court delayed ruling on Plaintiff’s ECF filing request for over 6 weeks.

The Court neglected to address errors and misrepresentations on the docket when presented.

The Court memorandum did not support or substantiate any element for dismissal, yet was provided to justify the illogical conclusion to dismiss the complaint and the improper finding of futility.

The Court further denied reconsideration of the dismissal of the matter by referencing the wrong rule.

QUESTIONS ON APPEAL

Did the Court fail to act pursuant to FRCP Rule 5.1(b) CERTIFICATION BY THE COURT of a Constitutional Challenge?

Did the Court fail to act pursuant to Rule 5.1(c) INTERVENTION of a Constitutional Challenge?

Did the Court ignore, deny, prevent and obstruct the Attorneys General from intentional default in the matter?

Did the Court incorrectly dismiss the matter without basis in law while failing to substantiate any justification for dismissal in law, doctrine or caselaw?

Did the Court fail to reconsider the matter based on an incorrect application of FRCP 7.1(g) where FRCP Rule 52(b) applies to an action which concludes the matter before the court?

---

The Caption for the Appeal

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Terance Healy	:
Todd M. Krautheim	:
In the name of THE UNITED STATES	: Case Number: 13-4591
	:
v.	:
	:
Kathleen Kane	:
Pennsylvania Attorney General;	:
And	:
The Attorneys General of the United States	:
	:
v.	:
	:
Eric Holder	:
United States Attorney General	:
	:

Terance Healy and Todd M. Krautheim have filed a Constitutional Challenge with the Attorneys General of the United States regarding Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct as the rule causes the complete denial of constitutionally protected rights while subverting justice and corrupting the integrity of the judiciary.

Healy and Krautheim seek a determination that the state law is unconstitutional which will restore their rights in the state, and restore the integrity of the judiciary and the reputation of professionals involved in the process and enforcement of law.

A finding of ‘unconstitutional’ will permit the state to address litigants with their civil rights in full force and effect without a ‘lawful’ mandate which denies law, obstructs justice and negatively affects the integrity of the courts.

Their cases in the state courts are presented as evidence of the denial of rights. Healy and Krautheim do not seek this courts direct involvment or action regarding decisions in those matters.

Healy and Krautheim act ‘in the name of the United States’ to challenge the same law in place in every state.

The Motivation and the Deliberate Intent of Rule 1.6

“A man who took history in his hands, and bent the arc of the moral universe toward justice.”

Todd and I filed a Constitutional Challenge with fifty six Attorneys General of the United States.

We sent copies of the Challenge and the summons to 56 Attorneys General.

Deadlines were missed by many. It was expected that a default would be a likely end to the matter.

Then, they disappeared.

The court sent them NOTHING.

The court failed to send them a CERTIFICATION.

The Court failed to send address the INTERVENTION.

The Notice of Appeal.

The Court failed to send the Notice of Appeal to fifty six Attorneys General.

The Court failed to send the Record to fifty six Attorneys General.

The Appeals Court failed to send the Notice of Appeal to fifty six Attorneys General.

One person sandbagged fifty six Attorneys General in a constitutional matter.

You would think that with the top law enforcement officer in every state served on the case that misconduct would not occur. Apparently, that’s just not so.

When we go to ask where the Attorneys General went and WHY the Court negelected to send them any paperwork… we will encounter my favorite clerk response. The “today is my first day on this job” person who knows nothing even though they have been working there forever.

This will be followed up with a litany of excuses suggesting the outcome justifies their sandbagging the proceedings. The outcome was wrong, unsupported and unsubstantiated and to call it a logical fallacy would suggest there was any logic to it. The stupidity represented in the rulings demonstrates the validity of the Constitutional Challenge. We are right and will succeed. They have confirmed it.

If this is the best they have to counter a Constitutional Challenge of a Law which causes injustice and robs people of their civil rights and liberties.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

---

AMBER ALERT? If anyone sees any of the following Attorneys General, please ask them to inquire how they were removed from a case which has now gone on to Appeal… and I am guessing the Third Circuit is going to be very interested how this case got sandbagged with 56 state attorney generals watching.

AMERICAN SAMOA ATTORNEY GENERAL
AMERICAN SOMOA GOV’T
EXEC. OFC. BLDG.
UTULEI, TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA
PAGO PAGO, AS 96799

ALAN WILSON
REMBERT C. DENNIS OFFICE BLDG.
POST OFFICE BOX 11549
COLUMBIA, SC 29211-1549

BILL SCHUETTE
POST OFFICE BOX 30212
525 W. OTTAWA ST.
LANSING, MI 48909-0212

BOB FERGUSON
1125 WASHINGTON ST. SE
POST OFFICE BOX 40100
OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0100

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
OLD SUPREME CT. BLDG.
100 N. CARSON ST.
CARSON CITY, NV 89701

CHRIS KOSTER
SUPREME CT. BLDG.
207 W. HIGH ST.
JEFFERSON CITY, MO 65101

DAVID LOUIE
425 QUEEN ST.
HONOULU, HI 96813

DEREK SCHMIDT
120 S.W. 10TH AVENUE
2ND FLOOR
TOPEKA, KS 6612-1597

DOUGLAS F. GANSLER
200 ST. PAUL PLACE
BALTIMORE, MD 21202-2202

DUSTIN MCDANIEL
323 CENTER ST.
SUITE 200
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201-2610

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM
JUSTICE BLDG.
1162 COURT ST., NE
SALEM, OR 97301

ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN
THE CAPITOL
2ND FLOOR
ALBANY, NY 12224

GARY KING
POST OFFICE BOX 1508
SANTA FE, NM 87504-1508

GEORGE JEPSEN
55 ELM ST.
HARTFORD, CT 06106

GREG ABBOTT
CAPITOL STATION
POST OFFICE BOS 12548
AUSTIN, TX 78711-2548

GREG ZOELLER
INDIANA GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH
302 WEST WASHINGTON STREET
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204

IRVIN NATHAN
441 4TH STREET, NW
SUITE 1100S
WASHINGTON, DC 20001

J.B. VAN HOLLEN
STATE CAPITOL
ROOM 114
POST OFFICE BOX 7857
MADISON, WI 53707-7857

JACK CONWAY
700 CAPITOL AVENUE
CAPITOL BUILDING
SUITE 118
FRANKFORT, KY 40601

JAMES D. BUDDY CALDWELL
POST OFFICE BOX 94095
BATON ROUGE, LA 70804-4095

JANET T. MILLS
STATE HOUSE STATION 6
AUGUSTA, ME 04333

JIM HOOD
POST OFFICE BOX 220
JACKSON, MS 39205

JOEY PATRICK SAN NICOLAS
POST OFFICE BOX 10007
SAIPAN, MP 96950-8907

JOHN SUTHERS
RALPH L. CARR COLORADO JUDICIAL CENTER
1300 BROADWAY
10TH FLOOR
DENVER, CO 95814

JOHN SWALLOW
STATE CAPITOL
RM. 236
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-0810

JOHN JAY HOFFMAN
RICHARD J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX
25 MARKET STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 080
TRENTON, NJ 08625

JON BRUNING
STATE CAPITOL
POST OFFICE BOX 98920
LINCOLN, NE 68509-8920

JOSEPH A. FOSTER
33 CAPITOL ST.
CONCORD, NH 03301

JOSEPH R. BEAU BIDEN, III
CARVEL STATE OFFICE BLDG.
820 N. FRENCH ST.
WILMINGTON, DE 19801

KAMALA HARRIS
1300 I ST.
STE. 1740
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

KEN CUCCINELLI
900 EAST MAIN STREET
RICHMOND, VA 23219

LAWRENCE WASDEN
STATEHOUSE
BOISE, ID 83720-100

LENNY RAPADAS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ITC BUILDING
590 S. MARINE CORPS DR.
STE. 706
TAMUNING, GUAM, 96913

LISA MADIGAN
JAMES R. THOMPSON CTR.
100 W. RANDOLPH ST.
CHICAGO, IL 60601

LORI SWANSON
STATE CAPITOL
STE. 102
ST. PAUL, MN 55155

LUIS SANCHEZ BETANCES
POST OFFICE BOX 902192
SAN JUAN, PR 00902-0192

LUTHER STRANGE
501 WASHINGTON AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 300152
MONTGOMERY, AL 36130-0152

MARTHA COAKLEY
1 ASHBURTON PLACE
BOSTON, MA 02102-1698

MARTY J. JACKLEY
1302 EAST HIGHWAY 14
SUITE 1
PIERRE, SD 57501-8501

MICHAEL GERAGHT
POST OFFICE BOX 110300
JUNEAU, AK 99811-0300

MIKE DEWINE
STATE OFFICE TOWER
30 E. BROAD ST.
COLUMBUS, OH 43266-0410

PAM BONDI
THE CAPITOL
PL 01
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-1050

PATRICK MORRISEY
STATE CAPITOL
1900 KANAWHA BLVD., E.
CHARLESTON, WV 25305

PETER KILMARTIN
150 S. MAIN ST.
PROVIDENCE, RI 02903

PETER K. MICHAEL
STATE CAPITOL BLD.
CHEYENNE, WY 82002

ROBERT E. COOPER, JR
425 5TH AVENUE NORTH
NASHVILLE, TN 37243

ROY COOPER
POST OFFICE BOX 629
RALEIGH, NC 27602-0629

SAM OLENS
40 CAPITOL SQUARE, SW
ATLANTA, GA 30334-1300

SCOTT PRUITT
313 NE 21ST STREET
OKAHOMA CITY, OK 73105

TIM FOX
JUSTICE BLDG.
215 N. SANDERS
HELENA, MT 59620-1401

TOM HORNE
1275 W. WASHINGTON ST.
PHOENIX, AZ 85007

TOM MILLER
HOOVER STATE OFFICE BLDG.
1305 E. WALNUT
DES MOINES, IA 50319

VINCENT FRAZER
DEPT. OF JUSTICE, G.E.R.S. COMPLEX
488-50C KRONPRINSDENS GADE
ST. THOMAS, VI 00802

WAYNE STENEHJEM
STATE CAPITOL
600 E. BOULEVARD AVE.
BISMARCK, ND 58505-0040

WILLIAM H. SORRELL
109 STATE ST.
MONTPELIER, VT 05609-1001

Notice Of Appeal
A Notice of Appeal was timely filed December 2, 2013 regarding the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

There was no choice but to appeal the matter. We were Rule 1.6’d. It was anticipated that the matter would likely need to be decided at a higher level of Federal Court which handles more broader issues and nationally visible cases.

It was quickly very clear that the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was not immune from Rule 1.6 misconduct and the the injustice once the act of misconduct which involves the judge.

Did those behind it realize? Were they taking one last stab at Rule 1.6-ing before it would become unconstitutuional and justice would be restored to the people. Judicial integrity would no longer be compromised. Last Call.

Did they realize that they were using it against people who understood it?

Did they realize they would be acting in Federal Court, with a nationwide audience of 56 Attorneys General particpating. Yes. As such, they would require assist from the Clerk of Courts.

Did those behind it realize that we had anticipated interference and not only were we paying attention, we had also called in resources to safeguard the process, and were getting feedback from every person involved.

---

Backing into the Docket… The way to see where Rule 1.6 was triggered. Where did things go ‘wrong’? Where did procedure and law no longer matter.

---

Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Reconsider. A Strange necessity.

Motion to Reconsider – Judge applies Wrong Rule.

Dismissal – Unsupported, unsubstantiated and incorrect. Wrong Conclusion.

Intention to Default – Suppressed. Illogical that the court does not want any participation of the Defendants.

Corrections to Docket – Denied. Illogical that the Court is not interested in an accurate court record.

ECF Filing – Delayed. Delayed. Granted.

Kane’s Request for Extension – untimely, unsubstantiated, not authorized. Granted. Further Prevents Defendants Involvement – but never authorized. (Docket Modification – without a Court Order that’s not done.)

SERVICE – Answers due dates not entered.

Constitutional Challenge filed.

Defendant Attorneys General – Why are you not getting ANY information about this matter? Why have they all been TERMINATED from the case? Why after you had defaulted, without any entry of appearance, without any responsive pleading, were you removed from notices in the matter? Why does the Clerk of Courts have Randall Henzes as representing all 56 Attorneys General? Resulting in him being the ONLY one to get any notices in this matter?

When the Request for Extension is filed on September 6, 2013, Rule 1.6 is triggered. In play causing incorrect rulings. In play failing to resolve issues. In play on the docket. In play removing the Attorneys General from information notices or any involvment.

The Rule 1.6 monkeywrench is Randall Henzes.

He waited until Attorney General Kathleen Kane defaults, and begins to ACT NOT ONLY FOR HER BUT somehow OBTAINS “LEAD ATTORNEY” status which permits the EXCLUSION of All other AGs. By the time anyone notices the judge has been tricked into error, Kathleen Kane cannot reveal his actions, and the emails are not sent out by the Clerk of Courts.

Randall does not understand that his expectation of dismissal is not realistic. The double sided 1983 dismissal tools are the best he’s got. They worked for decades. They don’t apply. They don’t support dismissal. So, he uses all of them. But, they don’t quite fit.

The judge is floundering at the DISMISSAL. The judge’s integrity is at stake. When asked to reconsider, he loses more integrity when he DENIES applying the wrong rule. ( I opened the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in July for the first time. The judge has been using it for decades.) The judge is not stupid. The judge is sacrificing his integrity.

No Attorney General responds. Once Rule 1.6 has been invoked, the only way to preserve your integrity is to do nothing.

The one thing they still have not recognized. THEY KNOW NOTHING. Short-sighted bullies robbing an 85 year old judge of his integrity.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 petition can be filed everyday for all eternity… they failed to recognize that whole the injustice of Rule 1.6 could end now, or tomorrow, or net week, next month, or next year.

DISMISSAL by judicial logical fallacy indicates JUSTICE WINS.

JUSTICE IS COMING. It will allow integrity of the judiciary, not sacrifice it.

Rule 1.6 started to be made into LAW after the FBI’s Operation Graylord corruption prosecution which exposed extreme corruption in the Cook County Courts of Chicago. A total of 92 people were indicted, including 17 judges, 48 lawyers, ten deputy sheriffs, eight policemen, eight court officials, and a state legislator.

The corruption had initially been reported to the FBI by a Cook County prosecutor.

Prior to this time there had been “codes” for legal professionals which they were professionally encouraged to follow. Turning a blind eye on judicial corruption would have been viewed as simply covering for each other. The ethical or moral decision was with the individual. The report to federal authorities was proper, lawful, appropriate and brave.

To make certain something like Operation Graylord never happened again, the Code of Professional Conduct was made LAW.

Rule 1.6 became LAW. Rule 1.6 was implemented gradually across the US executed by a subtle change most people wouldn’t notice. This was done through a lawful process of the Supreme Court. However, the LAW would result in the denial of constitutionally protected rights in violation of the US Constitution, it was not constitutional BUT ONLY WHEN VIEWED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE VICTIM OF INJUSTICE. A Pro Se litigant, underestimated and ignored, and served repeated injustice with no recourse, no releif, no possibility for escape.

When both parties are represented, the lawyers can negotiate away the indiscretion which ignored the litigants rights. Both must follow Rule 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY. But, there was no way for lawyers to negotiate around the rights of a pro se litigant without exposing their position or leverage. Pro se litigants just lost everything and were ignored and offered platitudes of you should have had a lawyer type remarks. Having a lawyer could never restore their rights, because their lawyer would not be permitted to discuss what happened with them.

NOW, Rule 1.6 MANDATED CONFIDENTIALITY regarding the actions of corrupt judges and lawyers. Rule 1.6 MANDATED that no action be taken outside any confidential disciplinary proceeding. Penalties for violating Rule 1.6 were quick, disbarment, discredited, prevention from practicing law. [Rule 1.6 is called Confidentiality of Information, that is no subtle mistake.]

PROBLEM: In the ‘correction’, THEY MADE IT ILLEGAL TO REPORT / PROSECUTE CORRUPTION BY THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO COULD DO SO. In the corrective actions, the crimes committed by the judiciary and court staff was not addressed. The crimes were more than covered up. Those who would dare to accuse a judge would be dealt extreme discipline. It became IMPOSSIBLE to prosecute a judge for deliberate crimes and injustices committed in the court. It was illegal for a District Attorney or an Attorney General to prosecute judicial crimes and corruption.

The Intent demonstrates a twisted and perverted lack of ethics and morality, undeniably corrupt. The American Bar Association was concerned they would lose their ‘right of self governance’. RIGHT? [breath] THEIR RIGHT. Their RIGHT of self governance. The integrity of the judiciary was of little consequence. Denial of people’s Constitutional Rights of absolutely no concern. Selfishly motivated to protect their concept of self governance. The ABA has an imaginary government. Their own little play government and congress and hierarchy which manages the ABA sedition in each state governments.

One person remained who could lawfully act to expose judicial crimes. One person could lawfully expose the sedition. There is little information to indicate where ‘sheriffs’ lost their power. As Chief Law Enforcement Officers in the County, the Sheriff could lawfully prosecute and expose judicial corruption. The Sheriffs began to be convinced that they were NOT the Chief Law Enforcement Officer. It was the judges, lawyers and District Attorney who convinced, manipulated, litigated and diminished the power of the Sheriff. Judges wrote decisions which indicated the sheriff never had any constitutional power. The Sheriffs accepted their diminished responsibilities, without valid explanation, or necessary constitutional action, as the District Attorneys and the judges usurped the power of the Sheriff. There was no entity in law enforcement who could prosecute the sedition.

LOGIC SO FLAWED AS TO EXPOSE ITS MOTIVE INTENT AND NATURE.

After Rule 1.6 was enacted… An Operation like ‘Graylord’ would have only prosecuted ONLY one person. The man who reported the corruption to the FBI.

UNDER Rule 1.6, the prosecutor who reported the corruption would face charges of treason, fraud, and prosecution to the fullest extent of the LAW. It was against the law for the District Attorney or Attorney General to prosecute corruption in their county or state.

“But, judges DO get caught in corruption and prosecuted.”

Yes, there have been some cases where judicial corruption has been prosecuted. When that has happened it has been at a Federal level, outside of the state jurisdiction.

Additionally, Federal authorities will NOT normally enter a state jurisdiction unless invited by the Attorney General or District Attorney to investigate. (BUT, the law made illegal for the DA or the AG to contact federal authorities.)

On those very rare occasions where a member of the judiciary is prosecuted for crime or corruption another activity occurs which clearly demonstrates the true motive and intent of the LAW. Rule 1.6 is modified.

A review of the dates that Rule 1.6 has been modified in each of the states shows a direct correlation between a judge being exposed and prosecuted and the subsequent modification to the Rules of Professional Conduct which prevents any judge from ‘getting caught like that’ again. The loopholes get closed. It becomes more and more difficult to address judicial corruption. It is logical that the ‘license for corruption’ would be edited ONLY when it failed. Other Pennsylvania edits point towards the Cash For Kids scandal. A judge was prosecuted, the loophole was addressed.

INTEGRITY. HONOR. JUSTICE.

The integrity of the judiciary is important and essential. TRUE.

EPIC FAILURE. The integrity of the judiciary is protected by making it illegal to prosecute the judges for crimes. It further prosecutes anyone who would make the attempt. MANDATING judicial corruption where it violates morality, ethics, law, and the CONSTITUTION. A victim is further victimized in each attempt at presenting the matter to any court in the state. The individual is further prevented from the assistance of federal authorities who will not enter a jurisdiction without the invitation of a District Attorney or Attorney General.

SO FLAWED A THOUGHT PROCESS, IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN. People would rise up in indignation if something like that ever happened in the USA. It would be reported by the media. 1) The Legislatures would never permit that to occur. 2) A Governor would never sign THAT law. 3) The state courts would overturn it.

BUT, 1) The legislature had no choice.
BUT, 2) The governor never signed anything.
AND 3) The state courts DID IT and cannot lawfully UNDO it.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania enacted the Law. They have the authority to do so. The Court may enact law to govern the judiciary and the practice of law within the state. RULE 1.6 is concealed in plain sight in the Rules of Professional Conduct. The State Constitution does give the Court the power to enact law… ONLY where the laws did not affect other state constitutional rights and liberties. Within the state, no greater weight is given to distinct sections of the state constitution over the other. The state court’s constitutional empowerment is used to override any contradiction within the state.

The general perception would be The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is certainly going to favor their own law even when it fails the litigant. The court can back it up constitutionally. CITE THE STATE CONSTITUTION. The court can cite their LAW. CITE THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. They had little choice in their own decision, RULE 1.6 MANDATES a decision which conceals judicial misconduct regardless of the merits of the case they are considering. Regardless of the morality of the injustice they are delivering. They are acting lawfully. They must act lawfully. The merits of the matter are meaningless Rule 1.6 is law.

Within the state, it is unlawful to correct Rule 1.6.

Should the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recognize and face the problem created with Rule 1.6, they do not have the power to act. As correction could expose members of the judiciary to prosecution and would not be lawful under Rule 1.6. A correction could expose the deliberate intent, malfeasance and misdirection of purpose of the law, the Supreme Court is legally prevented from correcting their own act of misconduct. Judges and lawyers are precluded from taking any lawful action.

The state made it illegal to correct themselves.

While the impact of Rule 1.6 has undermined the courts at every level within the state; and prevents state government and law enforcement authorities from acting OR involving the Federal Government; the Federal Courts have jurisdiction to act when a state infringes on the rights protected by the US Constitution.

Rule 1.6 makes it illegal for lawyers to file the federal action because they must follow Rule 1.6. The only party who COULD act to address this issue is a pro se litigant who is not obligated to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. One who survived with experience and evidence and standing and perseverance above all other things.

Once the Federal Court recognizes this case as a reality and a necessity, they will stop following the scripts provided by the ABA. It would seem that the judges and the lawyers have been crippled by the scripts to the point where they fail to consider the law. The ABA tools can cite cases (and mis-cite cases) faster than I ever could. Their resources are vast. The ABA has the resources and the technology to filter my information and hinder my communication. I have the law, and a constantly hacked and filtered computer which I cannot totally trust or rely on. I must reconfirm ALL information at an outside source. I have to know the law because I have no other fallback. So I learn more and more.

I imagine the ABA never thought they could be caught. The whole country noticed the undertones of the failures of the Constitution. Everyone could see the unconstitutional actions but an explanation was never available. The world watches as the US Government implodes on the people’s ennui while American ego is massaged to distortion and denial.

When it all comes down, JUSTICE IS COMING.

The non-sequitur. It was intentional. It didn’t fit the flow of this post. A REAL ISSUE AND CONCERN. It warrants a re-statement.

It would be reported by the media.

It defies logic that EVERY available media outlet and resource has ignored this national constitutional issue. I have been in contact with hundred of television, radio, internet, and print media people. Nothing. The news reports on the injustices which occur. The news reports on constitutional discrepancies and failures. Those items appearing in the news offer no resolution or remedy for the situations. I believe this tends to cause a mindset where expectations for justice are lowered for everyone. Where injustice is ignored and accepted and anyone who discusses the topic is branded a ‘radical’ or ‘theorist’. have encountered the Facebook teams which promote this despair and hopelessness. Their rhetoric is very obvious. Their tactics apparent when you see the holes in their approach. There is no law which mandates that the media ignore the story. So why has the media ignored the story? without explanation? So who does control the media? When did the press lose it’s freedom?

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...