A Terroristic Divorce

I was curious if you were aware of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6?

Rule 1.6 made it illegal to prosecute injustice in the United States. A ‘law’ in every state enacted by the state Supreme Court results in an unconstitutional loss of rights and privileges of a litigant victim when an act of injustice occurs in a courtroom. (In Civil, Criminal or Family Courts)

The ‘law’ makes it illegal for any prosecutor, district attorney or attorney general to prosecute the crime – because it
– would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
– would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office, or
– would expose individual liability.

The victim is left with no recourse, or escape. They are bullied and harassed by the courts until one of three possible outcomes results. Loss of EVERYTHING in their life, prison, or suicide.

There is nothing any judge can do to address the injustice. This is not judges protecting their own. It is a violation of Rule 1.6 if the judge even tries to address the injustice. Their judicial integrity is sacrificed. This angers the judge who then seems to take it out further on the victim.

When the act which caused the injustice is known and exposed (even in court) the damage to the victim worsens. The injustice grows each time the victim appears in court because no lawyer or judge may acknowledge or address the injustice or resolve the matter.

The overall result is abuse of power under color of law. In criminal courts the prosecutor’s aggressive misconduct is ignored. All ‘lawful’, but unconstitutional – as they are mandated to never reveal it or they are quickly disciplined and discredited. It cannot be dealt with until the litigant has his constitutional rights restored. But the victim would have to figure out how they lost their rights – and there is NO ONE TO HELP. (They made helping the victim of injustice illegal. No lawyer may participate. If they try, they are disciplined.)

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Plaintiffs have lawfully petitioned the court and served the challenge on every US Attorney General to address a constitutional calamity which has ‘LAWFULLY BUT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY’ persisted in the United State for decades.

Each state lost the ability to address the injustice of their own courts, and mandated that no lawyer, attorney general or district attorney invite the federal government to investigate.

Each time the Federal Government has acted to address injustice and corruption of any state court, that state’s Supreme Court has modified Rule 1.6 to close the loophole. This leaves a trail which exposes the corruption caused by this ‘law’ which perverts the entire justice system.

Kids for Cash is one huge example in Pennsylvania. No one could stop it until a judge violated Rule 1.6 and reported it. Judge Ann Lokuta was disciplined and removed from the bench for doing the right thing.

A massive example is the foreclosure crisis nationwide, where a fraud upon the court – a forged and false mortgage note or deed – resulted in the actual fraud being ‘lawfully’ ignored by the court while people everywhere lost their homes. It wasn’t necessarily the banks that caused the crisis. It was the lawyers who committed the initial fraud upon the court which could not be addressed.

The victims of injustice lost their home because of a deliberate injustice and the mandate by Rule 1.6 that no one reveal it.

Rule 1.6 made it illegal for a lawyer to fix this crisis. It took two pro se defendants to find the needle in haystack of injustice… all deliberately and intentionally caused by the author of the ‘law’ … The American Bar Association.

The same unconstitutional law, same number, same name, in every state.

Read more at www.work2bdone.com/live

JUSTICE IS COMING.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
Eastern District of Pennsylvania # 13-4614 (2-13-cv-04614-TON)
Third Circuit Court of Appeals # 13-4591

JUSTICE IS COMING.
PDF Version

Plaintiffs Terance Healy and Todd M. Krautheim filed this Constitutional Challenge on August 8, 2013 and served it upon Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane and the Attorneys General of the United States challenging the Constitutionality of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Plaintiffs are seeking to restore their constitutional rights; restore the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession; and to return to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Case and Controversy before the Court

Article III Requirements are met

Rooker – Feldman Doctrine

Younger Abstention

Article V Section 10 (c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution

Article V – The Attorney General

Article V – The Supreme Court

Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information

Jurisdiction for the Constitutional Question

National Issue

Summary of Case

The Controversy Before The Court – Summary Of Argument

Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s DOMA Decision

CONCLUSION Oral Argument is requested

Addendum – Misinformation in the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Brief
– Statement of Jurisdiction
– Statement of Issues
– Statement of the Case

Addendum – Plaintiffs Questions/Issues

Plaintiffs have been denied rights and liberties which are granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1343, 1345.

Kathleen Kane is the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. Kathleen Kane is a lawyer.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane failed to act and did nothing to address the Plaintiff’s matters.

The Attorney General of Pennsylvania has indicated a lack of jurisdiction or ‘lawful’ inability to become involved in the cases of the litigants as the basis for her inaction.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s deliberate and intentional failure to take any action regarding the denial of the constitutional rights of the litigants is the basis of the ‘controversy’ before the Court.

The Attorney General’s failure is based on a perceived ‘lack of jurisdiction’ due to a ‘law’ improperly enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court without the proper authority of Article V Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution – unlawfully and unconstitutionally denying plaintiffs of any forum for the redress of grievances, denying the plaintiffs of any resolution, obstructing appeals to higher courts and further denying the plaintiffs of justice.

The Plaintiffs have proper standing for this matter before the court.

Plaintiffs have documented their proper standing pursuant to Article III as Attorney General Kathleen Kane has failed to act to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and failed to address the denial of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

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

(1) an “injury in fact”;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs’ Challenge is NOT subject to dismissal under the Rooker – Feldman doctrine.

The Court indicated in the Memorandum of the Court dated October 29, 2013, page 8.

“To the extent that plaintiffs do ‘not, [in their complaint,] complain of injuries caused by a state court decision,” and instead raise “a direct challenge to the constitutionality” of Rule 1.6, their complaint is “not subject to dismissal under the Rooker – Feldman Doctrine.” Gray v Yavil, 513 F. App’x 210, 212 (3d Cir.2013).

The plaintiffs’ cases in the state court were presented for the District Court to take judicial notice of the matters in the state and Admissions were filed on October 18, 2013, Dkt. No. 9

The plaintiffs are not asking the district court to review and reject state court judgments.

The Challenge is NOT subject to dismissal under the Younger Abstention doctrine.

The matter before the Court is the Constitutionality of Rule 1.6, a ‘law’ enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court without proper authority. The case does not involve state criminal prosecutions or civil enforcement proceedings akin to criminal prosecutions.

A state proceeding could not afford the opportunity to raise the federal constitutional claim. Pursuant to the challenged Rule 1.6, the state court is obligated to take no action which would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary, or that would self-incriminate.

Attorney General Kane correctly concurs in the Appellee Brief, page 16, that the District Court’s application of Younger can no longer be justified in light of the recent Supreme Court Decision. Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S.Ct. 584 (2013)

“The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts, justices of the peace and all officers serving process or enforcing orders, judgments or decrees of any court or justice of the peace, including the power to provide for assignment and reassignment of classes of actions or classes of appeals among the several courts as the needs of justice shall require, and for admission to the bar and to practice law, and the administration of all courts and supervision of all officers of the Judicial Branch, if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of the peace, nor suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose. All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions. “

The Attorney General’s Appellee Brief page 3 misinforms the Court by incompletely paraphrasing The Pennsylvania Constitution Article V, 10(c) omitting the condition whereby the Supreme Court lacks authority when not consistent with the Constitution and when the rules abridge, modify and deny the substantive rights of any litigant.

Rule 1.6 causes a denial of rights and liberties which is NOT consistent with the United States Constitution or the Pennsylvania Constitution and causes the denial of the substantive and constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court was without authority to enact Rule 1.6 into law.

Jurisdiction was improperly removed from the Attorney General to the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court per Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

When acting per Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court may not deny constitutionally protected rights and privileges.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane had proper jurisdiction because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not have authority to remove jurisdiction from the Attorney General where it denied constitutionally protected rights and privileges.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane failed to act and did not enforce the law or address the Plaintiff’s matters.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court was notified yet failed to act and did not enforce the law or address the Plaintiff’s matters.

The Judicial Conduct Board was notified yet failed to act and did not enforce the law or address the Plaintiff’s matters.

The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was notified yet failed to act and did not enforce the law or address the Plaintiff’s matters.

Plaintiff’s allege violations of Constitutionally protected rights and liberties and the failure of the Attorney General to take any action to address the resulting injustice due to the unconstitutional removal of jurisdiction from the Attorney General to the Supreme Court who also took no action.

RULE 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION

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

The Attorney General must be a lawyer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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