A Terroristic Divorce

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.

The Federal Court has jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 and provide the relief requested declaring the challenged law UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Rule 1.6 causes the plaintiffs direct the loss of constitutionally protected rights and additionally prevents the state from addressing the loss, which is of itself a protected right which is also being denied..

Article V Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not permit the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to deny rights protected by the United States Constitution.

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

The Plaintiffs have filed in the name of The United States, and served the Challenge on each of the Attorneys General as Rule 1.6 has been enacted into law in each state.

Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court address the national issue by presenting the Plaintiffs inability to escape the injustice by relocating to another state. There is no law which would prevent the injustice experienced in Pennsylvania from being presented in another state court where that state’s version of Rule 1.6 would continue to deny the plaintiffs of life free from injustice.

Additionally, the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is a national issue. Any law which denies rights and liberties protected by the United States Constitution is unconstitutional in every state.

An act of sedition in every state was committed by the American Bar Association in the conspiracy to promulgate Rule 1.6 to every state. Each state supreme court acting in violation of the US Constitution to enact ‘law’ which violates the rights of the people and prevents denies and obstructs any remedy for the loss.

Plaintiff’s allege that Rule 1.6 results in the denial of rights protected by the United States Constitution.

Plaintiff’s allege that Rule 1.6 which was NOT LAWFULLY ENACTED pursuant to PA. CONST. Article V 10(c) is a nullity because it results in the denial of constitutionally protected rights and liberties.

Plaintiff’s allege that the actions of The Pennsylvania Supreme Court are NOT LAWFUL in removing jurisdiction for law enforcement from the Attorney General, and in enacting a law which prevents the Attorney General from properly and lawfully executing the responsibilities of the office of Attorney General.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane is a lawyer who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct which prevent her from properly and lawfully executing the law enforcement responsibilities of the office of Attorney General.

Plaintiffs have 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 loss of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights basing her failure and ‘lack of jurisdiction’ on an unconstitutional ‘law’ improperly enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in violation of Article V Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution which further unlawfully and unconstitutionally denied citizens of any forum for the redress of grievances, denying the plaintiffs of any resolution and further denied the plaintiffs of justice.

Healy’s and Krautheim’s constitutional challenge to Rule 1.6 was not correctly dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s misrepresentation that there was no Article III case or controversy between them and Attorney General Kane (or any of her counterparts), fails upon review as the Attorney General was clearly able to discern the case/controversy while presenting statements to the contrary.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General repetitive misstatements regarding application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Younger abstention, and incomplete paraphrasing of the Pennsylvania Constitution which specifically and clearly does not allow authority for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to enact laws which deny the substantive rights of a litigant.