A Terroristic Divorce

Where Kathleen Kane appropriately invoked the Rules of Professional Conduct in removing herself from the DOMA Constitutional Challenge in Pennsylvania, that option is not available as the matter before this Court is the constitutionality of the Rules of Professional Conduct specifically Rule 1.6.

Were Attorney General Kane to invoke the Rules of Professional Conduct to remove herself from this matter,
– she would demonstrate the plaintiff’s allegation that the law is preventing their rights; (Rule 1.6)
– further exposing her actions are preventing the plaintiff’s constitutional rights; (Rule 1.6)
– further exposing her client for the improper, unlawful and unconstitutional denial of their rights, (Rule 1.6) and
– further exposing the Supreme Court of enacting an unconstitutional law which denied and prevented (Rule 1.6)
The Rules of Professional Conduct prevent her from removing herself from the matter.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should reverse the decision of the district court and refer the matter to the District Court, or the United States Supreme Court, for presention and review of the Constitutionality of Rule 1.6.

AN ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED.

We lawfully and strongly demand restoration of our constitutional rights and petition this Honorable Court to review the constitutional matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

Addendum – Misinformation in the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Brief

– The Appellants Respond to the Misinformation provided by the Pennsylvania Attorney General in the Appellee Brief dated March 3, 2014.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This is a constitutional case, brought pro se by two individuals, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §~ 1331, 1343, 1345 (see appellants brief, at 3), the district court does indeed have subject matter jurisdiction over the appellants claims, as documented.

The matter is a constitutional challenge. The Attorney Generals incorrect use of the word purport improperly suggests that this Court should not consider the plaintiffs’ allegations in the constitutional challenge as true and factual.

The matter is not brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C 1983. The inaction of Attorney General Kathleen Kane was not an abuse of power. The Attorney General’s neglect was ‘lawful, but unconstitutional.’

This appeal is from a final order, dismissing the case, entered on October 29, 2013 (Doc. No. 73). The notice of appeal was filed on December 2, 2013 (Doc. No. 76). The notice of appeal was timely filed, this Court has appellate jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Two pro se individuals attempted to challenge the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which is applicable to licensed attorneys, by serving a Constitutional Challenge upon the Attorney General of Pennsylvania (and 55 other Attorneys General).

Their Challenge was improperly dismissed, and the Plaintiffs commenced this timely Appeal to the Third Circuit Court.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Healy’s and Krautheim’s Contentions.

Terance Healy and Todd M. Krautheim both residents of Pennsylvania filed this pro se civil action for themselves and in the name of the United States against the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Kathleen Kane; 49 other state Attorneys General; and the Attorneys General of the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mañana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands (See Doe. No. 1, Complaint, ¶ 1). In their 124-paragraph complaint, Healy and Krautheim “challenge the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct” (Id, ¶ 5).

The Attorney General indicates that the precise legal basis for this claim is difficult to discern. The difficulty is likely due to the failure of the Attorney General to review and address the series of events reported by the Plaintiffs, and others.

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.
“Exercising its authority under PA. CONST. art. V, § 10(c) to prescribe general rules … for admission to the bar and to practice law,” the Pennsylvania Supreme Court promulgated the Rules of Professional Conduct in 1987. See, e.g., Seitzinger v. Commonwealth, 25 A.3d 1299, 1305 .n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011), aff’d, 617 Pa. 597, 54 A.3d 20 (2012). “

Rule 1.6 is titled CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. The Rule is referred to throughout the Rules of Professional Conduct. The confidentiality of information is not limited to client information.

Healy and Krautheim have explicitly acknowledged that “Rule 1.6 does not directly apply to the Pro Se Plaintiffs” but, they add, “it indirectly results in their loss of constitutionally protected rights? (Doc. No. 5, at 2).

The Attorney General has clearly been able to discern the legal basis for the plaintiffs’ claim. Plaintiffs’ have indicated the indirect result of Rule 1.6 denies them of constitutionally protected rights and liberties. A Constitutional Challenge of law is appropriate whether the denial of constitutional rights is direct or indirect.

The Attorney General further incorrectly characterizes the plaintiffs constitutional challenge document suggesting the document consists of argumentative assertions and legal conclusions.

In terms of facts, the Attorney General alleges that the plaintiffs’ have represented themselves in protracted Pennsylvania state court proceedings, during which their constitutional rights allegedly were violated (See Doc. No. 1, Complaint, ¶~ 6-106). The Attorney General indicates her understanding that, Rule 1.6 has, supposedly, caused the state courts to thwart the plaintiffs’ efforts to obtain justice. The Attorney General neglects to indicate her inaction and non-responsiveness to the problem when presented directly to her by the plaintiffs, and others.

The Attorney General is also again indicating the ability to discern the legal basis for the plaintiffs’ claim which contradicts her earlier statement.

Plaintiffs have provided a brief narrative and copies of the court dockets (as Admissions on October 19, 2013) for their cases in support of their experience with the resultant injustice experienced due to Rule 1.6.

Healy and Krautheim did indeed attempt, in person, to raise their concerns about Rule 1.6 with Attorney General Kane, with the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and with the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board (Id., ¶~ 57-68). Their efforts did go unheeded, although the Attorney General did send a representative to meet with the plaintiffs to discuss the matter in the middle of the Strawberry Square mall while sitting on the floor.

The victim of injustice learns to accept the disrespectful response from those in authority who have been convinced incorrectly that they do not have the lawful ability to act to address a constitutionally defective law enacted without constitutional review by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

District Court Proceedings.

After receiving the complaint, Attorney General Kane sought an extension of the responsive pleading deadline and a waiver of pro hac vice requirements for her non-Pennsylvania counterparts (See Doc. No. 2). In making this request, Attorney General Kane suggested that, if the district court were to grant the motion to dismiss she was planning to file, the court’s reasoning would probably apply to Healy’s and Krautheim’s claims against the non-Pennsylvania defendants as well. For that reason, there seemed to be no point in requiring all of the defendants to file largely duplicative responsive pleadings simultaneously.

On September 6, 2013, the Pennsylvania Attorney General filed seeking an extension of the responsive pleading deadline specifically indicating that she does NOT represent the non-Pennsylvania Attorneys General.

The Attorney General neglects to indicate how her non-Pennsylvania counterparts were made aware of her request for extension of the responsive pleading deadline which she neglected to serve to them by mail.

The non-Pennsylvania Attorneys General had neglected to register for the Electronic Case Filing system to receive electronic distribution of case documents.

The Attorney General’s Request was filed after her ‘answer due’ date of September 5, 2013.

The Attorney General’s Certificate of Service indicates a reliance upon the ECF system to distribute the document to the non-Pennsylvania counterparts, but the non-Pennsylvania counterparts were not registered in the ECF system.

The District Court Order granting the extension was signed on September 16, 2013, filed on September 17, 2013 and mailed on September 17, 2013.

During the interim, the non-Pennsylvania Attorneys General who had not been served with the request for extension of the responsive pleading deadline
– failed to file an appearance,
– failed to file an answer, and
– failed to register with the ECF system
before their respective ‘answer due’ date had passed..

The Plaintiffs’ respectfully request the Court take judicial notice of the failure of 55 Attorneys General to respond to the Constitutional Challenge and Summons properly served upon each Attorney General upon receipt of the Summons documents from the Clerk of Courts..

The Plaintiffs’ respectfully request the Court take judicial notice of the failure of the Clerk of Courts to enter the “Summons Returned Executed’ information into the docket when filed with the clerk on September 6, 2013. The Clerk of Courts failed to enter the information properly into the docket until October 18, 2013.

The Plaintiffs’ respectfully request the Court take judicial notice of the failure of the non-Pennsylvania Attorneys General to file any document with the court by their respective ‘answer due’ date.

The Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court take judicial notice of the failure of the Court to respond to the Plaintiffs’ Request for ECF filing and access when requested on September 6, 2013, September 9, 2013, and October 18, 2013. Approved by the Court on October 23, 2013.

The Plaintiffs’ respectfully request the Court take judicial notice of the denial of the MOTION FOR CORRECTIONS TO THE DOCKET FOR THIS MATTER as the docket misrepresents the documents which have been filed with the Clerk of Courts. Motion filed on October 21, 2013. Motion Denied October 23, 2013 without opportunity for any of the fifty six (56) Attorneys General to respond to the motion.

The Attorney General suggests that initial responses to the complaint by the non-Pennsylvania defendants might well have been longer and more elaborate than the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s response. The docket indicates the mystery of the failure of fifty-five (55) non-Pennsylvania Attorneys General failing to take any action in the matter based upon documents which they were not provided.

The docket further indicates the removal of the non-Pennsylvania Attorneys General as parties and the addition of fifty-five (55) unrepresented parties appearing pro se on September 16, 2013.

On October 21, 2013, Plaintiffs filed fifty-five (55) Motions for Indication of Intention to Default and served it upon each of the Attorneys General who had neglected to respond to the Summons and Constitutional Challenge, register for the ECF system, and who had not been served with the Motion for Extension filed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General. (Doc. No. 14-67).

On October 23, 2013, The Court summarily dismissed the motions without allowing any time for any of the Attorneys General to respond to the Plaintiffs’ Motions. (Doc. No. 70).
Any effort to involve the fifty-five non-Pennsylvania Attorneys General, who were properly served the constitutional matter by the Plaintiffs, was prevented by the Court.

In the Court’s memorandum dismissing the matter, the Court provided contradictory statements regarding application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine accurately indicating that the doctrine did not warrant dismissal (at page 8), and speculating and interpreting a situation where the doctrine would apply. The Court’s incorrect conclusion of Rooker–Feldman requiring abstention from the matter is ultimately incorrect as it is based on the speculation and not on the facts of the matter.

The Court’s memorandum additionally incorrectly indicated that the Younger abstention also warranted dismissal of the matter.

The Court’s memorandum then further incorrectly indicates that the plaintiffs’ have failed to state a claim and that Article III warrants dismissal. Article III standing of the constitutional issue is established in the plaintiffs’ complaint and further expanded in this document.

The plaintiffs’ have made their constitutional claim and served it upon the attorney General as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 5.1).

ADDENDUM – PLAINTIFFS QUESTIONS / ISSUES

The Pennsylvania Attorney General Neglects to Address the Questions /Issues presented in the Plaintiffs’ Appellate Brief.

Question #1
Did the Court fail to act pursuant to FRCP 5.1(b) CERTIFICATION BY THE COURT of a Constitutional Challenge?

CERTIFICATION BY THE COURT would have had the Court query each Attorney General or state Supreme Court requesting their position on the question.

IS RULE 1.6 CONSTITUTIONAL?
DOES RULE 1.6 CAUSE A DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECT RIGHTS OF LITIGANTS.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General does not indicate the position that the law being challenged is constitutional.

Question #2
Did the Court fail to act pursuant to Rule 5.1(c) INTERVENTION of a Constitutional Challenge?

A summons and complaint was NOT served upon United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, by the court advising of the constitutional question being challenged in the Court.

Only after filing of the Notice of Appeal did the Court serve a copy of the constitutional complaint upon the United States Attorney General on December 5, 2013.

Question #3
Did the Court ignore, deny, prevent and obstruct the Attorneys General from intentional default in the matter?

Any effort to involve the fifty-five non-Pennsylvania Attorneys General, who were properly served the constitutional matter by the Plaintiffs, was prevented by the Court.

Any effort to determine if the Attorneys General intended to default on the matter was prevented by the Court.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General fails to explain how fifty-five (55) Attorneys General who were NOT served with the Motion for Extension of the Responsive Pleading Deadline where “Attorney General Kane does not represent the other defendants.” all failed to file any answer to the summons and constitutional challenge by their “answer due” date.

Question #4
Did the court incorrectly dismiss the matter without basis in law while failing to substantiate any justification for dismissal in law, doctrine or case law?

This question is addressed in the misinformation of the Appellee Brief with information clarified and corrected in this document.

Question #5
Did the Court fail to reconsider the matter based on an incorrect application of LRCP Rule 7.1(g) where Rule FRCP Rule 52(b) applies to an action which concludes the matter before the court?

In a multi-page prolonged footnote, the Pennsylvania Attorney General engages in a speculative and circular argument which fails to indicate or explain why there was no response to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration.

The Plaintiff’s respectfully inform this court that the convoluted misinformation provided on behalf of the Defendants which has successfully dismissed cases in the past DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE.

The Plaintiffs have standing.
– Article III standing is established.
– The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is not applicable.
– The Younger Abstention does not apply.
– Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not permit the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to deny rights protected by the United States Constitution.

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

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

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.

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.

We lawfully and strongly demand restoration of our constitutional rights and petition this Honorable Court to review the constitutional matter..

When used in this document “law”, ‘law’, “lawful”, ‘lawful’, “lawfully”, and ‘lawfully’ indicates a law which has been incorrectly presumed to be lawful and constitutional, however as it is repugnant to the US Constitution is ultimately and in actuality a nullity.

THE CASE AND CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE COURT

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 not to address the Plaintiff’s matters.

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 has done nothing.

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

ARTICLE V – The Attorney General

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 to address the Plaintiff’s matters.

ARTICLE V – The Pennsylvania Supreme Court

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court failed to act and did not to address the Plaintiff’s matters.

The Judicial Conduct Board failed to act and did not to address the Plaintiff’s matters.

The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania failed to act and did not to 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 affected the integrity of the judicial system
– unless it was self incriminating
– unless it adversely affected the client

The Attorney General must be a lawyer.

The Attorney General must follow the U.S. Constitution, the Pennsylvania 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 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.

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 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 the CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

CONCERNING DISNEY’s ONCE UPON A TIME:

FALSE ALLEGATIONS TO POLICE is an all too common occurrence. The victim of the false allegation suffers while the LIAR gets away with it. Had Hook hurt Emma there would have been a PSA.

Emma committing the crime of falsely accusing Hook being accepted as a goof or a prank only encourages THIS CRIME AGAINST MEN.

This action did not occur in the fictional town of Storybrooke or any of the other ‘realms’ where the show takes place. It happened in ‘the real world’ in New York. It involved New York Police arresting a man, keeping him overnight, and releasing him when the charges were dropped. The police got played. This is not activity which should be encouraged, endorsed or accepted.

The good guy gets hurt and the damage is ignored. False allegations to police destroy lives. Emma is the hero of the show – “The Savior”. Resorting to illegal dirty tricks are not the traditional qualities of a hero. Also, Emma never even apologized before she reconnected with the victim and drove off to Storybrooke. Emma knew she was in the real world because she referred to her victim as Killian, and not Hook.

If you think it is a small matter you have no idea how terroristic divorce has become. Take it from the victim of A TERRORISTIC DIVORCE, you have no idea what goes on once you head down the rabbit hole of the American Judicial system. Eight years of injustice left me homeless and destitute with no future while under constant litigation.

It lead to a constitutional challenge which exposes why the US Constitution has been ignored since the late 1980’s.

Once Upon A Time has been advertising that WICKED IS COMING. Maybe that’s right in Storybrooke, but in ‘the real world’…

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is currently in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia…
JUSTICE IS COMING.

How’s this for some STANDING? THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6
THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE COURT

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 has done nothing.

Attorney General Kane’s failure to take any action results in the denial of the constitutional rights of the litigants. The Attorney General has failed to execute the responsibilities of the Office of Attorney General.

(So did Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly.
So did Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett.
So did every Attorney General upon whom the Challenge was served. How’s that for some case/controversy and standing for fixing this nationwide problem?)

Attorney General Kane cites Article 5 Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution as the ‘lawful’ basis for non-responsibility and inaction.

‘Lawful’ BUT UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS NOT LAWFUL even when enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

The Attorneys General of Pennsylvania have repeatedly indicated a lack of jurisdiction or ‘lawful’ inability to become involved in the cases of the litigants and the basis for inaction.

The Plaintiff’s challenge a law Rule 1.6 which collaterally results in the denial of their constitutional rights.

Any law which denies rights and liberties is repugnant to the US Constitution and is a nullity.

The Attorney General’s ‘lawful’ inaction and ‘lawful’ failure to address an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is the Constitutional Controversy before the Court.

The Attorney General’s ‘lawful’ actions are unconstitutional and are not lawful.

How’s that for a case and controversy pursuant to Article III?
It’s already been accepted that Rooker-Feldman and Younger are NOT valid doctrine for dismissal of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6.

NOW, TELL ME AGAIN WHY THE COURT FAILED TO ASK EACH STATE IF THE LAW WAS CONSTITUTIONAL? Why did the court fail to CERTIFY the Constitutional Challenge? I think that answer is clear.

THE COURT KNOWS THE ANSWER TO THE ‘Is Rule 1.6 constitutional?’ QUESTION.

Plaintiffs have stated that Rule 1.6 sacrifices the reputation and integrity of the judiciary.

‘Lawfully but unconstitutionally’ under Rule 1.6, the Attorney General is mandated to not reveal the unconstitutionality of Rule 1.6 as it applies to the litigants… The court knew this and failed to Certify the Constitutional Challenge.

Judicial Reputation and integrity sacrificed… and FAILED ANYWAY.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

QUESTION:
Was your INJUSTICE left unaddressed or ignored by the Attorney General in your state?
(Respond in Comments below)

Please provide your STATE in your short response. Case name and number(s) would be helpful.

The information will be provided to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to demonstrate the failure of each state Attorney General to enforce the law in your state by deferring to the Courts to address the failure of the judiciary, lawyers, or law enforcement. This will provide demonstration of STANDING for the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 in every state.

THANK YOU.
(Comments do not appear when posted. The information will only be used to demonstrate to each state Attorney General their failure to act necessitated the Constitutional Challenge. The data will be in an Appendix to the Appeal Briefs.)

Mon March 4, 2014, A hearing was held before Judge Weilheimer.

The defective and void divorce decree has been further enforced by Judge Weilheimer.

A question of jurisdiction cannot be ignored… BUT they ignore any rule or law once an injustice has occurred.

FURTHER DEMONSTRATING THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ESCAPING A DELIBERATELY DEFECTIVE AND VOID ORDER ISSUED BY A JUDGE WITHOUT JURISDICTION.

The transcript is available..

An annotated copy will be available shortly.