04.17
We had been informed by letter that on Thursday April 3, 2014, the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 Appeal would be submitted to the judges without oral argument. “This means your presence will not be required.”
Todd called and spoke to the case manager and was informed that the documents would be provided to the Judges during the afternoon session.
Our experience justified our concern that the judges might not be provided the correct Appeal documents and we decided we would go to witness the Appeal Brief, Response and Answer as it was distributed to the judges.
When we arrived we were told that there was NO session with the judges. There was NO way to witness the judges receiving the documents. The documents had been transmitted to the judges electronically. It had already happened that morning.
The case manager knew nothing and had no information. She blamed everything on the Calendar Guy.
BTW, Calendar Guy doesn’t schedule appointments with the Clerk of Courts when you need to discuss their mishandling of the case and their misinformation. No one does that.
Everyone confirmed that the imaginary “Kathleen” does not work in their office even though she convinced fifty five attorneys general to not participate or register to receive case documents.
The lawyer who the case manage went to for assistance was a special kind of crazy. Her name was Kelly. She is a lawyer under the mandates of Rule 1.6.
Kelly was refusing to provide and truthful information. She was making faces like people do when they are on the phone. The eye rolls. Talking from one side of her mouth. Twisting her face up. Speaking as if we had no idea she was lying.
I asked her, “DO YOU REALIZE I AM STANDING RIGHT HERE AND I CAN SEE THESE FACES YOU ARE MAKING? WE ARE NOT ON THE PHONE. I CAN SEE YOUR GESTURES, ALL OF THEM, AND YOUR CONTORTED EXPRESSIONS.”
They sent for the US Marshalls because what else was she going to do?
The Third Circuit Clerk of Courts office was unable to explain… ANYTHING. The list of misinformation was growing.
The US Marshall walks in and recognizes Todd and myself. He was one of the Marshalls we spoke with in November 2013 when we were concerned that the District Court Clerk of Courts office was not handling the paperwork properly. Everything on the docket was misnamed and out of order. And 55 Defendant Attorneys General had disappeared without a word. Five minutes after we told the US Marshalls about the Sheriffs nationwide being convinced they lacked authority as it was essential to conceal the injustice caused by Rule 1.6. The US Marshalls realized the same had happened to them. It was a very good conversation with them. We explained the Challenge, who what when where why and how.
AND THEN…
On April 14, 2014, a Per Curiam Opinion was issued concurrent with a Judgment for costs. The Per Curiam Opinion is NOT signed by the judges. The Judgement is /electronically signed/ by Marcia Waldron, Clerk.
A Per Curiam Order/Opinion is appropriate where issues are non-controversial. They typically consist of boilerplate statements, a few sentences which apply to the case, and require little editing.
The Court tried to fit the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 into a per curiam boilerplate, they failed. Six pages in length. Clearly, the author had not read ANY of the court documents.
| “Opinions containing language that is more expansive, such as when the opinion expound on the particular facts or law at issue, should be attributed to its author in order to serve as a check on judges’ fidelity to the law and to enable the public and the legal professional to formulate an accurate understanding of the law.” Ira Robbins @ SCOTUSBlog.com |
The April 14, 2014 Per Curiam Opinion fails to address the issues presented in the Appeal, misrepresents statements provided in the Court Opinion, neglects the law, fails to acknowledge the information provided in Court documents, and ignores the established doctrine relevant to the matter. The issue under review relates to a well-concealed national controversy regarding the rights and privileges protected by the United States Constitution and the inescapable injustice once a litigant is victimized.
It would seem that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals DID NOT PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTS to the judges assigned to the matter. The Result – A Per Curiam Order without any signatures affirming the District Courts dismissal of the matter even though the District Court’s Opinion documented the failure to substantiate the decision to dismiss.
| “Beginning in the mid-1900’s, the Court expanded the role of the per curiam, fashioning it as a strategic device to resolve time-sensitive cases quickly, as a protective sheild from controversial issues, and as a way to make new law by indirection. Through the per curiam, the Court at times also aimed to convey a message of consensus while engaging in more complicated and substantive decisionmaking. In addition, the per curiam became a convenient tool for the Supreme Court in deciding controversial cases, because “with no Justice signing the opinion, there was no individual to be blamed for evading the tough question.” Ira Robbins @ SCOTUSBlog.com |
I wonder who wrote the unsigned Per Curiam Opinion.
BUT THOSE CLIENTS are there at the request of the PUBLIC, the neglected client.