A Terroristic Divorce

July 30, 2014

Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

For Distribution to all members.

Dear Senators,

Please permit us to present a document sent to President Barack Obama which has national impact relating to the judiciary. The situation has evolved to where it defies any corrective action by the judiciary.

In August 2013, a Constitutional Challenge to Rule 1.6 was filed and served upon the Attorney General for every state, fifty six in all, to address a law enacted by the state supreme courts without benefit of the state legislature or the signature of any governor. The unconstitutional aspects were not taken into consideration during construction of the law.

Every state attorney general failed to respond to the summons and challenge by the deadline, yet the district court refused to accept or acknowledge their deliberate default action. The Challenge was concealed and then dismissed based on unsubstantiated doctrine and fictional misinformation. That decision only served to harm the integrity of the court. The very integrity which the Challenge had sought to restore while re-securing the constitutional rights of all Americans.

The national foreclosure crisis is an example of Rule 1.6 confidentiality undermining the judiciary and removing people from their homes based on fraudulent and robo-signed documentation. Pennsylvania’s Kids for Cash scandal demonstrated Rule 1.6 even more cleanly.

The judiciary is mandated to follow the very law which is being challenged and to protect the integrity of the court by sacrificing the integrity of the court. A seriously flawed logic which prevents lawyers and law enforcement from addressing judicial corruption and injustice within the state and federal judicial system. The federal courts follow the local (state) Rules of Professional Conduct where Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is an indirect law which undermines the government and trumps EVERY law including the US Constitution.

Addressing the injustice of Rule 1.6 is an inevitability. Facing it responsibly will affect the public reaction to this realization. We ask your involvement, or where your direct action is ‘unlawful’, whatever assistance of support and resources which will permit us to succeed for the betterment of the nation in the best interests of every American.

We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the issue in further detail.

Sincerely,

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

PDF version
PDF Letter to President
PDF Attachment

July 30, 2014

House Committee on the Judiciary July 30, 2014
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510

For Distribution to all members.

Dear Congressmen/Congresswomen,

Please permit us to present a document sent to President Barack Obama which has national impact relating to the judiciary. The situation has evolved to where it defies any corrective action by the judiciary.

In August 2013, a Constitutional Challenge to Rule 1.6 was filed and served upon the Attorney General for every state, fifty six in all, to address a law enacted by the state supreme courts without benefit of the state legislature or the signature of any governor. The unconstitutional aspects were not taken into consideration during construction of the law.

Every state attorney general failed to respond to the summons and challenge by the deadline, yet the district court refused to accept or acknowledge their deliberate default action. The Challenge was concealed and then dismissed based on unsubstantiated doctrine and fictional misinformation. That decision only served to harm the integrity of the court. The very integrity which the Challenge had sought to restore while re-securing the constitutional rights of all Americans.

The national foreclosure crisis is an example of Rule 1.6 confidentiality undermining the judiciary and removing people from their homes based on fraudulent and robo-signed documentation. Pennsylvania’s Kids for Cash scandal demonstrated Rule 1.6 even more cleanly.

The judiciary is mandated to follow the very law which is being challenged and to protect the integrity of the court by sacrificing the integrity of the court. A seriously flawed logic which prevents lawyers and law enforcement from addressing judicial corruption and injustice within the state and federal judicial system. The federal courts follow the local (state) Rules of Professional Conduct where Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is an indirect law which undermines the government and trumps EVERY law including the US Constitution.

Addressing the injustice of Rule 1.6 is an inevitability. Facing it responsibly will affect the public reaction to this realization. We ask your involvement, or where your direct action is ‘unlawful’, whatever assistance of support and resources which will permit us to succeed for the betterment of the nation in the best interests of every American.

We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the issue in further detail.

Sincerely,

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

PDF version
PDF Letter to President
PDF Attachment

The Constitutional Challenge is NOT misinterpreting or misunderstanding Rule 1.6.

These are the dismissive suggestions of lawyers with regard to the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6. It is what they tell people who ask them about it. They offer no further information to back up their statement. They further indicate that we will never succeed. (and neglect to explain.)

These lawyers are WRONG.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 backs up every statement. Every post on the web has supporting documentation which corroborates every statement.

Within Pennsylvania we have four clear examples of Corruption and Injustice where the actions of the judiciary and lawyers involved in the matters have defied any logical and acceptable explanation. When Rule 1.6 is applied the actions of law enforcement are clearly explained.
– Kids for Cash
– Jerry Sandusky prosecution & the Sandusky Report
– Foreclosures

How about we have a discussion? a debate? in Public? on Television? Anytime… Anywhere…

Let’s see who understands the improperly enacted and unconstitutional law – lawyers mandated to say nothing about it, or two non-lawyers who can demonstrate the mandate for lawyers to conspire to conceal injustice and corruption.

As those same lawyers are MANDATED to silence/confidentiality of information even where it is about Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, We will see who is misinterpreting misunderstanding OR misinforming.

And we will see who gets disciplined for discussing the issue.

Rule 1.6 is frequently the subject of law review articles. Usually those articles are also addressing the problems with the Rule which cause it to undermine undermine morality, ethics, personal integrity. AND TO UNDERMINE JUSTICE. Search for those keywords in your favorite search engine. You may be surprised at the volume of material. The step that seems to be missing from any article is the unconstitutional aspect and the inescapable situation it causes for the victims of judicial corruption and injustice.

Addressing the injustice of Rule 1.6 is an inevitability. Facing it responsibly will affect the public reaction to this realization.

Where substantive rights are violated, directly or collaterally, the law is repugnant to the Constitution and a nullity.

The judiciary have buried an unconstitutional law so deep in the law books that they never expected any non-lawyer to find it, and survive to prove it while being denied their constitutional rights and the protection of the law.

No matter how deeply the mandate of Rule 1.6 is buried and concealed, THE LAW MAY NOT VIOLATE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 has been presented to the President of the United States, the United States Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States.