A Terroristic Divorce

The injustice began with the issuing of the secret order (undocketed, undistributed to Terance Healy) by Judge Rhonda Daniele in August 2007.

Judge Dickman was not likely aware of the secret order. Judge Dickman’s notes on an Agreed Order indicated her anticipation for vexatious litigation by Angst & Angst. Judge Dickman died in late 2007.

Judge Ott reviewed considerable documentation and evidence and issued a Protection from Abuse order with regard to the technology intruding into computers, phones and networking equipment.

Judge Tilson dismissed The Protection from Abuse order regarding technology intrusions of computers, phones and networking equipment.

Judge DelRicci failed to enforce Sonya Healy’s compliance, or sanction her contempt of ANY AND EVERY court order.

Judge DelRicci incarcerated me for contempt of an order which had not yet been before a judge, or signed by any judge.

Judge Del Ricci participated directly in the conspiracy to conceal the secret order, and prevent the scheduling of custody proceedings.

Judge Del Ricci intervened with the police, county detectives and the District Attorneys Office to prevent Sonya Healy, and 20 others (including the parties children) from being prosecuted for breaking and entering, and burglary in defiance of an Agreed Court Order and misrepresenting to police that the ‘secret order’ authorized her to have access to the house.

Judge DelRicci prevented custody or visitation, delayed custody proceedings, issued ex parte orders without holding proceedings, and then recused himself while threatening me with litigation accusing me of liable and slander on the internet. (He never produced the offending document.)

Judge DelRicci neglected enforcement or excused compliance by Sonya Healy of any discovery order which would reveal her technology intrusions.

Judge Tilson issued several ex parte custody orders without holding or scheduling any proceedings and threatening incarceration should I take any action to prevent my son from leaving the United States alone – even where his orders were contrary to procedure, state and federal law, and the Hague Convention.

Judge Bertin manipulated the pleadings, delayed scheduling of hearings, and issued orders which caused criminal actions to be ‘not cognizable’ once they were no longer a part of the family court pleading from which it was split.

Judge Bertin failed to enforce Sonya Healy’s compliance, or sanction her contempt of ANY AND EVERY court order.

Judge Coonahan refused to act on Emergency Petitions, failed to enforce Sonya Healy’s compliance, or sanction her contempt of ANY AND EVERY court order, or to schedule any proceedings while the case was assigned to her.

Judge Barrett showed such extreme disrespect that his recusal was requested after the first hearing before him. It was granted.

Judge Carluccio took me for a complete fool who would believe everything she said no matter how preposterous.

Judge Carluccio failed to enforce Sonya Healy’s compliance, or sanction her contempt of ANY AND EVERY court order.

Whenever she realized that I was prepared for emergency hearings and had filed hearing statements, she would continue the proceedings; then, repeatedly reschedule in anticipation that I might not appear and the petitions would be dismissed for non-appearance. As a result, I had to be prepared for any and all of 15 petitions which had been outstanding and unheard for over a year.

When I appeared for an uncancelled hearing, based on an Order to Appear, Depuities were provided a false report of a threat. Opposing counsel and parties failed to appear after having indicated their understanding that the hearing was not cancelled in a letter to the court.

Judge Carluccio was corrupt and manipulative from her first action.

Judge Carluccio refused to recuse and was determined to do damage.

As the President of the Montgomery County Bar Association, Judge Carluccio always concealed the deliberate errors and misconduct of lawyers in her court – even where the lawyers actions caused the court to not have proper jurisdiction.

Judge Carluccio prevented the Appeal from delivery to Superior Court of Philadelphia.

Judge Haaz upon realizing that he had no jurisdiction for the hearing, ended the proceeding and instructed Court Administration to schedule it.

Judge Coonhan failed to schedule any proceeding while assigned the case.

Judge Page was assigned the case in December 2012. Though the court lacked jurisdiction while an appeal was pending in the Superior Court, Judge Page ordered the proceeding to occur.

Judge Page rescheduled the proceeding just about every day for a period of a month. An attempt to confuse and prevent the scheduling of witnesses.

Judge Page indicated during the hearing that I had plenty of time to schedule witnesses to appear even though he had only scheduled the proceeding the night before.

Judge Page ignored that he did not have proper jurisdiction to conduct a hearing.

Judge Page ignored the evidence of the defective divorce decree.

Judge Page ignored that there had been no evidence of contempt. Though Judge Carluccio’s orders were defective and void, I followed the orders.

Where orders were issued part on paper and part on the court record/transcript, Judge Page lacked documentation of the judge’s complete order.

Judge Page instead chose to issue an absurd order for over $300,000 in penalties for contempt to a party kept unemployed by years of constant litigation, and made destitute and homeless by judicial corruption and lawlessness.

The Montgomery County Judiciary continued to ignore their complete disregard for the law.

When seeking to appeal Judge Page’s Order, there was not one judge in the courthouse willing to hear the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. There had been multiple IFP’s filed over the years, each was ignored without proceedings.

Judge Wall having failed to issue any decision after two proceedings.

The judiciary was content that they had left me destitute and homeless and had deliberately perpetrated the disposal of everything I owned.

Judge Austin left me standing in the hallway outside her court for hours while she entertained guests in her courtroom, only to send out a member of her staff to indicate she would not conduct the IFP hearing.

At the end of the long day, Judge Page signed the IFP. The Appeal moved forward. Transcripts were ordered.

Once the Concise statement was delivered to his chambers, Judge Page revoked the IFP without any proceeding or explanation, further instructing the Court Reporters to NOT produce the transcripts.

To Appeal THAT corrupt and void order would require a judge to approve a new IFP. A new IFP must be filed for every action. Apparently, the fact that I was destitute and homeless and terrorized by litigation since 2007, was no reason to stop the injustice.

It became very clear that there was no denying that the corruption and injustice of the Montgomery County Judiciary was meant to compel my suicide. Something which I was not capable of delivering.

The County then failed to send the complete court records to the Superior Court. Even the exhibits from the proceeding before Judge Page were NOT included. The Superior Court denied a motion to compel without explanation. The Supreme Court would do the same. Even if they issued a Mandamus Order for the court to provide the paperwork, the lower court could refuse… BECAUSE TO PROVIDE THE COURT RECORD OF THE EXTREME INJUSTICE EXPERIENCED ON THE RECORD WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY.

I sent a short letter to the Judiciary of Montgomery County asking the direct question, “WHAT THE F%&K IS WRONG WITH YOU?” There was no response from any judge to the question.

In July 2013, I discovered the undocumented power (and purpose) of Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information.

Rule 1.6 was rolled out by the American Bar Association and enacted to prevent the prosecution of judges for judicial corruption and injustice. To protect the integrity of the Cook County Courts reeling from the sting of the FBI’s OPERATION GREYLORD, the AMA would undermine the judiciary in every state with the LAW which further MANDATED the compliciteness and participation of EVERY lawyer.

LAWYERS CANNOT FIX THE RULE 1.6 INJUSTICE. RULE 1.6 PREVENTS IT.

Each state Supreme Court aggressively enforces Rule 1.6. The state policy even conceals the entire situation where a lawyer admits to the violation and submits to the discipline – there is no publication, or public record of the lawyers violation of the rules of professional conduct. Where a case has been undermined by unethical and unscrupulous lawyers, all the lawyer need to do is admit it (in private) and they are permitted to continue the injustice… CONFIDENTIALITY.

The lawyers may then proceed further with complete disregard for due process and procedures, and the injustice continues with a judge trying to conceal the deliberate misconduct of the attorneys in the case. For example, Judge Page holding a hearing without jurisdiction while the matter is with the Superior Court. The failure to permit the first Appeal (August 2011)to proceed causes the corruption to continue, and to grow.

Healy v Healy includes more corrupt judges and courthouse personnel than the FBI’s Operation Greylord prosecuted and jailed.

The Courts were all hiding behind Rule 1.6 and preventing evidence and obstructing justice. The courts could ignore every law, procedure, constitution, etc by writing fiction in their Orders and Opinions.

It became necessary to address the loss of constitutionally protected rights. The loss was clearly evident without delving into the full story once the matter had arrived in Superior Court.

After the deadline for an Answer had passed for the Pennsylvania Attorney General and it was clear that the 56 state Attorneys General would default to restore people’s constitutional rights nationwide, a unexplained and unexcused late filing under an improper title was filed by an attoerney electronically without a signature purportedly on behalf of Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

The Eastern District Court follows Rule 1.6 as enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane could not violate the confidentiality of an employee in her office. As her staff are her clients, she is mandated to maintain confidentiality of information. EVEN WHERE HER LAWFUL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ACTION TO DEFAULT HAS BEEN UNDERMINED… and would further undermine the matter for the other 55 Attorneys General who have also defaulted in the matter.

The integrity of the Eastern District Judge was sacrificed as he failed to substantiate his decisions based on fiction and misinformation. Rule 1.6?s MANDATE of confidentiality had undermined it’s own constitutional challenge.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals follows Rule 1.6 as enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

In affirming the dismissal the Third Circuit panel neglected to present any facts which would support their decision. Their integrity was sacrificed pursuant to Rule 1.6 to conceal the injustice caused by Rule 1.6.

The Constitutional Challenge is currently being presented to President Barack Obama and the United States Congress concurrently with submission to the Supreme Court of the United States. A necessity as SCOTUS may not be lawfully permitted to address the corruption which the state judiciaries have caused IN EVERY STATE.

I posted the following ‘nominations’ to the WBTruth Exposing Corruption site.

They presented their list of Heroes & Villains on the steps of the Luzerne County Courthouse on July 17, 2014.

A few nominations…

Heroes… Todd Krautheim, Terance Healy
( Working to expose an unconstitutional law (improperly enacted in every state) which robs people of their rights, and prevents lawyers, judges and law enforcement from any action to expose it.)

Villains… The Wilkes Barre Law And Library Association
(aka… The Luzerne County Bar Association) The lawyers all know they must maintain silence/confidentiality where it would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. Silent Complicity.

CHALLENGE… Willian Ecenbarger. Heroes do NOT conceal the actions of Villains.
I might raise the question of the investigative journalist who seems to have switched sides. It would seem that William Ecenbarger, as a NON_LAWYER aware of the lawyers MANDATE OF CONFIDENTIALITY pursuant to Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, neglects to ever indicate the LAW which silenced the Luzerne County legal community in the face or extreme corruption. Though he is NOT mandated by law to conceal the impact of Rule 1.6, HE DID.

William Ecenbarger now conducts CLE classes for the Bar Association – The Psychology of Secrets.

I excuse Lourdes Rosado, Juvenile Justice Center, for failing to expose the impact of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality in the SILENCE surrounding corruption. As an attorney, she is mandated BY LAW to maintain the ‘dirty little secret’ of Rule 1.6.

The efforts of the Juvenile Justice Center exposed that the failure of the judiciary to recognize the damage they have caused extends to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It was the PA Supreme Court who enacted Rule 1.6. An act of unconstitutional magnitude which was made irreversible at the time it was enacted. Lawyers cannot reveal the damage caused by the law. Two non-lawyers could. AND, Healy and Krautheim did.

Villain… Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice – The commission failed to see themselves among “those who knew but failed to speak; those who saw but failed to act.” The commission fails to address their silence, while misdirecting blame to include public officials and private citizens who did speak and were ignored; who did act and were dismissed.

THE COMMISSION failed to indicate any impact of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of information.

THE COMMISSIONS MEMBERS
Judge John M. Cleland – – – – A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Judge James A. Gibbons – – – – A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Judge John C. Uhler – – – – A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Judge Dwayne Woodruff – – – – A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Kenneth J. Horoho, Jr, Esquire – – – – A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Jason A. Legg, Esquire – – – – A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Robert L. Listenbee, Jr. Esquire – – – – A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
George Mossee, Esquire – – – – A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Darren M. Breslin, Esquire – – – – A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Tod C. Allen
Valerie Bender
Ronald P. Williams

WITNESSES WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The president judge of Luzerne County – – – – A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
the former district attorney – – – – A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
the incumbent district attorney- – – – A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
the county public defender – – – – A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
assistant district attorneys – – – – A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
assistant public defenders – – – – A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
juvenile probation officials ???
former juvenile defendants ???
parents of juvenile defendants ???
school officials ???
county commissioners ???
officials of the Judicial Conduct Board judges and lawyers – – – – ALL mandated to follow Rule 1.6.

Silence, inaction, inexperience, fear of retaliation. Greed, ambition, carelessness. MAYBE.

BUT, There was no ignorance of the law requiring CONFIDENTIALITY… the Commission’s failure to act was deliberate and deceptive and calculating.

BTW, Rule 1.6 has a far broader effect than Attorney-Client Privilege. The mandate of confidentiality extends beyond a lawyers death.

Rule 1.6 mandates an obligation to maintain confidentiality where information
– would affect the integrity of the judiciary, or
– would reveal the misconduct of the lawyers office, or
– would expose individual liability of the lawyer, or
– would negatively impact their client.

Government lawyers are unsure of WHO their client even is…
– Public
– Government as a whole
– Branch of government in which employed
– Particular agency or department
– Responsible officers who make decisions with an agency or department.

Rule 1.6 concealed the single point of failure… itself.

THE COMMISSION CONCEALED THAT BIT OF INFORMATION.
– As a result, they took no true step towards preventing another scandal.
– They failed to protect the people.
– They failed to protect the judiciary from further corruption.

Far more frightening, these lawyers now know how to do it… and how to get away with it.

Ciavarella and Coonahan went to jail ONLY BECAUSE they were inept at money laundering.

Judge Gail Weilheimer has finally written her long delayed Opinion in Healy v Miller.

Thank You to Judge Weilheimer for demonstrating the Rule 1.6 impact so cleanly.

In the judge’s seven page opinion, Judge Weilheimer presents the techniques used by judges nationwide in the delivery of injustice and denial of facts, misdirected rule of law, and blindness to constitutional rights.

DO THESE JUDGES THINK THEY ARE FOOLING ANYONE?
THIS ‘GAME’ BEING PLAYED IS AT THE EXPENSE OF MY LIFE, MY FAMILY, MY LIBERTY.
CLEARLY, The judges DO NOT CARE about you, your family, the law, their integrity, your dignity, their lack of self-respect, your life, your liberty, their abuse of power, your civil rights, your human rights.

Rule 1.6 mandates concealing their corruption and injustice… and THAT IS WHAT THEY DO.

In their arrogance, they fail to address their fault and their responsibility for causing a nationwide constitutional crisis in the United States, while preventing any resolution to the sedition by the American Bar Association which has undermined the authority of every court in the country.

The initial complaint (Healy v Miller) was to have been filed in Montgomery Township in August 2013.

This filing was prevented by the Administrator for that court when she interrupted the proceeding, took the papers directly from Judge Andrea Duffy’s hands, and returned them to me indicating I should leave. As the judge had never before seen behavior like this from an Administrator, I requested the opportunity to explain. This is how a person is treated when they have no rights and no protection of the law.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was included as part of the documents submitted to the court. Judge Duffy had just experienced the affect of Rule 1.6. I informed her that as an American she cannot imagine being without her constitutional rights, and that was why she was unable to recognize and identify and explain the actions of her administrator.

What Judge Duffy had witnessed was a denial of access to the courts, and a prevention of any recourse for grievances. By procedure and Pennsylvania law, the Administrator could have forwarded the matter to the Common Pleas Court in Norristown. Instead, she interrupted a hearing, caused needless drama, involved the police. prevented other district court office personnel from action, and attempted to intimidate and threaten a litigant. Judge Duffy watched the judicial process being undermined in her own courtroom. The Administrator following instructions from Norristown to prevent or end any proceeding in the District Court.

The only way for a judge to maintain their integrity when Rule 1.6 is ‘in play’ is to do nothing. This has been demonstrated by Judge Haaz, and by Judge Boylan in Bucks County.

The complaint was filed October 3, 2013 in the Common Pleas Court.

[FIVE MONTHS LATER]

The hearing took place on March 5, 2014 with Judge Weilheimer ruling immediately at the end of the hearing.

The Appeal was filed on March 6, 2014.

Concise Statement was ordered and served upon the judge on March 27, 2014.

[THREE MONTHS LATER]

A Motion to Compel the Opinion was filed in June 2014, and ignored.

The Montgomery County Prothonotary had once again not sent the case file and court record to the Superior Court.

On July 1, 2014, The Superior Court of Pennsylvania sent a letter requesting the Opinion and case files from Montgomery County.

On July 14, 2014, The Motion to Strike A Defective and Void Order was filed with the Superior Court and served on the Miller’s and their attorney.

On July 18, 2014, Judge Weilheimer issued her Opinion.

Let’s count the ways in which Judge Weilheimer has twisted her words to conceal the truth. The truly offensive part is that the courts deliberate neglect shows carelessness and disregard for the litigants, the law, and the facts.

The court has been provided another opportunity to address the lack of jurisdiction which the court has IGNORED since June 2011. Over 75 times, the court has IGNORED the defective and void order issued without jurisdiction. Clearly, a litigant cannot cause the judicairy to be just and honest once a case has been corrupted pursuant to Rule 1.6.

QUESTION:
WHY HAS NO ONE PRESENTED ANY INFORMATION WHICH DEMONSTRATES THE ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION NECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO ISSUE A DIVORCE DECREE?

ANSWER:
THE COURT LACKED JURISDICTION. THE ORDER IS VOID AB INITIO.

PROBLEM:
WHERE JURISDICTION DID NOT EXIST, THERE IS NO ABILITY TO ASSERT JURISDICTION RETROACTIVELY.

The actions of Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio were not judicial, and are not excused by judicial immunity. The refusal to address the malicious abuse of power under color of law initiated by Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio further executed and denied review by county personnel is well documented.

Those actions demonstrate a conspiracy within the court involving extrinsic and intrinsic fraud which also affects the immunity of the prior judges who have acted improperly in this matter.

The Bottom line is Judge Weilheimer completely neglects to address the lack of jurisdiction for the Court to issue the Order of May 9, 2011.

Judge Weilheimer completely neglects to address the uncontested and unrefuted testimony in her court which demonstrated the lack of jurisdiction.

Judge Weilheimer completely neglects to address the lack of jurisdiction while ignoring the rule of law, precedents and case law which exist in state and federal courts.

The clear demonstration of her lack of integrity, the recently elected and sworn to office in January 2014, Judge Weilheimer presents that after less than 2 months serving on the Montgomery County bench she would deny a litigant justice in spite of overwhelming evidence and facts already on the court record to conceal the corruption of the Montgomery County judiciary.

Shameful. The only possible redemption would be for her to come out publicly in support of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6. The challenge was filed to restore the integrity of the judiciary. For Gail Weilheimer, there may be hope. By her own choice, Rule 1.6 stole her integrity.

Would she have the courage to regain some self-respect by preserving protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States.

For Rhonda Daniele and Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio, their malice and terroristic injustice designed to cause my suicide show they lack any inclination towards redemption.

The rest in varying degrees are in a similar situation. Judge Page crafted the proceeding in his court to deliver an injustice which could put me in jail to pay off over $300,000 in contempt charges. No amount of time in his twisted church will lessen the terror his injustice has caused to me, and to others.

JUSTICE IS COMING. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in that it denies litigants of their rights under the Constitution of the United States. It diminishes the victim to being destitute, homeless and forced to suffer continuing injustices.

Pictures at a Justice Rally assembled today by Congressional Candidate Andy Ostrowski.

Speakers included civil rights leader Jesse Epps, Todd Krautheim, Terance Healy, Diane Gochin, Gabriele Nicole Allen, John Kistler, Betsy Summers and Andy Ostrowski and others… JUSTICE IS COMING.

The irresponsibility of the Per Curiam Order is used when the courts seek to prevent the exposure of their corruption.

It requires more paperwork. Which they will further Per Curiam as there is no judge around who wished to sign an obviously corrupt order without any review of the matter.

It requires more paperwork. Ask about the Rule of Law, expect it to be DENIED PER CURIAM.

It requires more paperwork. Ask about the fact that the Motion was UNCONTESTED, expect it to be DENIED PER CURIAM.

It requires more paperwork. Their review was not discretionary, but mandatory. It was in the petition, but they likely never read it.

It requires more paperwork. Ask about an interlocutory appeal of that decision, expect it to be DENIED PER CURIAM.

AND it is almost an exact duplicate of a Motion to Strike in another case… where there can be no contest as no contrary information was presented during the hearing.

All the while, you provide reams of paper, a destitute person, homeless, below poverty level for years, begging from people for support and help, and the COURT WILL IGNORE PER CURIAM.

YOU WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO SURVIVE THIS LONG.
YOU WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO PERSEVERE.
YOU WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO FIND THE SOURCE OF THEIR CORRUPTION.
YOU WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO MEET THEIR DEADLINES.
You WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW THE LAW, RULES,etc WHICH ONLY APPLY TO YOUR DETRIMENT.
YOU LEFT THEM NOTHING BY WHICH YOU CAN BE FURTHER DENIED YOUR RIGHTS…
…SO THEY HAVE DENIED YOUR RIGHTS BASED ON NOTHING.

There is a reason they require you to exhaust any effort for resolution within the state before you may file in federal court. Exhaustion is another method – their coercion towards your suicide.

And the Court is too ashamed to even sign it, or date it, or explain what they can’t…
… because Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandates they say nothing as they ignore the Constitution, the law, the procedures, your civil rights, and your human rights without mercy.

And the one Rule that the Courts all follow… Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.
(BTW, it was not filed even on the date indicated. I was there. The ‘mistakes’ are endless.)

Every decision since the Constitutional Challenge was filed in August 2013 has been a Per Curiam order, unsigned and undated. No signatures. No dated. Per Curiam. Indecisions. Terror.

Corruption and Confidentiality for the purpose of denying Life, Liberty, and Justice.

Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio, Judge & President of the Bar Association & former US Attorneys Office employee, was NOT acting within any law which permitted her to issue the order. If she was lawful, they would indicate the law and be done. They don’t.

Instead, since May 2011, I am terrorized by a deliberate and intentionally defective and void order which cannot be addressed in any court because the malice it has caused attackes opn a daily basis and has tainted every county agency, every level of law enforcement, while the world watches every level of the courts corrupted and demonstrating their silence mandated by Rule 1.6… while the terror continues.

Rule 1.6 is a state law, enacted by EVERY state judiciary, which collaterally causes a denial of constitutional rights, the rule of law, and protection of the law. All under the guise of lawyer confidentiality. The lawyers keep silent vigil on the corruption and injustice not exposing the massive injustice caused nationwide by

The state disciplinary board’s aggressive enforcement of Rule 1.6 (which is kept confidential) keeps lawyers silent while purporting to protect an imagined judicial integrity. The rhetoric of the American Bar Association misdirects identification of the problem which they authored and recommended to every state judiciary.

The state supreme court has a conflict of interest because they enacted it, so we took it to federal court.

The federal district court improperly dismissed (and neglected to mention they were required to follow the PA version of Rule 1.6). #13-4614

The third circuit court affirmed and denied en banc review (while also neglecting to mention they were required to follow the PA version of Rule 1.6). #13-4591
________________________________________

We hereby present

a Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct

An unconstitutional law in every state which causes inescapable injustice and excuses and ignores judicial misconduct and corruption.

Rule 1.6 requires that Rule 1.6 be kept confidential.

Rule 1.6 requires the courts to conceal their corruption and injustice caused by Rule 1.6 – the same unconstitutional law being challenged.

Rule 1.6 is exposed; yet, the problem law still permits fraud, corruption and injustice to conceal itself.

Rule 1.6, an invalid and void unconstitutional law, is relentless.

PREEMPTION

Befitting a constitutional law, doctrine or statute, federal preemption continues to draw the interest and resources of the highest court in the land.

The U.S. Supreme Court accepts petitions for certiori and decides preemption cases.

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

The Supremacy Clause provides that the Constitution, and the laws and treaties stemming from it, are the supreme law of the land.

U.S. CONSTITUTION. Article VI, clause 2.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The Supreme Court has held that when there is a conflict between a state and federal law, the state law is invalidated because the federal law is supreme.

Even a state regulation designed to protect the state’s vital interest must yield because
“under the Supremacy Clause, from which our preemption doctrine is derived, ‘any state law, however clearly within a State’s acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.’”

The Supreme Court defined preemption to “be either express or implied, and is compelled whether Congress’ command is explicitly stated in the statute’s language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose.”

PREEMPTION JURISPRUDENCE

The Constitution itself has already clearly made and announced the fundamental judgment regarding the relation of federal and state power: so long as the federal government has the constitutional power to enact the law, then the federal law is granted supremacy over conflicting state actions.

There are numerous instances of the Supreme Court, and lower courts, stating that the process of determining appropriate preemption is an inquiry into congressional intent; however, the intent of the Constitution is clearly to preempt every state law which would abridge, diminish, subvert or deny rights and privileges which were secured for the People.

But the roots of the doctrine are most clearly seen in Marbury v. Madison, where Chief Justice Marshall stated: “The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW

The legitimacy of construction by an unelected entity in a republican or democratic system becomes an issue whenever the construction is controversial, as it frequently is.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

Conceding, in 1934, the limited competence of legislative bodies to establish a comprehensive system of court procedure, and acknowledging the inherent power of courts to regulate the conduct of their business, Congress authorized the Supreme Court to prescribe rules for the lower federal courts not inconsistent with the Constitution and statutes.

Their operation being restricted, in conformity with the proviso attached to the congressional authorization, to matters of pleading and practice, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure thus judicially promulgated neither affect the substantive rights of litigants nor alter the jurisdiction of federal courts and the venue of actions therein and, thus circumscribed, have been upheld as valid.

Under the Rules Enabling Act, procedural rules may not modify “any substantive right” but laws in conflict with the rules are “of no further force or effect.”

While Challenging Rule 1.6 of the Rules Of Professional Conduct, the Federal Court was obligated under Rule 1.6 to dismiss the matter but neglected to indicate the reason. Rule 1.6 mandates they conceal that Rule 1.6 is the reason. Instead, like a child caught by surprise, they just made stuff up…

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND

The Judiciary may make rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
Federal Courts may make rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
Federal Courts may make local rules, unless they violate substantive rights.

States may enact laws, unless they violate substantive rights.
State Judiciary may enact rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
Local state courts may make local rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
The Rules of Professional Conduct have been enacted into law, unless they violate substantive rights.

The Federal Court Local Rules for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania adopt the Rules of Professional Conduct enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania which includes Rule 1.6 which violates substantive rights provided in the Constitution of the United States.

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

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

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.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 83(a) allows for Local Rules under 28 USC § 2072 and 2074.

28 U.S.C. § 2072(b)
“Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.”

28 U.S. Code § 2072 – Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe
(a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals.
(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.
(c) Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section 1291 of this title.

28 U.S. Code § 2074 – Rules of procedure and evidence; submission to Congress; effective date
(a) The Supreme Court shall transmit to the Congress not later than May 1 of the year in which a rule prescribed under section 2072 is to become effective a copy of the proposed rule. Such rule shall take effect no earlier than December 1 of the year in which such rule is so transmitted unless otherwise provided by law. The Supreme Court may fix the extent such rule shall apply to proceedings then pending, except that the Supreme Court shall not require the application of such rule to further proceedings then pending to the extent that, in the opinion of the court in which such proceedings are pending, the application of such rule in such proceedings would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former rule applies.
(b) Any such rule creating, abolishing, or modifying an evidentiary privilege shall have no force or effect unless approved by Act of Congress.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Local Rule 83.6(IV)(b)(para 2)
“The Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by this court are the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania…”

THE RULE-MAKING POWER AND POWERS OVER PROCESS

Among the incidental powers of courts is that of making all necessary rules governing their process and practice and for the orderly conduct of their business. However, this power too is derived from the statutes and cannot go beyond them.

LIMITATIONS TO THE RULE MAKING POWER.

The principal function of court rules is that of regulating the practice of courts as regards forms, the operation and effect of process, and the mode and time of proceedings. However, rules are sometimes employed to state in convenient form principles of substantive law previously established by statutes or decisions.

But no such rule “can enlarge or restrict jurisdiction. Nor can a rule abrogate or modify the substantive law.”

This rule is applicable equally to courts of law, equity, and admiralty, to rules prescribed by the Supreme Court for the guidance of lower courts, and to rules “which lower courts make for their own guidance under authority conferred.”

As incident to the judicial power, courts of the United States possess inherent authority to supervise the conduct of their officers, parties, witnesses, counsel, and jurors by self-preserving rules for the protection of the rights of litigants and the orderly administration of justice.

The courts of the United States possess inherent equitable powers over their process to prevent abuse, oppression, and injustice, and to protect their jurisdiction and officers in the protection of property in the custody of law.

Such powers are said to be essential to and inherent in the organization of courts of justice.

The courts of the United States also possess inherent power to amend their records, correct the errors of the clerk or other court officers, and to rectify defects or omissions in their records even after the lapse of a term, subject, however, to the qualification that the power to amend records conveys no power to create a record or re-create one of which no evidence exists.

JURISDICTION – CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY

Congress’s authority is limited by provisions of the Constitution such as the Due Process Clause, so that a limitation on jurisdiction that denied a litigant access to any remedy might be unconstitutional.

Congress is also free to legislate away prudential restraints and confer standing to
the extent permitted by Article III.

“Congress may grant an express right of action to persons who otherwise would be barred by prudential standing rules. Of course, Art. III’s requirement remains: the plaintiff still must allege a distinct and palpable injury to himself, even if it is an injury shared by a large class of other possible litigants.”
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975). That is, the actual or threatened injury required may exist solely by virtue of “statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing, even though no injury would exist without the statute.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617 n. 3 (1973); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 493 n.2 (1974). Examples include United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669 (1973); Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (1972); Gladstone Realtors v. Village ofBellwood, 441 U.S. 91 (1979). See also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 8 n.4, 11–12 (1976). For a good example of the congressionally created interest and the injury to it, see Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 373–75 (1982) (Fair Housing Act created right to truthful information on availability of housing; black tester’s right injured through false information, but white tester not injured because he received truthful information). It is clear, however, that the Court will impose separation-of-powers restraints on the power of Congress to create interests to which injury would give standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 571–78 (1992). Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Lujan, reiterated the separation-of-powers objection to congressional conferral of standing in FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 29, 36 (1998) (alleged infringement of President’s “take care” obligation), but this time in dissent; the Court did not advert to this objection in finding that Congress had provided for standing based on denial of information to which the plaintiffs, as voters, were entitled.

NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE – Scope and Operation

Clause 18.
The Congress shall have Power * * * To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Necessary and Proper Clause, sometimes called the “coefficient” or “elastic” clause, is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress. Chief Justice Marshall’s classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland 1818 set the standard in words that reverberate to this day. “Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end.

JURISDICTION – SUPREME COURT

Implicit in the argument of Marbury v. Madison is the thought that the Court is obligated
to take and decide cases meeting jurisdictional standards.

“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404, (1821).

DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

But one who challenges a statute or possible administrative action need demonstrate only a realistic danger of sustaining an injury to his rights as a result of the statute’s operation and enforcement and need not await the consummation of the threatened injury in order to obtain preventive relief, such as exposing himself to actual arrest or prosecution. When one alleges an intention to engage in conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest but proscribed by statute and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he may bring an action for declaratory or injunctive relief.

Similarly, the reasonable certainty of the occurrence of the perceived threat to a constitutional interest is sufficient to afford a basis for bringing a challenge, provided the court has sufficient facts before it to enable it to intelligently adjudicate the issues.

JURISDICTION – EXECUTIVE ORDER

The Constitution was clearly intended to preempt state law.

Where state constitutions may not delegate statutory authority which exceeds the limits of authority and infringes upon the substantial rights protected by the Constitution of the United States law, Executive departments and agencies shall construe, in regulations and otherwise, a Federal statute to preempt State law only when the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other firm and palpable evidence compelling the conclusion that the Congress intended preemption of State law, or when the exercise of State authority directly conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute….

Respectfully,

We petition the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Congress and the President of the United States to take immediate action to repeal the rule, legislate a constitutional amendment or issue an executive order which indicates that Rule 1.6 which causes a collateral loss of constitutional rights and protection of the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and a nullity.

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

Rule 1.6 is a state law, enacted by EVERY state judiciary, which collaterally causes a denial of constitutional rights, the rule of law, and protection of the law. All under the guise of lawyer confidentiality. THE LAWYERS KEEP SILENT VIGIL ON THE CORRUPTION AND INJUSTICE. They know better… but fear exposing the massive injustice caused by Rule 1.6.

The state disciplinary board’s aggressive enforcement of Rule 1.6 (which is kept confidential) keeps lawyers silent while purporting to protect an imagined judicial integrity. The rhetoric of the American Bar Association misdirects identification of the problem which they authored and recommended.

The state supreme court has a conflict of interest because they enacted it, so we took it to federal court.
The district court improperly dismissed (and neglected to mention they were required to follow the PA version of Rule 1.6).
The third circuit court affirmed and denied en banc review (while also neglecting to mention they were required to follow the PA version of Rule 1.6).

Rule 1.6 requires that Rule 1.6 be kept confidential.

Rule 1.6 requires the courts to conceal their corruption and injustice caused by Rule 1.6 – the very unconstitutional law being challenged.

Even where you know the problem law (Rule 1.6), the problem law was permitting fraud, corruption and injustice to conceal itself.

Rule 1.6, an invalid and void unconstitutional law, is relentless.

But, Rule 1.6 is exposed and IT’S DAYS ARE NUMBERED.

I promised Sandy Fonzo that I would provide the Cash for Kids families with closure by exposing how it happened and by making sure it was prevented in the future.

Every. Person. Matters.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

Befitting a constitutional law, doctrine or statute, federal preemption continues to draw the interest and resources of the highest court in the land.

The U.S. Supreme Court accepts petitions for certiori and decides preemption cases.

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

The Supremacy Clause provides that the Constitution, and the laws and treaties stemming from it, are the supreme law of the land.

The Supreme Court has held that when there is a conflict between a state and federal law, the state law is invalidated because the federal law is supreme.

Even a state regulation designed to protect the state’s vital interest must yield because
“under the Supremacy Clause, from which our preemption doctrine is derived, ‘any state law, however clearly within a State’s acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.’”

The Supreme Court defined preemption to “be either express or implied, and is compelled whether Congress’ command is explicitly stated in the statute’s language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose.”

Preemption Jurisprudence

The Constitution itself has already clearly made and announced the fundamental judgment
regarding the relation of federal and state power: so long as the federal government has the constitutional power to enact the law, then the federal law is granted supremacy over conflicting state actions.

There are numerous instances of the Supreme Court, and lower courts, stating that the process of determining appropriate preemption is an inquiry into congressional intent; however,the intent of the Constitution is clearly to preempt every state law which would abridge, diminish, subvert or deny rights and privileges which were secured for the People.

But the roots of the doctrine are most clearly seen in Marbury v. Madison, where
Chief Justice Marshall stated: “The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW

The legitimacy of construction by an unelected entity in a republican or democratic system becomes an issue whenever the construction is controversial, as it frequently is.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

Conceding, in 1934, the limited competence of legislative bodies to establish a comprehensive system of court procedure, and acknowledging the inherent power of courts to regulate the conduct of their business, Congress authorized the Supreme Court to prescribe rules for the lower federal courts not inconsistent with the Constitution and statutes.

Their operation being restricted, in conformity with the proviso attached to the congressional authorization, to matters of pleading and practice, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure thus judicially promulgated neither affect the substantive rights of litigants nor alter the jurisdiction of federal courts and the venue of actions therein and,thus circumscribed, have been upheld as valid.

Under the Rules Enabling Act, procedural rules may not modify “any substantive right” but laws in conflict with the rules are “of no further force or effect.”

While Challenging Rule 1.6 of the Rules Of Professional Conduct, the Federal Court was obligated under Rule 1.6 to dismiss the matter but neglected to indicate the reason. Rule 1.6 mandates they conceal that Rule 1.6 is the reason. Instead, like a child caught by surprise, they just made stuff up…

To recap…
The Constitution is Supreme law.
Judiciary may make rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
Federal Courts may make rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
Federal Courts may make local rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
States may enact laws, unless they violate substantive rights.
State Judiciary may enact rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
Local state courts may make local rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
The Rules of Professional Conduct have been enacted into law, unless they violate substantive rights.
(Even if they do so collaterally to non-lawyers who are not mandated by them.)

No matter how deeply they bury the mandate of Rule 1.6… THEY MAY NOT VIOLATE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.
The Courts know this. The lawyers know this. So, why are they violating your rights?

They hide behind their Rule 1.6 Confidentiality and deny your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, … jail your children, steal your house, or destroy your life. They know what they are doing is ultimately unlawful. 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.

The Rule-Making Power and Powers Over Process

Among the incidental powers of courts is that of making all necessary rules governing their process and practice and for the orderly conduct of their business. However, this power too is derived from the statutes and cannot go beyond them.

Limitations to The Rule Making Power.

The principal function of court rules is that of regulating the practice of courts as regards forms, the operation and effect of process, and the mode and time of proceedings. However, rules are sometimes employed to state in convenient form principles of substantive law previously established by statutes or decisions.

But no such rule “can enlarge or restrict jurisdiction. Nor can a rule abrogate or modify the substantive law.”

This rule is applicable equally to courts of law, equity, and admiralty, to rules prescribed by the Supreme Court for the guidance of lower courts, and to rules “which lower courts make for their own guidance under authority conferred.”

As incident to the judicial power, courts of the United States possess inherent authority to supervise the conduct of their officers, parties, witnesses, counsel, and jurors by self-preserving rules for the protection of the rights of litigants and the orderly administration of justice.

The courts of the United States possess inherent equitable powers over their process to prevent abuse, oppression, and injustice, and to protect their jurisdiction and officers in the protection of property in the custody of law. 332

Such powers are said to be essential to and inherent in the organization of courts of justice.

The courts of the United States also possess inherent power to amend their records, correct the errors of the clerk or other court officers, and to rectify defects or omissions in their records even after the lapse of a term, subject, however, to the qualification that the power to amend records conveys no power to create a record or re-create one of which no evidence exists.

JURISDICTION – Congressional Authority

Congress’s authority is limited by provisions of the Constitution such as the Due Process Clause, so that a limitation on jurisdiction that denied a litigant access to any remedy might
be unconstitutional.

Congress is also free to legislate away prudential restraints and confer standing to
the extent permitted by Article III.

Clause 18. The Congress shall have Power * * * To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE – Scope and Operation

The Necessary and Proper Clause, sometimes called the “coefficient” or “elastic” clause, is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress. Chief Justice Marshall’s classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland 1818 set the standard in words that reverberate to this day. “Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end.

JURISDICTION – Supreme Court

Implicit in the argument of Marbury v. Madison is the thought that the Court is obligated
to take and decide cases meeting jurisdictional standards.

“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404, (1821).

DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

But one who challenges a statute or possible administrative action need demonstrate only a realistic danger of sustaining an injury to his rights as a result of the statute’s operation and enforcement and need not await the consummation of the threatened injury in order to obtain preventive relief, such as exposing himself to actual arrest or prosecution. When one alleges an intention to engage in conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest but proscribed by statute and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he may bring an action for declaratory or injunctive relief.

Similarly, the reasonable certainty of the occurrence of the perceived threat to a constitutional interest is sufficient to afford a basis for bringing a challenge, provided the court has sufficient facts before it to enable it to intelligently adjudicate the issues. 549

EXECUTIVE ORDER

The Constitution was clearly intended to preempt state law.

Where state constitutions may not delegate statutory authority which exceeds the limits of authority and infringes upon the substantial rights protected by the Constitution of the UNited Stateslaw, Executive departments and agencies shall construe, in regulations and otherwise, a Federal statute to preempt State law only when the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other firm and palpable evidence compelling the conclusion that the Congress intended preemption of State law, or when the exercise of State authority directly conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute….

Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the opinion of the court in Marbury vs Madison. Chief Justice Marshall did not foresee or imagine the judiciary would themselves enact an unconstitutional law and would further act to conceal their corruption.

Where Rule 1.6 has been enacted into law in each state by the state judiciary… I adapt and annotate (with credit to Chief Justice John Marshall and notes by Warren Michelson).

The challenge to the constitutionality of a law
(1) improperly enacted by the state judiciary
(2) where a review by the state supreme court would be biased and show conflict of interest
(3) the district court has refused to review the constitutional challenge
(4) the district court has prevented a default by the Executive branch of EVERY state
(5) the district court has dismissed the matter without substantiation in fact, law or doctrine
(6) the circuit court has affirmed that improper dismissal
(7) the circuit court has denied reconsideration en banc
NOW, (8) the plaintiffs present the case to the Supreme Court of the United States concurrently presenting to the United States Congress and the President.

The question, whether a law enacted by the judiciary, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a revision to the question still deeply interesting to the United States. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

The question is whether or not unconstitutional laws when enacted by the judiciary can become “the law of the land,” which they certainly can not.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis, on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns, to different departments, their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the judiciary are defined, and limited; as are those of the executive and legislative and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.

To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?

The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation.

It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any law repugnant to it even where enacted by the judiciary; and, that the legislature must alter the constitution when necessity requires action.

Between these alternatives there is a middle ground. The constitution is a superior, paramount law, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall have necessity to alter it.

Where a law enacted by the judiciary contrary to the constitution is not law and has been prevented from any review by the self-appointed sole arbitor of all things constitutional: the authority of the legislature is mandated to action unless written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to undermine and ignore a power without limits.

The problem is that laws enacted by the judiciary “contrary to the constitution” can be enforced just like the constitutional ones to the detriment of the entire country.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that a law enacted by the judiciary, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

If a law enacted by the judiciary, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law?

This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It must, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

Here we challenge a law enacted by the Judicial branch. Under the current paradigm, the only avenue available for resolution is to bring suit in a federal court. Can the judiciary be unbiased in such a matter? No. The judiciary has emphatically demonstrated bias with determined and deliberate intent.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is the very essence of judicial duty while having been carelessly neglected, unlawfully denied, and improperly dismissed without substantiation in law or doctrine by the court and that negligence affirmed by the judges of the court without reconsideration or review en banc; even after the Executive Branch in each state by and through the state Attorney General had demonstrated the intent and lawfully acted to default in the matter.

It is the unlawful actions of the Judicial which have caused the necessity which require the matter to be brought to the Legislative and Executive.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature or the judiciary; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the judiciary shall do what is expressly forbidden, such law, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the judiciary a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

Given the manner in which the current system operates, and where the challenged unconstitutional law has been concealed from public view while unconstitutional results have undermined the authority and integrity of the government, constitutional “limits may be passed at pleasure” where the ease of enacting law under the guise of authority, without review during construction of unconstitutional aspects, encounter the extreme difficulty of challenging unconstitutional laws.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions — a written constitution — would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favor of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read, or to obey? There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject. It is declared that “no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.” Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the constitution, and only see the law. The constitution declares that “no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.”

If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it; must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavors to preserve?

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on the subject. It is in these words, “I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States.”

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

Unconstitutional laws are void and that the courts must adhere to the Constitution. The Constitution is, after all, the supreme Law of the Land. Of course courts must adhere to and enforce Constitutional limits. This is not the same as saying that the courts are the sole arbiters for determining what the Constitution means and when a law is “repugnant” to it. Most certainly where the courts have acted irresponsibly with intent attempting to conceal their own undoing and failure from view.

For one to believe that the founders intended the federal government to police itself, one would have to believe that the founders expected the Judiciary to be infallible. While one might expect the Judicial branch to hold the Executive and Legislative to their Constitutional limits, who is to do the same for the Judicial?

If the Supreme Court is the sole and final arbiter of what is and isn’t constitutional, then Constitutional “limits may be passed at pleasure” — at the pleasure of the Supreme Court, and there are no effective limits on the government created by the Constitution.

We hereby petition the United States Congress and the President of the United States on behalf of the People to address with haste this calamity as the corruption of the judicial branch threatens the country at it’s very foundation. The Law is for the protection of the people. The Constitution does not exist to be usurped and improperly wielded to conceal the manipulated and the corrupt.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

Where a law enacted by the judiciary contrary to the constitution is not law and has been prevented from any review by the self-appointed sole arbitor of all things constitutional: the authority of the legislature is mandated to action unless written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to undermine and ignore a power without limits.

The system of justice will either protect citizens from tyranny or be one means by which tyranny is exercised over them. Thomas Jefferson

‘All the tranquility, the happiness and security of mankind rest on justice, on the obligation to respect the rights of others.'” –Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on French Treaties, 1793

“No nation however powerful, any more than an individual, can be unjust with impunity. Sooner or later, public opinion, an instrument merely moral in the beginning, will find occasion physically to inflict its sentences on the unjust… The lesson is useful to the weak as well as the strong.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1804

“No nation can answer for perfect exactitude of proceedings in all their inferior courts. It suffices to provide a supreme judicature where all error and partiality will be ultimately corrected.” –Thomas Jefferson to George Hammond, 1792.

“The law of self-preservation overrules the laws of obligation in others.” –Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on French Treaties, 1793

“The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people and every blessing of society depend so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checks upon that.” –Thomas Jefferson to George Wythe, 1776

“At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” –Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823.

“I do not charge the judges with wilful and ill-intentioned error; but honest error must be arrested where its toleration leads to public ruin. As for the safety of society, we commit honest maniacs to Bedlam; so judges should be withdrawn from their bench whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or in fortune; but it saves the republic, which is the first and supreme law.” –Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.” –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825

“The judges certainly have more frequent occasion to act on constitutional questions, because the laws of meum and tuum and of criminal action, forming the great mass of the system of law, constitute their particular department. When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough… The people themselves,… [with] their discretion [informed] by education, [are] the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” –Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.

“[How] to check these unconstitutional invasions of… rights by the Federal judiciary? Not by impeachment in the first instance, but by a strong protestation of both houses of Congress that such and such doctrines advanced by the Supreme Court are contrary to the Constitution; and if afterwards they relapse into the same heresies, impeach and set the whole adrift. For what was the government divided into three branches, but that each should watch over the others and oppose their usurpations?” –Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821.

“So long as [the principles of our revolution] prevail, we are safe from everything which can assail us from without or within.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Lambert, 1810.

“[When] corruption.. has prevailed in those offices [of]… government and [has] so familiarized itself as that men otherwise honest could look on it without horror,… [then we must] be alive to the suppression of this odious practice and… bring to punishment and brand with eternal disgrace every man guilty of it, whatever be his station.” –Thomas Jefferson to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1804.

‘When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.'” –Thomas Jefferson

“Whenever our affairs go obviously wrong, the good sense of the people will interpose and set them to rights.” –Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789.

“One single object… [will merit] the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.” –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825

Where the judiciary enacts an unconstitutional law, there is no ability to review the constitutionality of the law by the legislative or executive branches.

Where the judiciary will not review the constitutionality of their law, People are denied rights protected by the constitution without any possible recourse.

Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct has been enacted into law by the judiciary in every state.

The Rules of Professional Conduct apply to lawyers and legal professionals including judges.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality prevents a lawyer from presenting ‘confidential information’ during a legal proceeding, and excuses the lawyer’s failure to address or counter the information presented by the opposing party.

Where an unrepresented party presents true and factual information to the court, a judge is prevented from including that true and factual information in rulings and opinions where mandated to maintain confidentiality.

Further, the court is prevented from providing any explanation for the ommission of true and factual information and testimony.

In ongoing litigation and appeals, any attempt by an unrepresented party to have the court address that true and factual information is similarly omitted and ignored without explanation.

The lawyer on the appeal is limited where the information was not addressed during the hearings – even where that lawyer is responsible to respond to the challenge to the court’s jurisdiction.

“True and factual information’ includes the court docket and record, the Law, a state constitution, and the Constitution of the United States.

“True and factual information” which is neglected is NOT the result of credibility determinations.

The integrity of the court is affected when the judiciary is mandated to injustice without ability to explain.

“Judicial independence does not just happen all by itself. It is tremendously hard to create, and easier than most people imagine to destroy.” – Sandra Day O’Connor, Supreme Court of the United States

Alexander Hamilton remarked that “a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws is essential, because no man can be sure that he may not be tomorrow the victim of a spirit of injustice.”

President Woodrow Wilson wrote, government “keeps it promises, or does not keep them, in its courts. For the individual, therefore,… the struggle for constitutional government is a struggle for good laws, indeed, but also for intelligent, independent, and impartial courts.”

The Founders knew that statutes and constitutions do not protect our judicial independence — people do.

While Rule 1.6 duty of confidentiality is closely related to the attorney-client privilege, it is broader in scope.

Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information where the information
– would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary,
– would reveal misconduct of their own office,
– would expose individual liability,
– would adversely affect their client.

Where a government attorney’s clients include
– Public
– Government as a whole
– Branch of government in which employed
– Particular agency or department
– Responsible officers who make decisions with an agency or department

It would seem that Rule 1.6 was designed to conceal public corruption, judicial corruption, and injustice. District Attorneys, Prosecutors or Attorneys General were clearly mandated to ignore Kids For Cash, Foreclosures through fraud, and other injustices by pretending they don’t exist… and having lawyers write reports which fail to explain the Rule 1.6 confidentiality which undermined their effort.

It would seems that Rule 1.6 was designed to conceal corruption… BECAUSE IT WAS ENACTED INTO LAW in response to the FBI’s Operation Greylord to prevent judges from being prosecuted for corruption.

The American Bar Association failed to understand that the integrity of the judiciary is not protected by destroying the integrity of the judiciary, undermining judicial authority and usurping the authority of the Executive branch and the Legislature.

Rule 1.6 is so wrong… It’s evil.