A Terroristic Divorce

Each time there has been a prosecution or the public has been made aware of judicial corruption, misconduct and injustice, the state Supreme Courts modify Rule 1.6 and the Rules of Professional Conduct to close the loophole. This leaves a trail of ‘breadcrumbs’ which demonstrates the true purpose for enacting the ‘rules’ into law without constitutional review, legislative oversight or a governors signature.

Where in the Constitution does it permit the Judiciary to enact trade rules for any profession. Just because lawyers conduct ‘some’ work in courts, WHY DO THE JUDICIARY BELIEVE THEY CAN MAKE THE LAW FOR THE ENTIRE LEGAL PROFESSION and allow those rules to deny constitutional rights.

There are toilets in the courthouses, does that place the plumbing code under the purview of the state supreme court? I don’t think so.

WHO PERMITTED THE JUDICIARY TO DENY PEOPLE’s RIGHTS IN ANY PROCESS? That’s not in any constitution that I have read.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality has caused the Constitutional Crisis in America.

Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional.

As such, the state supreme courts had no authority to enact law.

Why did the American Bar Association put them up to it? Why have the state and federal Courts neglected and ignored the Constitutional rights of EVERY AMERICAN simply because they made a HUGE mistake and refuse to own up to it?

Nationwide Foreclosures based on fraudulent documents.
Kids for Cash in Luzerne County PA.
Incarceration of the Innocent to fill private prisons.
Widespead injustice causing families to be destitute, homeless and suicidal.

Continued our delivery of the letters to US Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick at his office in Newtown, PA…

On the way back we stopped for a delivery and DISCUSSION of the issues at the office of PA Representative Tom Murt in Hatboro, PA.

The following letters were included in the package. Each is different and exposes a different aspect of the Unconstitutional Effect of Rule 1.6.

– Letter to Governor Tom Corbett, Sheriffs of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Legislature, and the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. PDF version
– Letter to President Barack Obama. PDF version
– Letter to US Senator Toomey and Senator Casey. PDF version
– Letter to the Senators of the 113th Congress. PDF version
– Letter to the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary. PDF version
– Letter to the Sheriffs of Pennsylvania. PDF version
– Letter to the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee. PDF version
– Letter to US House of Representatives. PDF version
– Letter to US House Committee on the Judiciary. PDF version
– Letter to Governors of the US. PDF version
– Letter to Governor Tom Corbett. PDF version
– Letter to the Pennsylvania Senators. PDF version
– Letter to the Pennsylvania Representatives. PDF version

While the Fax machine was cooling off…

We set out to hand deliver copies of the correspondence to the state representative and senators who have local offices.

First stop, Pennsylvania Representatives Marquerite Quinn’s office. Hand delivered the following documents and reviewed the issue with a member of her staff.

– Letter to Governor Tom Corbett, Sheriffs of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Legislature, and the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. PDF version
– Letter to President Barack Obama. PDF version
– Letter to US Senator Toomey and Senator Casey. PDF version
– Letter to the Senators of the 113th Congress. PDF version
– Letter to the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary. PDF version
– Letter to the Sheriffs of Pennsylvania. PDF version
– Letter to the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee. PDF version
– Letter to US House of Representatives. PDF version
– Letter to US House Committee on the Judiciary. PDF version
– Letter to Governors of the US. PDF version
– Letter to Governor Tom Corbett. PDF version
– Letter to the Pennsylvania Senators. PDF version
– Letter to the Pennsylvania Representatives. PDF version

Next, Pennsylvania Representative Kathy Watson’s office. Where a discussion about the failure to schedule a meeting for almost a year lead to a long discussion of the matter and the necessity to have a discussion with Rep. Watson. Hand delivered the same series of document as above.

Next, Pennsylvania Representative Todd Stephens was caught in his office. Delivered the letters to an unaware Todd Stephens who sat down for a brief meeting. The meeting reached the point where Rep Stephens attempted to indicate that the Courts can ignore constitutional rights because the courts decide if they are ignoring your constitutional rights. NO TODD, THEY CAN’T.

IS TODD STEPHENS A COMPLETE MORON WHEN IT COMES TO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?

REP TODD STEPHENS WAS WRONG ON EVERY LEVEL BUT MOST CERTAINLY CONSTITUTIONALLY. Upon that descent into ridonculous, the meeting ended.

Rep Todd Stephens is on the Judiciary Committee. He knows better. OR HE OUGHTA. Even in lawyer night school they surely teach that the constitution is the ‘supreme law of the land’. NOBODY CAN DENY RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

Next, A stop at Senator Greenleaf’s office. Where his Chief of Staff could be overheard to say “I DON’T WANT TO SEE HIM” – – which once overheard may explain the change of heart. Hand delivered the letters and asked AGAIN for a meeting with the Senator. Senator Greenleaf’s office and staff know me. They know how disastrous and malicious the Montgomery County judiciary have been. Yet, they just won’t schedule a meeting with the Senator.

Senator Greenleaf is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He knows exactly what problem I am raising. AND HE IS AVOIDING THE ISSUE… it seems he’s been there since it was created. A knowledgeable co-conspirator?

Back to the office to check out the fax… which was taking a break after a long hard week.

August 3, 2014

Governor Tom Corbett
Sheriffs of Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Legislature
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information was applicable to the ‘Sandusky Report’. As such, the report presented a very skewed version of events because the mandate of confidentiality undermined it from any impact. For example, we present a possible disclaimer which clearly was not included with the report.

Disclaimer
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, the Attorney General’s office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers.
The Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandate confidentiality of client information where the information
– would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
– would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office,
– would expose individual liability,
– would adversely affect their client.

Office of the Attorney General
The Report from the Attorney General regarding the investigation of Gerald Sandusky may not legally present:
– anything which exposes a negative impact of the judiciary
– anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Tom Corbett
– anything which exposes misconduct of Governor Tom Corbett
– anything which exposes misconduct of Acting Attorney General William H. Ryan, Jr
– anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Linda Kelly
– anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Kathleen Kane
– anything which exposes misconduct of the Attorney General’s office
– anything which exposes misconduct of Frank Fina
– anything which exposes misconduct the Commonwealth
– anything which exposes misconduct of any state agency
– anything which exposes misconduct, participation or acts of obstruction by any of the above in their individual capacity, or as a conspiracy

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
– anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 3, 2009
– anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on May 2, 2009
– anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 9, 2012
– anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 18, 2012
– anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on June 16, 2012
– anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on July 4, 2012
– anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on November 21, 2013
– anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to create, modify or fine tune any “LAW” regarding the Confidentiality of Email concealed within the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Report Production
Further, acting as Attorney General, Kathleen Kane contracted the creation of the report to Widener University law professor and former federal prosecutor H. Geoffrey Moulton.
(You might say “Kathleen Kane is his client.” and that the Rules of Professional Conduct mandate his confidentiality for her protection. Because, SHE IS… and IT DOES.)

Constitutionally
The Report additionally will not contain any information regarding the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION which was filed in federal court on August 8, 2013 (by two men who do not have to maintain confidentiality) seeking to restore the constitutional rights of litigants while restoring the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession and to deliver to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.

The Challenge has been presented to President Barack Obama and the United States Congress where every level of the state and federal judiciary have ignored the clear evidence of the Courts’ denial of constitutional rights and demonstrated their own actions to prevent resolution of the matter which was served to fifty-six states attorneys general – all of whom defaulted on the matter — YET, THE COURT IGNORED THEIR DELIBERATE DEFAULT.

Political Campaign
Yes, Kathleen Kane shot her mouth off during her campaign for Attorney General of Pennsylvania,
AND
Kathleen Kane promised to investigate Attorney General Tom Corbett’s mishandling of the Sandusky case,
AND
Kathleen Kane believed Corbett to be stalling the case so it would not impact his run for Governor,
AND
Kathleen Kane was elected to the position of Attorney General,
AND
Kathleen Kane has an obligation to the People of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

BUT, as Attorney General, these corrupt and incompetent horses asses are NOW her clients, her boss, and her staff… The RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT mandate her confidentiality.

Pennsylvania State Police
With regard to the non-participation of the Pennsylvania State Police in the preparation and assembly of this report…. Did someone tell the PA State Police that we wouldn’t publish anything they might have to say because of the confidentiality mandate? The State Police participation would have potentially required a great deal of redaction and editing.

The Pennsylvania State Police do NOT have a Confidentiality Mandate. If they were to issue a report, it would be different.

1.6 Confidentiality of Information – While the Model Rule 1.6(a) duty of confidentiality is closely related to the attorney-client privilege, it is broader in scope than the attorney-client privilege, “which is a rule of evidence,” or “the work product immunity which is a rule of procedure.”

Rule 1.6 causes a mandated confidentiality of information regarding injustice and judicial corruption.

This was demonstrated in Luzerne County where Kids For Cash was IGNORED by every judge, district attorney, prosecutor and lawyer… until Judge Ann Lokuta violated the law and called the FBI to report Ciavarella et al. Ann Lokuta was disciplined and removed from the bench for her violations of Rule 1.6.

The Foreclosure Crisis nationwide was caused similarly by an ACT OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT resulting in the loss of constitutional rights and the loss of homes to fraudulent actions filed by lawyers (and judges) MANDATED to maintain confidentiality.

THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS LET THIS HAPPEN TO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.

Rule 1.6 mandates that an Attorney General ignore judicial corruption and injustice
– without regard for the number of children improperly incarcerated by a judge,
– without regard for the number of homes foreclosed upon using fraudulent documents,
– without regard for basic constitutional, civil and human rights,
– without regard for the denial of equal protection of the law,
– without regard for the law,
– without regard for an oath of office,
– without regard for ethics or morality, and
– without mercy for the victims overwhelmed, destitute and pushed to their limits who commit suicide.

Rule 1.6 DELIBERATELY PREVENTS LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL…

You attention to this matter of national importance is anticipated and expected. We are available to meet with you at any time to discuss this issue at length. Please contact us directly.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

August 2, 2014

After meetings with Senator Chuck McIlhinney, it is clearly necessary to raise this issue to your attention directly.

The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was made up of lawyers (9 of 12) who heard information from county judges, district attorneys, public defenders and the Judicial Conduct Board. Attributing the blame to “silence, inaction, inexperience, ignorance, fear of retaliation, greed, ambition, carelessness.”, the lawyers on the commission maintained ‘confidentiality of information’ as required by law – Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Their realization was correct – “What good would [reporting] it do?” HOWEVER, the Commission’s report neglected to indicate the reason for the silence (Rule 1.6) and it also neglected to expose the cause (the Rule 1.6 mandate) , and as such their recommended reforms do nothing to prevent a recurrence of the judicial corruption.

Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information where it adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary, the reputation of legal professionals, self-incriminates, or negatively affects their client. Protecting the integrity of a judiciary which lacks integrity is foolishness. Mandating it has unconstitutional effects.

The Commission Report and Reform Recommendations amount to fraud – a deliberate effort to conceal the root cause of the failure of the justice system to address judicial misconduct, corruption and injustice.

Far more frightening and perilous, is that the lawyers associated with the Commission have now been ‘educated and trained’ in how to execute and conceal crimes such as those committed by Ciavarella and Conahan – who only went to prison because they had failed at money laundering.

The Supreme Court’s authority to enact law is limited to situations where ‘such rules are consistent with this Constitution [Pennsylvania] and neither abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of any litigant.’

The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who must follow the US Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Rules of Professional Conduct which were enacted by the Supreme Court.

For the Attorney General, the Rule 1.6 mandate of ‘confidentiality of information’ with regard to client information undermines ‘everything’ where an attorney general’s clients include (1) the public, (2) the Pennsylvania government, (3) the Office of the Attorney General, (4) government agencies and departments statewide, (5) personnel within those agencies and departments, (6) and themselves.

The Rules of Professional Conduct enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have substantially affected the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Attorney General preventing and obstructing law enforcement responsibilities when it relates to judicial corruption and injustice within the courts.

The Supreme Court, by the same mandate, has caused a ‘lawful’ requirement within every court and by every lawyer in the commonwealth to ignore injustice and judicial corruption.

Previous Codes of Professional Responsibility (among other titles) have included similar guidelines, BUT once enacted into ‘law’ in 1987 ignoring injustice and judicial corruption ceased being discretionary and was MANDATED BY LAW.

The result, the Rules of Professional Conduct collaterally affect and negate ‘the substantive rights of the litigant’. Specifically, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality causes a mandatory conspiracy of silence within the courts which ignores the damage and harm caused to litigants and further hinders and prevents any resolution.

The substantive rights of the children and families of Luzerne County were clearly ignored.

The Supreme Court lacked authority to enact Rule 1.6 into law as the substantive rights of the People have been ‘abridged’, ‘modified’, denied and ignored.

Additionally, the role of the Sheriff as Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the county has been negated and minimized by judicial decisions. Constitutionally, the Sheriff has the lawful authority and resources to enforce the law within the county.

Failing to act because the judiciary has convinced them of a greatly diminished role, the non-lawyer Sheriffs (reluctantly) defer authority to the county District Attorney who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.6. A necessity to prevent prosecution. District Attorneys take no action to investigate and prosecute the injustice and judicial corruption. Related crimes against the victims of injustice are ignored leaving the litigant with no protection under the law.

The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct were rolled out to the states and enacted into law nationwide without the involvement of the state legislatures, the signature of the governors or any constitutional review.

“What is right is not always the same as what is legal.” was offered by Edward Snowden as an explanation for his actions revealing unconstitutional activity. This statement may also apply to the failure of attorneys general, judges, district attorneys and lawyers to address the unconstitutional actions made ‘legal’ which have undermined justice over the last 25 years.

It is the responsibility of the Governor to represent the People, to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution and the state Constitution, and to recognize that collaterally Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional to the People.

The act of sedition which enacted Rule 1.6 and mandated the silent participation of all legal professionals, perverted the judiciary, sacrificed the personal integrity of every judge, and undermined justice can no longer be ignored and excused because of the intimidation and threats of disciplinary action by the corrupt who have deliberately violated the public trust.

The Commission on Juvenile Justice have not done what was requested of them. They have participated in concealing the truth. They have endorsed and enabled continuing injustice.

You, the members of the Legislature and the Judiciary who assembled the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice must review their report findings and recommendations. The deliberate knowledgeable failure of those lawyers to indicate the root cause of the problem in Luzerne County, which also less publicly affects every court in the Commonwealth, was caused by Rule 1.6 – An unconstitutional and repugnant law which has been improperly enacted by the state Supreme Court without proper review of its affect on constitutional rights.

You attention to this matter of statewide importance is appreciated.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

August 1, 2014

Gregory R. Neuhauser
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Litigation Section
15th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120

RE YOUR FILE # 3600

I have received your acknowledgment of the Notice pursuant to Rule 521.

Your letter misspells my name in every location, including the caption of the case. I understand this is often done to make it appear that the case does not exist and allow for prompt disregard of these matters. I request that you correct the spelling error in order for your office to review the actual matter.

Also, in the letter sent I included all of the associated case references.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania #1330 EDA 2013 Healy v Healy
Superior Court of Pennsylvania #900 EDA 2014 Healy v Miller
Montgomery County #2007-12477 Healy v Healy
Montgomery County #2013-29976 Healy v Miller
Third Circuit Court of Appeals # 13-4591 Healy, Krautheim v The Attorneys General
Eastern District of Pennsylvania #13-4614 Healy, Krautheim v The Attorneys General

Superior Court of Pennsylvania #943 EDA 2014 First Savings Bank v T. Krautheim

I am including copies of related correspondence from this week with President Barack Obama, The United States Senate, The Sentate Committee On the Judiciary, The United States House of Representatives, The House Committee on the Judiciary, The Governors of the United States, The Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee, and The Sheriff’s of Pennsylvania.

Addressing the injustice of Rule 1.6 is an inevitability. Rule 1.6 causes a loss of constitutionally protected rights and prevents law enforcement from action. 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.

Terance Healy

PDF Version with all attachments