A Terroristic Divorce

Hey EarthIsFlat. 

Stop spamming the website.  You’re name suggests you either have a sense of humor, or that you are a stupid dumbass.

Gonna go with Dumbass because if you think the volumes of disinformation and foolishness is ever gonna get posted in comments YOU HAVEN’T NOTICED THAT COMMENTS ON THIS SITE ARE NEVER POSTED. 

 (This is intentional as it prevents the stupidity like that which you are spewing from being distributed on this site.)

BTW… HUGE NEWS NEXT WEEK!
JUSTICE IS COMING.

Oh ma darlin’ there may even be some hope and help for you in the upcoming documents.

The Foreclosure Crisis, Churches hiding Predators, Kids for Cash, Black Lives Matter, American Injustice Ignored….

When the Judiciary enacts laws pursuant to their authority to direct the administration of the courts, it is conditional. Rules enacted by the Judiciary may not abridge or affect the constitutional rights of litigants.

PROBLEM:

Once the Courts improperly enact an unconstitutional law, There is a conflict of interest which prevents the Courts from reviewing the constitutionality of their law.

The Legislature has no precedent for reviewing constitutionality, NOR does the Governor.

The Legislature COULD suspend any law. (Article I Section 12)

The Governor COULD call to assemble the Legislature to suspend the law. (Article IV Section 12)

The Rules of Civil Procedure, The Rules of Appellate Procedure, etc… have been enacted by the Judiciary. The Legislature was not involved, there was no proper construction of the law, no constitutional review, no input, no vote, no signature by the Governor.

The assumption is that these laws abide by the state Constitutions and the Constitution of the US.

When that assumption is WRONG, the courts suggested they have the authority to promulgate the law provided by the state constitution. Further suggesting that anything they enact is constitutional because they cannot enact an unconstitutional law.

DENIAL?

CLEARLY, THEY HAVE NEGLECTED THE NECESSITY THAT THEIR AUTHORITY ONLY EXISTS WHERE THEIR LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
“… if such rules are consistent with the Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive right of any litigant,…”

There is no provision in the constitution for the review of laws enacted by the Judiciary pursuant to Article V Section 10(c).

The Public Trust is a necessity for the Judicial branch of government. Where the Public Trust is violated, Law Enforcement, the Legislature and the Governor have a responsibility to “support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth” and to “discharge the duties of [their] office with fidelity”. This includes duties which provide for their government and the Public Trust in the Judiciary.

BUT, ….

---

PROBLEM:

Another improperly enacted and unconstitutional law enacted by the Judiciary affects EVERYTHING.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information. Rule 1.6 is an aggressively enforced mandate of confidentiality and non-disclosure. It is a core part of the Rules of Professional Conduct required of lawyers and legal professionals which is aggressively enforced through disciplinary processes defined by the Judiciary. When enacted, Confidentiality was no longer discretionary, it became mandatory.

Lawyers cannot expose an unconstitutional law where it will adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.

Lawyers are also permitted to conceal the problem through FRAUD IN THE FURTHERANCE and FRAUD TO PREVENT RESOLUTION. The fraud provisions were removed from the Rules Of Professional Conduct by the American Bar Association before being presented to the state Supreme Courts.

When the Legislators seek advice from their lawyers, they may be misinformed and misdirected. That FRAUD IN THE FURTHERANCE / FRAUD TO PREVENT RESOLUTION is held confidential.

When the Governor seeks advice from his General Counsel, the Governor may be misinformed and misdirected. That FRAUD IN THE FURTHERANCE / FRAUD TO PREVENT RESOLUTION is held confidential.

An unconstitutional Confidentiality law mandates that their fraudulent actions be concealed – INCLUDING concealing that there is no process for the review of unconstitutional laws enacted by the judiciary.

The Judiciary is not authorized to promulgate any unconstitutional law.

BUT, WHEN THEY DO ( AND THEY DID )

Lawyers and legal professionals can prevent and obstruct the issue from judicial review.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed in August 2013 and served to all state Attorneys General. The state Attorneys General defaulted. EVERY STATE DEFAULTED. It is reasonable to believe that when fifty-six (56) state Attorneys General have been served with a Constitutional Challenge, and ALL FAIL TO RESPOND BY THE DEADLINE ASSIGNED BY THE COURT, it is a deliberate and intentional and coordinated action. As such Rule 1.6 should have been declared unconstitutional.

But, one attorney filed an unexplained and unexcused late response, this provided the clerks an opportunity to fabricate and misrepresent the facts of the case and prevent the case from going before a judge.

The clerks had also deliberately neglected to certify the constitutional question to each state Supreme Court. Certification simply asks each state Court to indicate if the law is constitutional, or not. The deliberate negligence to certify and obtain the response of each state Court avoided each state Supreme Court from a review of the law in their state; prevented any false statement regarding constitutionality; and avoided any adverse affect to judicial integrity. AVOIDING AND IGNORING THE ISSUE ENTIRELY.

Upon improper dismissal, the Appeal to the Third Circuit raised the procedural negligence in the lower court and addressed the misinformation in the lower court’s dismissal. The Clerks quickly reopened the lower court docket as it as necessary to indicate service to the US Attorney General which had been neglected. The Constitutional Challenge was delivered to the US Attorney in Philadelphia (An attorney permitted to conceal any inaction.)

Clerks (lawyers) in the Third Circuit prevented the appeal from review by the Federal Appeals Court.

---

While it is the professional responsibility for lawyers to promote and pursue justice, in accordance with the Rule of Law enacted by the Legislature, and the state and federal constitutions, the lawyers have chosen to undermine the constitutional rights of litigants nationwide… AND to hold the judiciary hostage to their fraudulent actions which must be held confidential pursuant to an unconstitutional law.

An unconstitutional law can provide no defense for the deliberate actions which undermine rights guaranteed by the Constitutions. It has been over 30 years that lawyers, legal professionals and law enforcement have concealed injustice and denied constitutional rights. WHY? It has always been wrong to deny any person of their rights. It always will be wrong.

The proper thing to do is for lawyers to recognize the constitutional crisis and remain silent and inactive – actions permitted by the unconstitutional law which must be abided until it is declared unconstitutional.

Allowing the Legislature to suspend the improper law will permit lawyers to join the discussion of the affect on the Constitutional Rights of Americans.

Every American can be subjected to denial of any protection of the law and the denial of their constitutional rights – while explanations for those unjust and corrupt actions are not disclosed, or are fraudulent, or are held completely confidential.

Every American includes former Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane whose actions seeking to address and resolve the matter were met with false allegations of perjury, false prosecution, false statements by witnesses granted immunity MULTIPLE times. Kane was prevented from presenting any defense where every avenue for possible defense was denied by Court Orders which were unexplained. This includes a transcript of the complaint presented to Judge Carpenter, Special Prosecutor Thomas Carluccio, and two former employees of the Office of Attorney General. None of whom testified at the criminal hearing. The transcript was ordered to be destroyed and forgotten.

Justice is coming. It is inevitable.

Until then, the lawyers continue to undermine the state and federal judiciary. The lawyers usurp the Constitutional Rights of EVERY American. The lawyers GET PAID by the very clients they fail to fully represent. They avoid discipline for their actions which must be held confidential. The disciplinary proceedings are also held confidential.

(Not every lawyer is aware of what occurred, their training has deliberately misguided them to believe that Rule 1.6 is Attorney Client Privilege. The unconstitutional injustice served upon their clients is reprehensible while their non-disclosure is mandatory.)

Rule 1.6 is incorporated into most every aspect of the Rules of Professional Conduct by cross reference.

Rule 1.6 is the needle in the haystack of American Injustice.

The American Bar Association has committed a deliberate act of treason in their efforts which undermine the state and federal judiciary. The American Bar Association promoted their Model Rules to each state Supreme Court from 1983 through 2009 starting in the larger more populated jurisdictions. CLEARLY, it is not in their interests to expose their crimes, or how it has profited their membership.

Senator Elizabeth Warren,

Senator Elizabeth Warren, if you want to know why the banks were not prosecuted for the foreclosure crisis, consider that while using fraudulent documents and robo-signed deeds ANY lawyer could foreclose on a persons property while their client identification could be held confidential. With all of the paperwork being handled by the lawyers and clerks, it is entirely possible the banks were not involved… just left holding the blame for something the bank lawyers could also not reveal.

If a bank was prosecuted, the mandate of confidentiality would be excused to permit the defense…
Lucky for the ABA that the prosecutors are lawyers mandated by Rule 1.6 in the state, and in local rules of Federal Court, and McDade-Murtha Amendment.

An improperly enacted and unconstitutional STATE law is preventing justice and denying the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution in EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL COURT… and the lawyers are keeping the secret.

Authority of the Supreme Court pursuant to ARTICLE V, Section 10(c)

The Rules of Civil Procedure

The General Assembly, by Act of June 21, 1937, P. L. 1982, as amended, 17 P. S. §  61 et seq. (repealed), vested in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania the power to prescribe by general rule the practice and procedure in civil actions for the courts of common pleas. This concept was incorporated into the Constitution of 1968, Article V, Section 10(c) which continued to vest in the Supreme Court:

‘‘. . . the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure, and conduct of all courts . . . if such rules are consistent with Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive right of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of peace, nor suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose. All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions.’’

This Constitutional provision is now implemented by section 1722 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §  1722, relating to the adoption of administrative and procedural rules.

Pursuant to such rule making power the Supreme Court appointed a Civil Procedural Rules Committee to assist the Court in the preparation and revision of the Rules. The Rules of Civil Procedure were recommended by the Committee and adopted by the Court. Specific numbers were assigned to the chapters of the rules as they were promulgated pursuant to a general plan.

Section 323 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §  323, continues the prior law empowering every court ‘‘to make such rules and orders of court as the interest of justice or the business of the court may require.’’ Rule of Civil Procedure 239 sets forth the limitation that local rules may not be inconsistent with Acts of Assembly or general rules of the Supreme Court.
   
By an order of the Supreme Court dated December 31, 1968, all rules then in force governing practice and procedure in courts, including the rules of civil procedure, were continued in force under the Constitution of 1968 until suspended, revoked or modified pursuant to Article V, Section 10(c) of that Constitution.

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT – US CONSTITUTION
“… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;…”

The clause also promises that before depriving a citizen of life, liberty or property, government must follow fair procedures. Thus, it is not always enough for the government just to act in accordance with whatever law there may happen to be.

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT – US CONSTITUTION
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Citizens are entitled to have the government observe or offer fair procedures, whether or not those procedures have been provided for in the law on the basis of which it is acting.

Action denying the process that is “due” would be unconstitutional. 

Whether provided for in law, or not, actions which deny equal protection of the law would be unconstitutional.

CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS
The rule making power of the Supreme Court pursuant to Article V, Section 10(c), provides authority “if such rules are consistent with Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive right of any litigant”.

Where the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure include rules which cause or contribute to a denial of due process and prevent equal protection of the law and fail to offer fair procedures, THOSE RULES ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION OR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

Where those rules abridge and modify the substantive rights of any litigant, the Supreme Court did not, and does not, have authority necessary pursuant to Article V, Section 10(c), to prescribe those rules.

All such laws improperly promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions, and the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

NO CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW… ever.
The rules enacted by the Supreme Court have not undergone any construction or constitutional review prior to being prescribed.

Once prescribed into law, there exists no method by which the rule can be reviewed to determine if it is constitutional, or not.

A clear conflict of interest prevents the Supreme Court from reviewing the constitutionality of any rule which it has improperly prescribed.

FEDERAL REMEDY PREVENTED
The McDade-Murtha Amendment requires federal law enforcement and legal professionals to adhere to the Rules of Professional Conduct within the jurisdiction they are working/investigating. Passage of the amendment was an act of deception and misdirection. The amendment which was opposed by the US Attorney General at the time and several prior Attorneys General. Then Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, attempted to prevent the vote on the matter by walking out.

Local Rules in each Federal District Court require lawyers and legal professionals to abide the state Rules of Professional Conduct.

---

AND TO MAKE RESOLUTION NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE… An aggressively enforced mandate of confidentiality.

Confidentiality of Information – Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Where the Rules of Professional Conduct (by cross reference to Rule 1.6) require that legal professionals take no action which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary, legal professional are prevented from bringing the Constitutional Challenge to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Additionally, cross references within EVERY rule to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, undermines any ethics, morality or justice. After removing ‘the fraud provisions’ from the American Bar Association Model Rules, the ABA presented The Rules of Professional Conduct which would permit actions by legal professionals which promote and ignore injustice, while undermining, preventing and obstructing any Constitutional Challenge. The mandate includes non-disclosure of actions even where those actions undermine the judiciary, the legal profession, the Rule of Law, the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information undermines ethics, morality and justice.
The Rules of Professional Conduct are promoted as a minimum ethical standard for lawyers and legal professionals. Sadly, after removal of the fraud provisions by the American Bar Association, the minimum is none.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality is the needle in the haystack of American injustice. It undermines the Judiciary, ignores the Rule of Law, nullifies the Legislature, stifles the Presidency and undermines the US Constitution.

The fix is simple.

However, lawyers are prevented from disclosure AND must protect the integrity of the judiciary. Foolishly, the integrity of the judiciary is protected by sacrificing the integrity of the system of justice and ignoring the Constitutions.

Previous efforts by the Supreme Court to address the problems with their improperly enacted and unconstitutional Confidentiality have left a trail of bread crumbs which serve to expose the scope of the problem and the inability to resolve the issue.

PA Governor may call the Legislature to assemble to suspend Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.
(Lawyers prevent the information from the Governor.)
(Lawyers prevent the information from the Legislature.)

Lawyers are permitted to take no action and remain silent.
Lawyers must abide by the Law until it is No Law, an unconstitutional nullity, OR SUSPENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE pursuant to ARTICLE I Section 12 of the PA Constitution.
OR
Lawyers recognizing the unconstitutional affect may take no action and remain silent without fear of being disciplined for violating the unconstitutional law.

Once the Legislature suspends unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, then…
Lawyers and Judges will then be permitted to discuss, address and resolve the problem.

The laws and reforms enacted by the state Legislatures, and US Congress, will then work as intended, designed and constructed.

Making America Great Again.
Justice is Coming.

Are you aware that suggesting, protesting or accusing the judicial branch of being corrupt can be misinterpreted as attempting to overthrow the government… and can be prosecuted.

There were grand jury movements which gained momentum, but were quashed because they attacked the judiciary.

This is just a small part of the realization of how difficult it is to address THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6

LAWYERS may not expose it.

Each state Supreme Court enacted Rule 1.6 Confidentiality.  There was no consideration of how corruption and injustice would be ignored by the legal profession and the courts as a result of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality.  No thought about how confidentiality could prevent a litigant from their Constitutional rights AND deny them any protection under the law.  AND IT DID.

PROBLEM: As the exclusive deciders of what is or is not Constitutional, the judiciary have a conflict of interest which prevents the law from review.  The Judiciary have made it illegal for the Confidentiality issue to be exposed as unconstitutional – even by the judiciary.

The Judiciary is permitted to enact laws, BUT only if they don’t affect the rights of a litigant.  So, the judiciary didn’t have the authority to enact their Confidentiality law.

IT GOES DEEPER.  IT WAS DELIBERATE.

Where lawyers are permitted to commit fraud in the furtherance to maintain confidentiality EVEN GETTING THE CASE INTO A FEDERAL COURT IS  PROBLEMATIC.  The lawyers and clerks in the federal courts follow the state rules and can neglect or prevent the case from getting to a judge.

That’s obstruction of justice and denial of access to the courts.  But, you can’t get the issue in front of a judge.  The Constitutional Challenge filed in August 2013 and served to EVERY state Attorney General encountered a dismissal EVEN AFTER EVERY STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD DEFAULTED.

The Legislators who have the authority to suspend the bad law ARE MISINFORMED AND MISDIRECTED BY THEIR OWN PERSONAL LAWYERS, or encounter OBSTRUCTIVE EFFORTS BY LAWYERS IN THE LEGISLATURE and the JUDICIARY COMMITTEES CREATE A HUGE HURDLE.  (They are also the ones who have been modifying Rule 1.6 to require confidentiality where it is not already covered by the unconstitutional law.  Bread crumbs pointing to their deliberate injustice, corruption and treason.

A non-lawyer governor could expose the bad law and assemble the state legislature.  BUT, the governor has a team of lawyers which prevent the issue from ever getting to the Governor and actively prevent meetings.

The biggest problem with the unconstitutional Confidentiality law is that IT IS CONFIDENTIAL.

HAS YOUR MATTER ENCOUNTERED RULE 1.6 INJUSTICE?

If you aren’t grasping how it affects people, look at the issues nationwide which are flat out ignored by the courts, or find the point in your case where all explanations stopped, where the litigation went off the rails.  

People likely started saying things like THEY CANT DO THAT! and thinking you misunderstood or were crazy.  And when they witness the chaos first hand, it is frightening.  They can become targets just for providing support.

WHO ARE THE VICTIMS?

I summed it up this way on my web site and it turned out to be the method by which the victims of Rule 1.6 can be identified.

“I am a sane man dealing with an absolutely insane situation. Every person in a position to help has acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter… they each make the situation worse… NO ONE HELPED… NO ONE COULD HELP… until the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6.”