A Terroristic Divorce

OVER VIEW

RULES enacted by the Judiciary avoid constitutional review causing damages capable of repetition while evading any review. The collateral unconstitutional affects can undermine the Rule of Law and the protected constitutional rights of all Americans affecting the integrity of state and federal courts.

RULES enacted by the Judiciary prevent the Mueller Report from being provided (unredacted) to the US Congress. Why?

The Judicial Branch may establish Rules for the administration of the courts. Their administrative responsibility includes lawyers within its purview. Lawyers (state and federal) are required to follow the professional rules for the jurisdiction in which they are working. The professional Rules are established by the Judiciary in each state.

The Judicial Branch has no authority to establish RULES for the administration of the Legislative Branch.
The Judicial Branch has no authority to establish RULES for the administration of the Executive Branch.

Yet, it would seem that Lawyers in the Legislative and Executive branches abide Rules established by the Judiciary even where it ignores truth, prevents facts from being presented, obstructs and interferes with investigations, and can interfere with the Legislative and Executive branches and their ability to review complete information without edits, redactions or ommissions.

Confidentiality of Information pursuant to Rule 1.6, incorporated throughout Model Rules by direct reference, cross reference and footnote, further serves to prevent recourse. The court is required to adhere to it’s own Rule for non-disclosure. The Result: An unsigned unsubstantiated and irrelevant Per Curiam order dismisses the matter without explanation and prevents any further appeal.

Americans find themselves without recourse and have no escape from retaliatory actions which seek to conceal the injustice which they are experiencing.

A line used over 400 times in The Mueller Report is avoiding any attention while pointing directly at this problem. At the top of each page, it indicates that redaction was done per RULES enacted by the judiciary.

When the judiciary enacts an unconstitutional rule, lawyers are prevented from exposing it (Rule 1.6). Damages obstruct justice, deny the Rule of Law and ignores constitutionally protected rights.

The Constitutional Conundrum of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information improperly enacted and unconstitutional in each state and federally with damage capable of repetition while evading any review.

Rule 1.6 also holds confidential any indication of fraudulent efforts required to prevent disclosure. Ignoring it’s own fraud provisions was unanticipated. The provisions were removed, restored – and remain ignored.

Lawyers are permitted to mislead and misinform in the interest of non-disclosure. Applicable to public statements AND statements within the court, BUT, perhaps not so much in the US Congress. Lawyers are often findng themselves caught in lies which the Congress does not excuse.

One phrase used over 400 times in The Mueller Report is avoiding any attention.

At the top of each page, it indicates that redaction was done per RULES enacted by the judiciary.

There is no constitutional review of those rules. When the judiciary enacts an unconstitutional law, all lawyers are prevented from exposing it, Rule 1.6. Even where it obstructs justice, denies the Rule of Law and ignores constitutionally protected rights.

The Constitutional Conundrum of Rule1.6 Confidentiality improperly enacted and unconstitutional in each state and federally with damage capable of repetition while evading any review.

Rule1.6 also holds confidential any indication of fraudulent efforts of lawyers required for non-disclosure.

Lawyers are permitted to mislead and misinform in the interest of confidentiality. This judicial rule is applied to public statements AND statements made in court, BUT, maybe notsomuch to the US Congress.

                                April 17, 2019

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, House Committe on the Judiciary
Adam Shiff, Chairman, House Permanent Committee on Intelligence
Charles E, Schumer, Senate Demotratic Leader
Dianne Feinstein, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Mark Warner, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Congress of the United States
Washington, DC 20515

You have been aware of the Constitutional Conundrum of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality for several years. Having that information, you have written or put your name to a farce to distract Americans while you continue ignoring the problem.

Where it would be entirely lawful for you to maintain a respectful silence, you have instead taken an action which seeks to permit the problem to persist. This is a direct contradiction of your oath. While Rule 1.6 excuses the disregard for the Rule of Law and Constitution, you demonstrate where it conceals the disregard for your oath of office.

You may have been advised by your legal counsel, or are yourself a lawyer, obligated by non-disclosure. You seek to shift responsibility for the failure to disclose the information to another lawyer while aware Attorney General William Barr is similarly obligated.

You are aware of the legal compulsion (Rule 1.6) which requires the AG to redact the report. The misdirection by your suggestion that any non-disclosure is based on political party is a disingenuous fraud. Your accusation seeks to divide and confuse all Americans.

Your effort seeks to prevent the cause of EVERY AMERICAN INJUSTICE IGNORED from being exposed. Worse still, continued disinformation and fraud will permit, perpetuate, ignore and conceal the injustice.

If there were a possibility of review, Rule 1.6 would mandate non-disclosure. Demonstrating it’s self-defense. The unconstitutional Confidentiality Rule mandates non-disclosure that it is unconstitutional.

There is no review for unconstitutional Rules enacted by the Judiciary. Other rules serve to deflect or obstruct any recourse. Rule 1.6 is often amended by each state judiciary to assure continued non-disclosure perhaps intending to protect the integrity of the judiciary. Those amendments have left a trail of crumbs which indicate the intent and forethought seeking to perpetuate the injustice and conceal the scandal without regard for the continuing injustice . The Kids for Cash case involving thousands of children abused by judges demonstrates an extreme silence by the lawyers and the extreme neglect by the PA Supreme Court in failing to review. Silence in spite of extreme injustices per Rule 1.6.

I am an American without any protection of the Rule of Law. I have been denied every right reportedly protected by the US Constitution. The Pennsylvania courts failed to address these issues (laws and rights) non-disclosure or review denied by unsigned unsubstantiated per curiam orders. I have faced severe retaliation for seeing this problem and recognizing it as the source of EVERY inexplicable American Injustice since 1983.

When demonstrated ‘unconstitutional’, the Rule was re-caste into ‘secret orders from an unidentified court’ which required the Pennsylvania Attorney General to PERSONALLY neglect the responsibilities of her office. Unappealable without a loss or cause for releif, the Attorney General then neglected my effort to address the unconstitutional law, The target, myself, who had loss and cause for releif was prevented from the distribution of the documents. After requesting copies of documents which appeared on the court docket, the documents were not provided and the entries disappeared.

The Pennsylvania Legislature and Governor failed to inquire about the ‘secret orderS’. The existence of the orders was not Confidential. The court remains unidentified. The purpose for unexplained.

The resposibilities of the Office of the Attorney General are established by Law enacted by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. Neither the Governor nor any Legislator inquired about the nature and content of the orders which undermined their Law and usurped their constitutional authority.

Rule 1.6 also causes a malicious prosecution to proceed where a District Attorney is prevented from exposing his staff. The malicious prosecution will prevail absent the Rule of Law and ignoring all constitutional rights. Further, the Defendant will be prevented from presenting any defense. Each effort to apply Law or rights will be ignored and held confidential. Rule 1.6 conceals the wrongdoing and causes false and malicious prosecutions to be succesful. There can be no opportunity for appeal which exposes the failure by the court to apply the Rule of Law or where it has ignored protected rights. Myself, former PA Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane, William Cosby and Todd Krautheim, and millions of others, have experienced this retaliation.

As such, I take great concern regarding your letter.

If Barr & Rosenstein redact Mueller’s report for Congress, it will be by choice, not legal compulsion. 

Rosenstein chose to give a GOP House nearly 1 million pages of discovery in Clinton & Russia probe. 

But they choose not to give 400 pages of Trump-related info to a Dem House.

The “legal compulsion” is Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION, an unconstitutional law improperly enacted in each state and federally. Injustice capable of repetition while evading review.

There is no review for constitutionality of Rules enacted by the Judiciary.

Rule 1.6, in and of itself, mandates non-disclosure where it would be exposed as the cause of EVERY AMERICAN INJUSTICE IGNORED.

Your letter is a fraud. You each ignore your oath of office. Your actions indicate you prefer to be a part of perpetuating the problem instead of permitting it’s resolution.

Your false rhetoric is deceptive to the general public and to non-lawyer members of the Congress whom you encourage to participate and endorse your fraud.

There remains a lawful way to remove this unconstitutional Rule while abiding it until it is determined to be unconstituitional. After 56 state Attorneys General had defaulted in a Constitutional Challenge, Fraudulent efforts of lawyers obstructed the matter and prevented appellate review.

I will persevere towards the lawful removal of Rule 1.6, and the exposure of the damage caused by Rule 1.6. When there has been fraudulent interference the effort has been obstructed.

Rule 1.6 can only be challenged by a non-lawyer. In 2013 , the US Supreme Court issued a Rule which removes them from involvment in any review or resolution as they required all parties before them to be represented by a lawyer. Preventing any non-lawyer from recourse, and preventing any non-lawyer from challenging their new Rule. Their intention is evident. Their action is likely unconstitutional, but only a lawyer obligated by non-disclosure … exactly. The involvement of the US Supreme Court is not a necessity, though it would have been a more responsible and fitting place for the issue to be raised.

For over 5 years, meeting requests have been ignored by state senators and representatives, and Senators and Representatives in the US Congress. The legal staff (Office of General Counsel) of Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf, a non-lawyer, has prevented any meeting. Previously, Governor Tom Corbettt, a lawyer, was prevented from any effort to expose or resolve the issue.

I welcome any opportunity to discuss this issue with yourself or any member or committee of Congress.

Sincerely.

Terance Healy

www.work2bdone.com/live

Justice is coming.

Cc: President Donald Trump
US Attorney General William Barr
PA Governor Tom Wolf
PA Attorney General Josh Shapiro
US Senate Judiciary Committee
US House Judiciary Committee
US Supreme Court

Washington DC in chaos as it attempts to conceal the needle in the haystack of injustice. Unconstitutional and improperly enacted in each state and federally AND capable of repetition while evading review.

There is no review for constitutionality for Rules enacted improperly by the Judiciary.

Every paragraph of the Model Rules (spread across the US from 1983-2007) refers to ONE Rule which undoes the Rules, the Rule of Law, Due Process and every Constitutional right… That ONE Rule also prevents itself from being identified as the cause.

The Constitutional Conundrum of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information

– A deliberate and intentional act of sedition by the American Bar Association. Removing the fraud provisions from Rule 1.6 and concealing the manipulations which prevented exposure and resolution. Bread crumbs in every state can be found as the Rule was edited to remain concealed.

Justice is coming.

Barack Obama did nothing because the Rule prevented him. Hillary Clinton would have been similarly blocked. The US Attorneys General who in recent years have failed to prosecute scandalous crimes were obstructed by Rule 1.6 – a very broad application of confidentiality which includes attorney-client privilege.

The first non-lawyer President since Ronald Reagan, President Donald Trump, is in office doing constant battle with lawyers. After each state had defaulted, President Trump’s sister, Maryann Trump Barry, was on the 3rd Circuit court which was prevented from the review of the concealed Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6.

When unconstitutionality was established and proven, secret orders from unidentified courts recaste the unconstitutional rule into an improper and unappealable order requiring the PA Attorney General to personally neglect the matter. Retaliation for an effort to expose the problem brought an aggressive downfall. Rule 1.6 prevents the disclosure of false prosecution by mandating non-disclosure even where it prevents the presentation of any defense.

Where the truth is prevented by the Confidentiality Rule, misdirection and lies are demonstrating the damage caused to law enforcement by this secret silent destroyer of integrity. The AG in place under George Bush, William Barr, IS BACK IN PLACE fully aware of what happened and now he is before The US Congress.

I Persevere. Justice is coming.