A Terroristic Divorce

A Federal indictment of a Judge, Constable and Police Chief indicated their ability to obtain SHAM DEFAULT JUDGMENTS.

They each have immediate family members in positions which control Default Judgments (Prothonotary) AND SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT personnel who can sell your home right out from under you at Sheriffs Sale…. while you are denied hearings, any constitutional rights, and any protection of the law.

The District Attorney ignores complaints and does nothing… permitting fraud, burglary, threats, intimidation, harassment…

If anyone attempts to expose their corruption… THEY WILL DESTROY YOU. They have the resources in place and law enforcement in their control. They will ruin your life, destroy your finances, take your homes… because they can, and no one will stop them.

Apparently, Senator McIlhinney is very afraid. He was directed to IGNORE… and he has hidden ever since.

2011-00193

2012-05546

2013-07214

Attachments

Copies of the Documents set for filing and delivery to Bucks County Prothonotary, Sheriff, District Attorneys, etc…

Delivery to Bucks County President Judge Jeffrey Finley (Judges Chambers)

Delivery to Bucks County District Attorney Matt Weintraub (District Attorneys Office)
Copy delivered to Michelle Henry – First Assistant District Attorney, Former District Attorney, and (pending) First Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania

Delivery to Bucks County Sheriff Edward Donnelly

Delivery to Pennsylvania Senator Charles McIlhinney

Extracted From LEGISLATORS AS THE “AMERICAN CRIMINAL CLASS”: WHY CONGRESS (SOMETIMES) PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF DEFENDANTS by
Craig S. Lerner

Citizen Protection Act

The McDade Amendment, also grandiosely known as the Citizen Protection Act (CPA), has been described as “Joseph McDade’s swan song—and a parting shot at the Department of Justice . . . .” The law requires that “[a]n attorney for the Government shall be subject to [s]tate laws and rules, and local Federal court rules, governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages in that attorney’s duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.” Simply put, the CPA imposes state ethics rules on federal prosecutors. However equitable that may sound, it has in practice proven highly problematic, and has been the subject of substantial academic criticism. Prior to 1998, for at least a decade, state and federal courts, as well as the local bar associations, had grappled with the problem of developing ethical rules for federal prosecutors. The CPA stunted any possibility of gradual development, neglected the panoply of conflicting interests at stake, and shackled federal prosecutors with a law that has proven difficult and costly to administer.

It originated just weeks after McDade’s acquittal, when he introduced the original version of a bill that would eventually become law. In a subcommittee hearing, Representative McDade was the first and principal witness, summoning his “first-hand knowledge of the overzealousness and excessiveness of federal prosecutors.” Although McDade alleged that the “problem” of prosecutorial misconduct was “serious,” he provided virtually no evidence to support this claim, other than anecdotal claims based on his own experience. Why, then, should the members of the House heed his words? Because, said McDade, he spoke “with the authority of one who has had his life turned upside down . . . .” He added:

So I come to you today with a bias borne of hard personal experience. I used to blindly trust that our system worked. Now I have learned that our law enforcement community has to some extent lost its way, strayed from its mission.

The Department of Justice dispatched the Solicitor General, Seth Waxman, to Capitol Hill to respond to McDade and to urge the House of Representative to reject his proposal, and the executive branch won a temporary victory when the subcommittee buried the bill. Undeterred, McDade reintroduced the bill in the next Congress. The bill made it out of subcommittee, but the House Committee on the Judiciary then failed to take any action.

McDade soldiered doggedly on. In March 1998, he introduced an expanded version of the legislation in the Committee on the Judiciary. At this point, the bill had thirty-three sponsors, virtually all of whom were, like McDade himself, Republicans. Yet a few members of the House crossed the political aisle. They included: Representative Murtha, whose run-in with the law during the Abscam investigation has already been noted; Representative Traficant, who had been indicted two decades earlier and would be indicted again in a few years; and Representative Ford, Jr., whose father (also a member of Congress) had been indicted for bank fraud and tax evasion. Although the bill claimed thirty-three sponsors, the House Judiciary Committee declined to take action on it.

At this point, the progress of the CPA becomes murky. It seems that McDade convinced the House Appropriations Committee to include his proposed legislation in an appropriations bill. After a perfunctory hearing, the Committee passed the appropriations bill, with McDade’s provision included, in July 1998. The McDade provision found its logical place in an appropriations bill, nestled immediately between a provision allocating $17 million for the maritime administration and a section amending the National Whale Conservation Fund Act. Support for the McDade provision swelled in Congress when it emerged that Independent Counsel Starr had engaged in allegedly questionable tactics during the Lewinsky investigation, including the questioning of a suspect outside of the presence of her counsel.

The bill was then collapsed into an Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill, and presented to the Senate on August 31, 1998. Although the House had been a congenial place for McDade’s law, the Senate accorded it a relatively chilly reception. Senator Leahy (D.-Vt.), the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, spoke out on the floor against the CPA, noting that the provision placed “unnecessary and ill-advised obstacles in the path of effective interstate and international prosecutions.” The ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch (R.-Utah), also criticized McDade’s measure as harmful to the legitimate interest of law enforcement. In addition, noting the remarkably unified opposition to the measure inside and outside the administration, Hatch and Leahy expressed displeasure that the Judiciary Committee had been bypassed, and they sent a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee urging removal of the provision from the conference report.

Indeed, far from there being any groundswell of support for the measure, most outside observers were critical. Here again, as with the Hyde Amendment, Congress proved itself determined to enact a measure that satisfied no real constituency, and that few in the general public considered to be in the public interest. The Washington Post, for example, hardly a bastion of law-and-order conservatism, ran an editorial critical of the CPA. Although acknowledging that steps should be taken to check federal prosecutors, the editorial pointed out that the measure was too blunt to accommodate the countervailing interests in effective law enforcement. The Post editorial noted that “[o]ne might expect that criminal justice legislation that is opposed by the president, the attorney general and the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee would not be blithely slipped into the statute books.” But that was precisely what happened. And when push came to shove, Leahy and Hatch declined to hold up the entire appropriations because of their opposition to the measure.

Gloating over the act’s passage in his final days in office, McDade scorned even the veneer of even-handedness, and spoke of his handiwork in the tones of a caricature of a crusading ACLU lawyer: “The Department of Justice today is engaging in the most immoral activity I can imagine,” McDade pronounced. “They charge any citizen that they can get, and as it was once said, they don’t throw the book at them, they throw the library.” Ironically, if McDade’s concern was the prosecutorial penchant to “overcharge” in the drafting of indictments, a legitimate concern that does indeed warrant scrutiny, his measure does absolutely nothing to address this problem.

But what has the CPA accomplished? To their credit, Senators Leahy and Hatch have tracked the real-world consequences of the McDade Amendment, and urged its repeal. Indeed, even before the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, the two leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee cataloged how the application of the vagaries of state ethics rules, and in particular the rule prohibiting contact with represented parties, have sabotaged one federal investigation after another. For example, Senate Leahy took to the floor of the Senate and described how the McDade Amendment worked in actual practice in an FBI child-murder investigation. Having obtained a reliable tip that an individual, who was in a county jail after conviction on an unrelated charge, was the culprit, the FBI sought to wire one of the suspect’s trusted accomplices. But prosecutors, fearful that this might run afoul of the state’s ethics rules prohibiting contact with represented parties, sought guidance from the State Bar Disciplinary Counsel. The Counsel, interpreting the state ethics rules, concluded that the suspect was still a “represented person” and, therefore, prohibited any direct contact by an agent of the police. Such a prohibition, one should add, is in no way required by the U.S. Constitution, nor any federal regulations, but the effect of the McDade Amendment here was to short-circuit a federal murder investigation.

The September 11th attacks have prompted a reappraisal of the costs of the McDade Amendment. FBI agent Colleen Rowley, the celebrated whistleblower who excoriated FBI headquarters for its refusal to approve a warrant application to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s laptop computer, specifically urged Congress to reconsider the McDade Amendment, precisely because of the hindrance it might pose in terrorism investigations. Indeed, it is relatively easy to imagine how investigations into terrorist cells stretching across states, and involving parties who may have had brushes with the law in the past, might be delayed or even jeopardized by the McDade Amendment. In response, as noted earlier, Senator Leahy included a proposal in the Patriot Act to overhaul the McDade Amendment. But the House steadfastly rejected the Senate’s call for its replacement with a more measured provision. Responsible for creating this monster, and apparently attached to its own handiwork, the House would not consent to its destruction.

Picture the American Justice System as the game JENGA. The various injustices people experience are the peices. Remove a piece, the game continues. The piece is placed back on top. The game continues…

…and continues until it comes crashing down.

Surviving the injustice(s) permits the game to continue… UNTIL YOU DON’T.

Victims are (1) homeless/destitute, (2) incarcerated, or (3) suicides.

American Injustice has been ignored since 1984.

At the recommendation of the American Bar Association, their unconstitutional Rules of Professional Conduct – which lacked the ‘fraud provisions’ deliberately removed to conceal fraud and prevent resolution – became law through each state Supreme Court.

Included in those rules was an aggressively enforced mandated for Confidentiality of Information (Rule 1.6) – a confidentiality which permits lawyers and law enforcement to IGNORE the loss of rights and the denial of any protection of the law.

Where enacted by the Judiciary and where the only decider of constitutionality is the Judiciary, a HUGE conflict of interest prevents exposure of the problem.

Concealing the fraud and preventing resolution (acting under confidentiality) the members of the various affiliated bar associations interfere, undermine and prevent the judiciary ‘held hostage’ from addressing or correcting the error. The membership of the ABA profits from the futile lawsuits.

Federal law enforcement and lawyers are similarly prevented from action by a Federal law, improperly enacted by the Congress.

The McDade Murtha amendment was an improper delegation of the rule making authority of the US Congress (Legislative Branch) to the state Judiciary (Judicial Branch).

There was no evaluation of the constitutionality of each states Rules of Professional Conduct. Congress neglected to recognize the conflict of interest and confidentiality which prevents the judiciary from addressing any unconstitutional affects of the “Rules for Lawyers”.

EVERY AMERICAN INJUSTICE IS IGNORED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND LAWYERS PURSUANT TO RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY.
Improperly enacted and unconstitutional.
Injustice and the unconstitutional denial of Americans rights caused by deliberate acts of treason (in EVERY state) by the American Bar Association.

President Elect Donald Trump is NOT a lawyer mandated to conceal the cause of the Constitutional Crisis in the US.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

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.”

The massive power of deception and hate disguises a manipulation which has persisted for decades.  

BELIEVERS aren’t blind.  They are prevented from any view of the mountain while overly  impressed with their tunnel going through it.  They fail to recognize or respect those in the other tunnels who do the same.  

Some change tunnels never learning that even with their newfound awareness they continue to neglect the full view.

Be careful.  The mountain doesn’t want to be seen.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

Remember in 2014 when Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane said:

As many of you know, I initiated an independent inquiry into the way the Sandusky investigation was conducted — a central concern raised during my campaign for Attorney General. During that investigation, thousands of emails were discovered sent and received by Pennsylvania public officials that contained pornographic materials. As a result of multiple requests to the Office of Attorney General under Pennsylvania’s broad Right to Know Law, I released most of these emails to the media and the public.

The Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a recently published opinion, described the attachments to these emails as “clearly pornographic” and possibly criminal. As a result, many senior public officials involved in these emails resigned. But others remain on the public payrolls, as the Chief Justice pointed out.

Today I am due to testify before a Pennsylvania Grand Jury, as has been publicly reported. However, due to continuous, even overlapping court orders since last March, I am not allowed to explain why I am testifying or what my testimony has to do with the release of the pornographic emails under the Right to Know Law. These court orders also expose me to legal risk if I do my job as Attorney General that I was elected and trusted by the people of Pennsylvania to do. I am not allowed at this time to explain why.

The Office of Attorney General has cooperated from the beginning of this process and I will do the same. I will tell the Special Prosecutor the truth and the facts surrounding the disclosure of information to the public that was done in a way that did not violate statutory or case law regarding Grand Jury secrecy.

Despite my present situation that restricts my ability to answer your questions, I remain committed to the central theme of my campaign — transparency in government. The public has a right to know what public officials are doing or not doing with taxpayer dollars and whether they are doing their jobs properly or attempting to investigate or prosecute possible criminal conduct.

I promised I would expose corruption and abuse of the legal system. The winds of change can only blow through open windows. My administration is being prevented from prying open the windows that corruption has nailed shut. But that change is coming.

The right of the public and media to know what public officials are doing is vital and should be protected by public officials, the media, and the people of Pennsylvania. I am fighting for the right of the Attorney General to do my job without interference.

But more importantly, I am fighting for an end to abuse of the criminal justice system, for transparency, and for better government. That doesn’t come without cost to us. But if this can be done to me as Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of the 5th largest state in the country, I am sickened to think what can and may be done to regular, good people who don’t have the resources that I have to challenge it.

In conclusion, I wish I could say more and answer all your questions but I cannot. But I can promise you this: The truth and the law will prevail.

<HR>

I don’t think any of us thought it would take so long…

An amazing and unimagined display of family support today in Norristown.  The family of Kathleen Kane was out in force to back the embattled champion for justice.

I greeted Kathleen as she arrived this morning.  A positive vibe had begun which lasted all day.  

THEN, her family began to arrive…  filling the entire courtroom to beyond capacity.  The show of support was profound.

Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin Steele was as usual an arrogant and aggressive presenter of disinformation – failing at every turn to show character or integrity.  His inability to recognize the truth confounds.

In a remarkable turn of events, Judge Demchick-Alloy failed to recognize the obvious flaws in Steele’s statements and arguments.  The constant unrelenting insults hurtled towards Kathleen Kane and her supporters who testified were shameful…but, that didn’t stop Kevin Steele.

Everyone involved were prosecutors.  Lawyers from both sides and the judge too.  They all know how to use disinformation and misinformation.  They don’t seem to know how to expose the lies and differentiate them from the truth.  Under Rule 1.6 Confidentiality fraud in the furtherance AND fraud to prevent resolution is permitted and held confidential.  That seriously makes truthiness a rare find.  Opinions are presented as facts.  They think people do not notice.

A steady series of under-their-breath taunts by former employees of the PA Office of Attorney General was distracting.  We get it.  They don’t like Kathleen Kane, the woman who didn’t prosecute them and fired them instead.

The outcome of the full day in court… Kane was sentenced to less than 2 years in prison with 8 years of probation.  While the inevitable appeal proceeds to PA Superior Court, Kane will be free on bail of $75,000.

There were tears in the courtroom as supporters heard from Kane’s oldest son, 16.

The usally composed Kathleen spoke to the court, her family, the supporters and the citizens of Pennsylvania.  She spoke of what has occurred n the last two years as she was prosecuted, humiliated,  vilified, stripped of her law license, her family and friends thrown into chaos and turmoil.  Through tears she indicated she would not have changed a thing she had done and there was still Work 2B Done.

At the end of the day, she was cuffed and lead out before the media to go to jail… 

Bail could be arranged and her lawyers assured me that it was being handled… And the Appeal will be forthcoming.

A press conference was held at the end of the day.  DA Steele was asked about his witness’s statement about an ex parte court transcript before Judge Carpenter which had been seen in the OAG – an order from Judge Carpenter ordered the transcript to be returned, destroyed and forgotten.  The transcript contained a proceeding with Frank Fina, Judge Carpenter, and his Special Prosecutor Thomas Carluccio.  THIS DOCUMENT WAS NOT OERMITTED TO BE MENTIONED AT THE CRIMINAL TRIAL.  It seems that it likely contains the plan to setup and convict Kathleen Kane under false perjury charges to prevent her acting on the corruption in Montgomery County Law Enforcement and judiciary.

I also asked about the Conspiracy charges which were NOLLE PROSSED.  The judges instructions to the jury had indicated a necessity to find guilt on the Conspiracy charges before perjury and other charges could then be associated.

If there was no conspiracy, there could not have been any perjury.  Soooo why is this injustice continuing.  Steele had no response.

Justice is Coming!