A Terroristic Divorce

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We hereby present

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

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

Rule 1.6 requires that Rule 1.6 be kept confidential.

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

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

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

PREEMPTION

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

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

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

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

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

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

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

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

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

PREEMPTION JURISPRUDENCE

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

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

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

CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW

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

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

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

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

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

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

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND

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

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

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

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

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

The judiciary have buried an unconstitutional law so deep in the law books that they never expected any non-lawyer to find it, and survive to prove it while being denied their constitutional rights and the protection of the law.

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

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

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

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

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

THE RULE-MAKING POWER AND POWERS OVER PROCESS

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

LIMITATIONS TO THE RULE MAKING POWER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JURISDICTION – CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY

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

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

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

NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE – Scope and Operation

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

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

JURISDICTION – SUPREME COURT

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

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

DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

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

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

JURISDICTION – EXECUTIVE ORDER

The Constitution was clearly intended to preempt state law.

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

Respectfully,

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

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

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

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

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

Rule 1.6 requires that Rule 1.6 be kept confidential.

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

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

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

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

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

Every. Person. Matters.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

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

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

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

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

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

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

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

Preemption Jurisprudence

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

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

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

CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW

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

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

They hide behind their Rule 1.6 Confidentiality and deny your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, … jail your children, steal your house, or destroy your life. They know what they are doing is ultimately unlawful. The judiciary have buried an unconstitutional law so deep in the law books that they never expected any non-lawyer to find it, and survive to prove it.

The Rule-Making Power and Powers Over Process

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

Limitations to The Rule Making Power.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JURISDICTION – Congressional Authority

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

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

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

NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE – Scope and Operation

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

JURISDICTION – Supreme Court

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

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

DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

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

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

EXECUTIVE ORDER

The Constitution was clearly intended to preempt state law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1.6 is so wrong… It’s evil.

Alexander Hamilton described the separation of powers…

The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community.

The Legislative not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated.

The Judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE NOR WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

Hamilton neglected to see how each state judiciary enacting a law could undermine the whole of the government. By enacting a law which mandates the silence of lawyers, aggressively enforcing THEIR law, and undermining the legislature through it’s lawyer membership and the executive through it’s governor/lawyers. By enacting a law which undermines constitutional rights, and the law, without proper authority where it affects the rights protected by the Constitution of the United states and the state Constitutions.

The Judicial Branch has demonstrated their power to undermine the Constitution of the United States, because they alone have the authority to decide what is constitutional and ignore when they violate constitutional rights.

This is not speculation. This is why the constitution and the rule of law are ignored in the united States. And lately, the judiciary committee is trying to silence the whole country.

The mistake was letting the judiciary make their law without review of the collateral impact of the opportunity for denial of constitutional rights, and of equal protection of the law.

Rule 1.6 undermined the government and mandated the confidentiality of lawyers (the legislative) and law enforcement (the executive branch). As the judiciary has the power of judgment, they have effectively usurped force, will and judgment. One law controls them all, and mandates their silence.

Quietly rolled out to each state from 1984 through 2009… and modified ONLY when it exposed their judicial corruption – leaving bread crumbs demonstrating intent. Only a legislature could stop the power shift. A a mandate of confidentiality and the shame of what the government had allowed to happen has kept every legislature silent.

The judiciary controls judgment, force and will – and aggressively attacks any challenge to their unconstitutional, unlawful and unjust actions.

The government is controlled within one organization – the American Bar Association, and it’s pretend government structure. An effective silent overthrow of the United States…

Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional and is so REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS A NULLITY. IT IS VOID AB INITIO.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

An unconstitutional law enacted by the judiciary without any review during construction for constitutionality is further excluded from any ‘checks and balances’ because ONLY THE COURTS can decide constitutionality which causes judicial corruption and injustice to be ignored while denying basic constitutional rights.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality further mandates that lawyers take no action which would adversely affect the integrity of the court.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality further mandates that an Attorney General not expose corruption within the OAG, by state officials or other state agencies.

Rule 1.6 mandates the victim to be abused and terrorized within the courts made destitute, homeless or incarcerated until their suicide.

Rule 1.6 is so powerful that lawyers, attorneys general and judges will deny law, constitutional rights, human rights, and facts to conceal the corruption and injustice which it causes.

It only requires a judge and lawyer commit misconduct. The resulting injustice will overwhelm. Whether aware of the injustice’s existence or not, the target experiences the loss of rights and the denial of the protection of the law. Even if the initial injustice is discovered, there is no method by which a victim may recover or survive. There is no possibility of regaining your rights where they have been deliberately denied by the judiciary.

The victim knows what it means to be terrorized. Any attempt to survive requires the court and judiciary to address the denial of rights. They don’t. They won’t. Ever. It’s their law.

The law was deliberately written without opportunity for escape. It’s intent was destruction. It has been allowed to foreclose on millions of people’s homes. It has thrown innocent children in jail. It has denied parents of their children. It has thrown innocent people in jail.

Homeless. Destitute. Suicide. Incarceration. THE ONLY CHOICES UNDER RULE 1.6. Perseverance is self-torture. Survival is futile.

Rule 1.6 destroys HOPE last. Hope is requisite for justice – even where you know justice will be denied. There is no alternative. You must return to the corrupt court seeking justice that won’t come… …until you are dead.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 continues to persevere on behalf of the survivors and to help further victims. BUT, I am exhausted… fighting the misinformation and corruption art every level of the courts. It proves my case against Rule 1.6, while it consumes my life and terrorizes every moment since 2006. There are no vacations, no breaks, no relief, ever… I understand why people break.

The judicial branch was established in the U.S. Constitution as a co-equal third branch of our government.

The primary purposes of the judicial branch are to solve disputes by making fair and impartial decisions based upon facts, uphold the rule of law, and protect our rights.

Rule 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION causes a loss of constitutional rights to a litigant where there has been acts of judicial misconduct, corruption and injustice. Once that occurs any attempt to address the loss of rights is ignored by the courts. Rule 1.6 was enacted into law by the state supreme courts and rolled out during a period which started in 1984 (New Jersey) and continued through 2009 (Maine).

A Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed in August 2013. The federal courts improperly dismissed the matter after 56 state attorneys general had defaulted. Rule 1.6 injustice continues. The Constitutional Challenge will next be submitted to the US Supreme Court and the US Congress.

Since the founding of our nation, a system of checks and balances has ensured that each branch of government can function effectively, but cannot overpower the other branches. The main check that the judicial branch has on the other two branches is the power to declare executive or legislative acts unconstitutional.

There is no authority outside of the judiciary for declaring acts unconstitutional.

The judiciary has the authority for writing the laws to conduct the business of the judicial branch.

Judicial authority to self-legislate is limited only in that it can not infringe upon constitutional rights secured by state constitutions and the Constitution of the United States of America.

THE PROBLEM:
Where the judiciary, acting within their self-legislative authority, enacts a law which is unconstitutional, there is no authority to review the ‘law’.

– Their law violates the US Constitution.
– Their law violates the federal authority to self-legislate.
– Their law violates state constitutions.
– Their law violates the state authority to self-legislate.
– There is no preliminary review.
– No checks and balances.

THE ANSWER: THE JUDICIARY IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO VIOLATE PEOPLE’S RIGHTS. BUT, THEY DID.

The ‘LAW’ was written by the American Bar Association whose membership is mandated to silence and profits from the unconstitutional law. Prior to being enacted confidentiality was discretionary, as a ‘law’ IT IS A MANDATE WHICH IS AGGRESSIVELY ENFORCED.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE JUDICIARY ENACTS A LAW WHICH VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?

1. They ignore it.
2. They conceal it.
3. They retaliate.
4. They conspire on appeal.
5. They deny the facts, the law, and rights.
6. They prevent judicial review.
7. They lose judicial independence.
8. They sacrifice integrity.

WHERE THAT LAW MANDATES THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF LAWYERS
9. They undermine impartiality.
10. They undermine the facts.
11. They undermine the rule of law.
12. They undermine people’s rights.

They undermine judicial independence.

The judiciary, upon proper petition to address the unconstitutional aspects of ONE law enacted by EVERY state supreme court, has prevented any review by ignoring the facts, not applying the rule of law, and undermining people’s rights.

Judicial independence is an essential element of jurisdiction. Where the court lacks jurisdiction, they lack authority to issue any ruling, order or opinion in the matter. Their actions are void ab initio and have no validity.

Where the courts refuse to address their lack of lawful authority and corruption, the victim is subject to retaliation and continued terror while denied any opportunity to address the loss of constitutional rights.

Injustice does not end injustice. It extends it.

Kathleen Kane’s credibility is on the line – MORNING CALL July 5, 2014

Rule 1.6 is a law which mandates confidentiality of information. It’s unconstitutional. it causes judges to sacrifice their integrity. It requires law enforcement to ignore corruption and injustice. Rule 1.6 mandates that Kathleen Kane not explain that it is being used by those who are well aware of it to attack her credibility where she is mandated to conceal their corruption and misconduct.

Rule 1.6 mandated confidentiality is a tool for corruption and injustice – and the denial of constitutional rights. The Kids For Cash scandal. The Sandusky Conspiracy. Foreclosure through fraud. All enabled, delayed, and ignored for years because of a mandate that lawyers and judges MUST ignore judicial corruption and injustice. Rule 1.6 demands that confidentiality from district attorneys and attorneys general.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was undermined by a member of Kathleen Kane’s office. His actions required the integrity of the federal courts to be sacrificed – made the courts deny the law and the constitution and prevented them from explaining. Because of Rule 1.6, Kathleen Kane can take no action to expose the case being undermined by her office.

The Weaponized version of Rule 1.6, seems to be the choice of the District Attorneys of Pennsylvania. They dare to attack the actions of the Pennsylvania Attorney General with the knowledge that she is not lawfully permitted to answer their statements. Seth Williams hired Frank Fina after Fina undermined his own investigation requiring the case to be dropped. Both know that Attorney General Kane is mandated to confidentiality when it would expose the misconduct of employees of the office of the Attorney General.

Same conditions with regard to the stalled Sandusky investigation which was delayed for years.
The Sandusky report was a sham… mandated by Rule 1.6 to not include misconduct of the investigation. The Supreme Court actually updated the Rules of Professional Conduct to conceal the emails – over 8 times they edited the law for the purpose of email confidentiality. BUT, Rule 1.6 prevents AG Kane from saying it. She must protect the integrity of a court which boldly and arrogantly lacks any shred of integrity. A Supreme court which hides behind a curtain of confidentiality THEY CREATED TO CONCEAL JUDICIAL CORRUPTION.

I have been victimized for over 9 years by injustice and corruption – no protection of the law and no constitutional rights. Homeless, destitute and terrorized to the point where I had to find out why they thought it was OK. Rule 1.6 makes it OK to ignore corruption, injustice and terrorism.

JUSTICE IS COMING. And while Kathleen Kane can’t do anything to help because of Rule 1.6 mandating her taking no action, when she is attacked and cannot defend her silences. I CAN.

Rule 1.6 may have been able to annihilate my life… but it does NOT mandate my silence about it’s corruption. It does not prevent me from challenging the constitutionality of a very twisted law which has damaged millions of Americans.

I don’t know how she can restrain herself. As I read the articles attacking her credibility my respect for her grows. People don’t understand. I’m supposed to hate her and be angry at her for what she did NOT do for me. BUT, I understand her silence. Her silent support of my cause. She’s following the law… (even if it kills me.)

EVERY. PERSON. MATTERS.