A Terroristic Divorce

Judge Weilheimer has yet to submit her opinion regarding her order which is under appeal.

She’s run the Concise Statement stall tactic.

And the Concise Statement filed and submitted without her Opinion clearly demonstrates the impossibility of her finding any law to support her ruling.

I remain homeless and destitute while the courts continue the injustice and corruption.

Judge Gail Weilheimer is the 20th judge directly involved in the matter in the Montgomery County Courts.

Rule 1.6 destroys the integrity of every judge in an attempt to protect the integrity of the judiciary. There is no escape for their victim. Judicial integrity is a farce.

The love that my daughter and I shared was truly special. She is a such a sweet, kind and gentle spirit. I am so sorry that I will not be there to see her grow into a beautiful woman. It absolutely crushed me to not be in her life over the last three years. I worked very hard as a father to build her confidence and self-esteem. She is smart, funny and considerate, but she didn’t know it yet. I pray that she realizes her strengths and her confidence in herself will continue to grow. I love you dearly, [name redacted].

My son [name redacted] was just entering Kindergarten, when I lost access to him. He is gregarious, outgoing and a great athlete. He is smart and fearless. He could have just as much fun by himself as he could with other kids. Even the older boys in our neighbourhood wanted to play with [name redacted]. It absolutely breaks my heart that I will not be able to help him grow into a man. I love you to, [name redacted]. I miss you both so much.

My identity was taken from me, as result of this process. When it began, I was a commercial real estate broker with CB Richard Ellis. I lived by the Golden rule and made a living by bringing parties together and finding the common ground. My reputation as a broker was built on my honesty and integrity. When it ended, I was broke, homeless, unemployed and had no visitation with my own children.

I had no confidence and was paralyzed with fear that I would be going to jail whenever my ex-wife wanted. Nothing I could say or do would stop it. This is what being to death or ‘targeted’ by a psychopath looks like. This is the outcome. I didn’t somehow change into a ‘high-conflict’ person or lose my ability to steer clear of the law. I’ve had never been arrested, depressed, homeless or suicidal before this process. The stress and pressure applied to me was deliberate and nothing I could do or say would get me any relief. Nothing I or my attorneys said to my ex-wife’s attorney or to the Court made any difference. Truth, facts, evidence or even the best interest of my children had no affect on the outcome.

The family court system is broken, but from my experience, it is not the laws, its the lawyers. They feed off of the conflict. They are not hired to reduce conflict or protect the best interest of children, which is why third parties need to be involved. It should be mandatory for children to have a guardian ad litem, with extensive training in abuse and aggression.

It is absolutely shameful that the Fairfax County Court did nothing to intervene or understand the ongoing conflict. Judge Randy Bellows also used the Children as punishment, by withholding access for failing to fax a receipt. The entire conflict centered around the denial of access to the children, it was inconceivable to me that he would use children like this. This is exactly what my ex-wife was doing and now Judge Bellows was doing it for her.

To all my family, friends and the people that supported me through this process, I am so sorry. I know my reactions and behavior throughout this process did not always make sense. None of this made sense to me either. I had no help and the only suggestion I got from my attorneys was to remain silent.

At first, I did what I was told, remained silent and listened to my attorneys. Then after I had given my ex-wife full custody to try and appease her, I learned about Psychopathy and emailed Dr. Samenow about my concerns and asked him for help. Of course, I was ignored. As the conflict continued, I was forced to defend myself. When that didn’t work, I thought I could get the help I needed by speaking out. There is no right or wrong way to defend yourself from abuse. Naively, I thought that abuse was abuse and it would be recognized and something would be done. I thought speaking out would end the abuse or at least get them to back off. It didn’t. When no one did anything they were emboldened.

I took my own life because I had come to the conclusion that there was nothing I could do or say to end the abuse. Every time I got up off my knees, I would get knocked back down. They were not going to let me be the father I wanted to be to my children. People may think I am a coward for giving up on my children, but I didn’t see how I was going to heal from this. I have no money for an attorney, therapy or medication. I have lost four jobs because of this process. I was going to be at their mercy for the rest of my life and they had shown me none.

Being alienated, legally abused, emotionally abused, isolated and financially ruined are all a recipe for suicide. I wish I were stronger to keep going, but the emotional pain and fear of going to court and jail [because of exorbitant child support] became overwhelming. I became paralyzed with fear. I couldn’t flee and I could not fight. I was never going to be allowed to heal or recover. I wish I were better at articulating the psychological and emotional trauma I experienced.

I could fill a book with all the lies and mysterious rulings of the Court. Never have I experienced this kind of pain. I asked for help, but good men did nothing and evil prevailed. All I wanted was a Guardian Ad Litem for my children. Any third party would have been easily been able to confirm or refute all of my allegations, which is why none was ever appointed to protect the children or reduce the conflict.

Abuse is about power and control. Stand up for the abused and speak out. If someone speaks out about abuse, believe them.

Please teach my children empathy and about emotional invalidation and ‘gas-lighting’ or they may end up like me.

God have mercy on my soul.

Chris Mackney

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Chris-Mackney-RIP/542633505845524

AND THE EX WIFE KEEPS ATTACKING…. SOCIOPATHS ARE NEVER SATISFIED.

ONLY IN THE FAMILY COURT CAN SOMEONE WHO HAS COMMITTED NO CRIME LOSE EVERYTHING.

We had been informed by letter that on Thursday April 3, 2014, the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 Appeal would be submitted to the judges without oral argument. “This means your presence will not be required.”

Todd called and spoke to the case manager and was informed that the documents would be provided to the Judges during the afternoon session.

Our experience justified our concern that the judges might not be provided the correct Appeal documents and we decided we would go to witness the Appeal Brief, Response and Answer as it was distributed to the judges.

When we arrived we were told that there was NO session with the judges. There was NO way to witness the judges receiving the documents. The documents had been transmitted to the judges electronically. It had already happened that morning.

The case manager knew nothing and had no information. She blamed everything on the Calendar Guy.

BTW, Calendar Guy doesn’t schedule appointments with the Clerk of Courts when you need to discuss their mishandling of the case and their misinformation. No one does that.

Everyone confirmed that the imaginary “Kathleen” does not work in their office even though she convinced fifty five attorneys general to not participate or register to receive case documents.

The lawyer who the case manage went to for assistance was a special kind of crazy. Her name was Kelly. She is a lawyer under the mandates of Rule 1.6.

Kelly was refusing to provide and truthful information. She was making faces like people do when they are on the phone. The eye rolls. Talking from one side of her mouth. Twisting her face up. Speaking as if we had no idea she was lying.

I asked her, “DO YOU REALIZE I AM STANDING RIGHT HERE AND I CAN SEE THESE FACES YOU ARE MAKING? WE ARE NOT ON THE PHONE. I CAN SEE YOUR GESTURES, ALL OF THEM, AND YOUR CONTORTED EXPRESSIONS.”

They sent for the US Marshalls because what else was she going to do?

The Third Circuit Clerk of Courts office was unable to explain… ANYTHING. The list of misinformation was growing.

The US Marshall walks in and recognizes Todd and myself. He was one of the Marshalls we spoke with in November 2013 when we were concerned that the District Court Clerk of Courts office was not handling the paperwork properly. Everything on the docket was misnamed and out of order. And 55 Defendant Attorneys General had disappeared without a word. Five minutes after we told the US Marshalls about the Sheriffs nationwide being convinced they lacked authority as it was essential to conceal the injustice caused by Rule 1.6. The US Marshalls realized the same had happened to them. It was a very good conversation with them. We explained the Challenge, who what when where why and how.

AND THEN…

On April 14, 2014, a Per Curiam Opinion was issued concurrent with a Judgment for costs. The Per Curiam Opinion is NOT signed by the judges. The Judgement is /electronically signed/ by Marcia Waldron, Clerk.

A Per Curiam Order/Opinion is appropriate where issues are non-controversial. They typically consist of boilerplate statements, a few sentences which apply to the case, and require little editing.

The Court tried to fit the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 into a per curiam boilerplate, they failed. Six pages in length. Clearly, the author had not read ANY of the court documents.

The April 14, 2014 Per Curiam Opinion fails to address the issues presented in the Appeal, misrepresents statements provided in the Court Opinion, neglects the law, fails to acknowledge the information provided in Court documents, and ignores the established doctrine relevant to the matter. The issue under review relates to a well-concealed national controversy regarding the rights and privileges protected by the United States Constitution and the inescapable injustice once a litigant is victimized.

It would seem that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals DID NOT PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTS to the judges assigned to the matter. The Result – A Per Curiam Order without any signatures affirming the District Courts dismissal of the matter even though the District Court’s Opinion documented the failure to substantiate the decision to dismiss.

I wonder who wrote the unsigned Per Curiam Opinion.

PLEASE NOTE: THE COURT HAS NEVER INDICATED THAT RULE 1.6 IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
No one has ever said RULE 1.6 is Constitutional.

The Most logical reason for this… BECAUSE IT IS NOT. However, RULE 1.6 mandates the judges and lawyers not say THAT either. When facts and law are NOT discussed, addressed or properly resolved, the resulting injustice is a clear indicator that RULE 1.6 is affecting in the matter.

FACT: RULE 1.6 is affecting the CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6

THE OPINION (PDF Format)
Within the next few days… I will post
– a Breakdown of the incorrect information in the Opinion
– the issues raised on appeal which the Judges neglected to address

THE LETTER

THE COSTS (PDF Format)

THE FEES (PDF Format)

The Fees raises alot of questions. BUT the first thing to consider is that the Attorney General was supposed to be representing the plaintiffs… aka The Public.

Instead, Attorney General Kathleen Kane neglected her clients, the PUBLIC.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane defended her other clients,
1. the Government as a whole,
2. herself as Attorney General,
3. the office of the Attorney General, and
4. the staff of the Attorney General’s office

BUT THOSE CLIENTS are there at the request of the PUBLIC, the neglected client.
THOSE CLIENTS are there on behalf of the PUBLIC, the neglected client.

Why does this problem exist for the Attorneys General?… RULE 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane must maintain confidentiality of information for her clients… EVEN WHEN IT CAUSES THE PUBLIC TO BE DENIED OF RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES PROTECTED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

The twisted law would required Attorney General Kathleen Kane to be disciplined if she even discussed it with herself.

RULE 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

When authority figures distort truth, abuse their power, involve additional county personnel and departments in their treasonous acts and denial of due process, it creates helpless situation for honest, innocent individuals.

When law enforcement is too preoccupied with preventing their criminal liability from being exposed, they deny equal protection under the law and essentially become terrorists.

When you are left with no choice but to report the crimes to one of the co-conspirators involved with concealing the crimes, there is little hope of escape or survival.

Injustice doesn’t end injustice. It extends it.

IT IS LAW. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

A lawyer has an obligation to maintain confidentiality where information
– would affect the integrity of the judiciary, or
– would reveal the misconduct of their own office, or
– would expose individual liability, or
– would negatively impact their client.

When a lawyer hires a lawyer to represent him, that lawyer must maintain confidentiality where information
– would affect the integrity of the judiciary, or
– would reveal the misconduct of their own office, or
– would expose individual liability, or
– would negatively impact their client.

Government lawyers are unsure of WHO their client even is…
– 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.

THE LAW MANDATES CONFIDENTIALITY FOR THE CLIENT – even when you have no idea who your client is, or may be, or might be, or will be.

Along comes Attorney General Kathleen Kane ending an investigation and saying nothing. CONFIDENTIALITY – mandated by LAW.

Along comes Kathleen Kane with a lawyer to visit the Philly newspapers and saying nothing. CONFIDENTIALITY – mandated by LAW.

Read the accusations by other lawyers who know what she cannot say and speculating. Those lawyers know very well that Kathleen Kane BY LAW must not say anything. But they can speculate all they want.
CONFIDENTIALITY – mandated by LAW.

NJ Governor Chris Christie releases a report on BRIDGEgate through his lawyer.
CONFIDENTIALITY – mandated by LAW.

Christie must do that to protect the state, the governor’s office, he can’t say anything. IT’s THE LAW.
CONFIDENTIALITY – mandated by LAW.

So Chris Christie hires a lawyer, who must protect the client, and the lawyer says nothing. He can’t say anything. IT’s THE LAW.
CONFIDENTIALITY – mandated by LAW.

Aside from the political games being played in full view of the entire country, the Rule 1.6 game plays out in every level of courts every day. It denies and obstructs justice to litigants when the lawyers and the courts must take every action to maintain confidentiality of the corruption and the injustice in the United States Courts.

The law becomes clearly unconstitutional when it denies rights and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

The lawyers can’t fix it because they would violate the LAW.

The courts can’t fix it because it would violate the LAW.

The legislature can’t fix it because it would violate the LAW.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is in the Federal Courts – Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Filed and served upon every state which is following the same ‘law’ which demands the unconstitutional denial of the rights of litigants to protect a system which has self destructed protecting the integrity of a judiciary which lacked integrity, concealing the misconduct of lawyers, hiding the individual liability of lawyers and law enforcement who are prevented from their responsibilities because of a ‘law’ buried in the Rules of Professional Conduct.

And then there are the media lawyers who have informed the news media to ignore the story.

The American Bar Association, the author of the ‘law”, has undermined and corrupted the judiciary of the entire United States… and they hide from the two pro se litigants who proved the ABA’s conspiracy and mandate of silence in the name of integrity. You cannot encourage integrity by a mandate which sacrifices integrity. JUSTICE IS COMING.

WHO IS YOUR CLIENT? ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS
Mark M. Neil, NAGTRI Program Counsel
NAGTRI Program Counsel

The ethical and legal obligations of a lawyer are many. Lawyers are required to provide competent representation to their client.[1] Attorneys may not reveal information relating to the representation of a client without informed consent.[2] They cannot represent a client if there exists a concurrent conflict of interest.[3] A lawyer must protect the rights of persons not represented by counsel.[4]

An attorney must also defend the attorney-client privilege by not revealing the confidential communications between the client and themselves.[5] Further, the discovery of a lawyer’s work product prepared in the course of legal representation, especially in preparation for litigation, is not normally permitted.[6]

All of these obligations presuppose one thing: the lawyer knowing the identity of their client. How else might they assure compliance with the ethical rules, evidentiary standards and discovery limitation? In short, the lawyer has an ethical duty to know a client’s identity.[7] Yet, despite its importance, this may be no easy task for those employed by the government.

Defining the Client

An attorney might first look for the definition in the terminology section of the applicable statute, regulation or rule. In the case of legal ethics, that would be Rule 1.0 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. However, the model rules contain no definition of “client.”[8]

Next, they might consult Black’s Law Dictionary, which defines client as “a person who employs or retains an attorney, or counselor, to appear for him in courts, advise, assist, and defend him in legal proceedings, and to act for him in any legal business.”[9] Elsewhere, the original proposed Federal Rules of Evidence included a definition of “client” in regard to attorney-client privilege as a “person, public officer, or corporation, association, or other entity, either public or private, who is rendered professional legal services by an attorney. . . .”[10]

How, then, is the government attorney to know the identity of their client? The difficulty in answering this question lies, in part, within a basic premise of the rules themselves. The model rules were written based on the attorney-client paradigm of One Lawyer: One Client. While this may work well in the representation of a criminal defendant or a litigant in a domestic issue, it does not apply well to representation by a government lawyer.[11]

So, How to Decide Who Is The Client?

The answer is not as simple as picking one from a list of the alternatives. A variety of courts and authors have considered the issue deciding who the client of the government attorney might be. The general consensus is that there are five possible answers to the question:
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

The rules regarding ethics and professional responsibility are not the end nor are they the sole source of the lawyer’s responsibilities.[12] Rule 1.13 of the Model Rules provides, for example, that the lawyer represents an organization through its duly authorized constituents.[13] This works fine for representation of a corporation or other legally-recognized organization as the lawyer has legal guidelines for identification of those “constituents.” It is of little help in aiding in the government attorney.[14]

The ethical and client identification issues for the government attorney are many. It may be that the lawyer must look elsewhere to determine the identity of his or her client. Determining the extent of a lawyers’ authority or whether a lawyer-client relationship exists may require an external inquiry depending on the circumstances and context of representation.[15] The government attorney may have authority regarding legal matters that do not exist in a private lawyer-client relationship, including the settlement of a matter or declining to appeal an adverse decision. Non-government lawyers are concerned with protecting the interests of their clients, even when those clients may be engaged in wrongdoing. Government attorneys, on the other hand, have a higher, competing duty to act in the public interest.[16]

There may be situations where lawyers find themselves representing clients against other government entities. The Model Rules allow representation of multiple government agencies involved in intragovernmental legal controversies in circumstances where a private lawyer would find themselves in an ethically impossible situation.[17] Where two state agencies are in opposition to each other, for example, the client is not the government as a whole or even the public, but the respective agency.[18]

In all situations, determination will depend on the context of the representation. The government lawyer can put the representation and client identification in context by examining the structure of authority within the government. The specifics of a state’s Constitution, particular statutory provisions of the attorney general’s powers and the statutory scheme relating to an individual agency or public officer must be considered. The lawyer may find themselves representing a department or bureau that is part of a branch of government, the branch of government itself, or the government as a whole. In most cases, the government lawyer will represent the governmental entity and the client may be the state agency or officer.[19] Each situation requires its own analysis.[20]

In short, the task for the government attorney in identifying their client is not an easy one. Regardless, the government attorney must assess the question of client identification on a recurring basis as the answer may change with each new situation or change of circumstance. Failing to do so could result in a breach of ethical duty.

[1] Rule 1.1, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Throughout this article, reference will be made to the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct rather than any specific state rule.
[2] Rule 1.6, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
[3] Rule 1.7, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
[4] Rule 4.3, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
[5] See Rule 502, Federal Rules of Evidence.
[6] Rule 26(b)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
[7] Margaret Colgate Love, Government Lawyers Must Distinguish Their Duties from the Obligations of Clients, www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/who_is_the_client.
[8] Rule 1.0, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
[9] Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition.
[10] Proposed Rule 503, Federal Rules of Evidence proposed by the United States Supreme Court, 1972. While many state versions of this rule of evidence include the definition in their Rule 502 or similar provision, this definition was excluded for the Federal Rules of Evidence when enacted by Congress in 1975. Public Law 93-595, 88 Stat. 1926.
[11] L. Ray Patterson, Legal Ethics: The Law of Professional Responsibility, Pt. III-3 (1982).
[12] Many of a lawyer’s professional responsibilities are prescribed in the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as substantive and procedural law. ²7 Preamble to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
[13] Rule 1.13(a), ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
[14] “Defining precisely the identity of the client and prescribing the resulting obligations of such lawyers may be more difficult in the government context and is a matter beyond the scope of these Rules. Comment [9] to Rule 1.13, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
[15] ² 17 Scope of ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
[16] In re: A Witness Before the Special Grand Jury 200-2288 F. 3d 289 (7th Cir. 2002).
[17] ² [18] Scope of ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
[18] Clark, supra.
[19] Kathleen Clark, Government Lawyers and Confidentiality Norms, 85 Wash. Univ. L. Rev. 1033, 1985.
[20] See Comment [9], Rule 1.13, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

Regarding the Per Curiam Order dated 27, March 2014 where no briefing schedule had been provided to the Appellant, and where the Court of Common Pleas had failed to remedy their failure to deliver the court records and exhibits to the Superior Court.

The evidence is clear. Every action of the courts demonstrate the efforts to obstruct, misinform and misdirect made ‘lawful’ by Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct causing the denial of life and liberty and terrorizing every aspect of life.

Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio issued a deliberately defective and void order. She clearly lacked jurisdiction. The act was NOT that of a judge. It was the act of the President of the County Bar Association.

A deliberate, intentional and malicious court order issued by Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio without jurisdiction has terrorized the litigant from the day it was issued. An action done without jurisdiction to conceal the actions of fifteen prior judges in the matter which have attacked their victim since 2007. After Rhonda Lee Daniele issued her secret order without jurisdiction.

There is no escape for the litigant. The court is mandated to terrorize and destroy the litigant ‘to protect the integrity of the courts.’

The County & Court then went to work to obstruct and deny the appeal of that order issuing further void orders based on the defective and void orders. Those who enforced the defective and void orders becoming involved in treason for doing so. The mandate for protecting integrity of those without integrity growing exponentially.

The Courts are mandated to obstruct and deny the victim ‘to protect the integrity of the court’. In doing so they became involved in the obstruction of justice.

Each court believing the litigant is causing their involvment in this crime. Not the ‘judge’ acting without jurisdiction… not the Courts which mandated their participation in the denial of justice. Each ignoring the US Constitution in the process of self-preservation and sacrifice of their own integrity.

The inability to accomplish anything with regard to the Appeal is caused by the courts, enabled by the court, endorsed by the courts, made ‘lawful’ by the courts.

The victim can do nothing to escape the game of “The order is not void until we say it’s void’. There have been over 80 attempts to have the court take the lawful action to void the order. Every attempt has been ignored.

The Superior Courts are mandated to obstruct and deny the victim ‘to protect the integrity of the court’. In doing so they became involved in the obstruction of justice. Their knowledge of the void and defective orders mandated that they address the issue. A mandatory action, not a discretionary issue for the court.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is mandated to do the same. The Supreme Court enacted the law and in doing so must follow it. This prevents the Supreme Court from repealing the law or addressing the injustice.

And so it goes, that every effort to prevent any interaction with the judiciary is the primary focus. It is essential to ‘protect the integrity of the judiciary’. The denial of justice to the litigant is a consequence. The continued peril and jeopardy of the victim is not a concern.

The actions in the letter dated 3/27/2014 are inappropriate. The Court has been notified of the pending litigation in Federal Courts which can provide the only escape from the nightmare created when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court enacted the Rules of Professional Conduct into law.

I respectfully request review of this matter based on the fact that Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct results in the absolute denial of right and liberties protected by the United States Constitution and that the supporting staff of this Court cease from purposeful actions to deny justice in this matter.

AN ORAL ARGUMENT IS DEMANDED

Respectfully,

Terance Healy

NB: The game of the Prothonotary deliberately improperly captioning the matter is obvious and tiresome. Please correct all records and documents accordingly.

The matter has left the appellant homeless and destitute and forced to respond to the Courts. The appellant has no choice but to persist as he is not capable of suicide.

Politely and respectfully use the following paragraphs as a guideline to alerting the court of your knowledge of the loss of constitutionally protected rights in your case.

If there is silence… and it goes without any discussion or mention. Then, you have been clearly heard and understood.

The courts corruption and injustice is occurring in full view of knowledgeable litigants.

As a section before you close your legal filing….

COMPLAINT – CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

12. Plaintiff provides this Honorable Court with a copy of a document filed on August 8, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which challenges the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and has been served upon Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General and the Attorneys General of the United States. [ Exhibit D ]

13. “The Rules of Professional Conduct set out the minimum ethical standards for the practice of law and constitute a set of rules which all lawyers must follows.” – The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

14. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information causes a denial of the constitutionally protected rights to petition the Government for redress of grievances (First Amendment); causes a denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without duie process of law (Fifth Amendment); which causes the denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law by a State (Fourteenth Amendment).

15. Plaintiff believes that Defendant is a currently practicing legal professional who ‘must follow’ the Rules of Professional Conduct, and as such Plaintiff asserts that any misrepresentation made by Defendant will be lawfully ignored by this Honorable Court resulting in the denial of Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights.

16. The potential of a represented party intentionally introducing an act of fraud or misconduct which triggers the loss of constitutionally protected rights when facing a Pro Se litigant creates a situation which would demand strict actions regarding misconduct.

17. Those lawful practices endorsed and enabled by the Rules of Professional Conduct are unconstitutional and as such are a nullity.

18. Plaintiff does NOT ALLEGE knowledge of any prior misconduct by the Defendants, and is respectfully not acting with the intent to disparage, undermine or disrespect the Defendants or adversely affect the integrity of this Honorable Court.

Challenge13-4614

Everyone is suing Attorney General Kathleen Kane and their cases are mentioned in the television and news media and the blogs.

They neglect to mention that she is named in the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 which is now in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

How’s that for a demonstration about how CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION works?

Rule 1.6 explains all of their actions… Lawyers using ridiculous speculation and posturing are politicizing justice and law enforcement. All a criminal needs to do is involve the judiciary in their crimes to mandate the law community into silence. While mandated to not disclose the known facts, that leaves speculation and fiction to get the front page.