A Terroristic Divorce

So if you are wondering why BANK OF AMERICA is foreclosing on your property… Look closely at your documentation.

It is not the banks behind the foreclosure crisis.

A fraudulent act by a lawyer is the only misconduct necessary to cause your loss of rights.

The reason no bankers went to jail for the robo-signing (fraud) was because THE LAWYERS DID IT. And they were protected.

Until the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6…

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ChallengeRule1.6/

Zed,
Please, contact me.

Our stories are too similar that I am wondering how our paths have not crossed.

The number of people who seem to know both of us are too great that I am curious as to why we have not met before.

Read, what we are doing… You will learn that everything which has been done to you has been LAWFUL… but UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And it’s only been lawful because the lawyers were bullied into injustice, and the judges compelled to lose their integrity. Remove Rule 1.6 and everything is good. No more excuses or ways to hide injustices.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. With a cause for relief and standing to address the issue, pro se litigants filed and served every state – lawfully acting to expose a law which obstructed justice and mandated corruption leaving Americans without basic rights and liberties.

YouTube

Rule 1.6
… No Governor signed it
… No Legislature enacted it
… No Representative proposed it
… No Senator reviewed it

So tell me again how in 1987 the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania enacted a law which denied people of their constitutionally protected rights and liberties… caused extreme injustice and prevented any measure to address judicial corruption, malice and retaliation … AND NO ONE QUESTIONED IT.

Until The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed on August 8, 2013 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Yo Philly, Justice is coming.

( PDF )

JURISDICTION

1. The Court has jurisdiction in ths matter as the matter is being brought in the county where the land is located, ia a matter relating to civil trespass, where there are no criminal charges currently being filed by the Plaintiff; where there is no financial considerations currently being sought by the Plaintiff.

OWNERSHIP

2. Pursuant to Rule 1054, Plaintiff, Terance Healy, asserts his ownership of the property located at 110 Banbury Avenue, North Wales, PA 19454.

3. The Deed to the Property lists the Plaintiff as Grantee. [ Exhibit A ]

4. The instruments filed regarding the Property identified by Montgomery County as Parcel #46-00-00467-11-7 confirms the transfer of the title to the Plaintiff recorded on 1/16/1996.

5. A list of instruments recorded by the Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds which related to the property/parcel is attached. [ Exhibit B ]

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE

6. The transfer of the deed to the Miller’s represents a fraudulent conveyance of the property;
a) Fraud: A person represents that they are the true owner of the land, but they are not.
b) Forgery: A person has given a forged Deed.
c) A Bad Power of Attorney: A person claims to have “power of attorney” but does not have the legal authority to act for another person; the power of attorney if invalid; the power of attorney is not properly executed and or notarized.
d). misrepresentation of marital status.
e) Undue Influence
f) Mistakes were made recording legal documents
g) Falsified title records
h) Representations on legal documents are invalid or incorrect.

NOTICE TO TRESPASSERS

7. Notice having been provided as a courtesy on July 26, 2013 at the property. (1) stapled to the front door frame, (2) stapled to the garage door frame and (3) stapled to the Mail box post. [ Exhibit C ]

8. No notice is required by law.

9. Receipt of Notice having been acknowledged by phone from Montgomery Township Police, officer McGuigan.

10. Plaintiff makes no allegation of Criminal Trespass at this time. This is a civil matter, Police involvement is unnecessary and outside their jurisdiction.

DAMAGES

11. Plaintiff is not currently seeking damages, however does not waive damages and reserves that right which may be asserted upon gaining access to the property.

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.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable court issue an Order for Ejectment and permit the Plaintiff to safely return to the property of which he has been lawfully granted exclusive use and occupancy.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy

Emergency Praecipe for Immediate Eviction / Order of Possession( PDF )

Emergency Praecipe for Immediate Eviction/Order of Possession (Addendum)( PDF )

Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and Defendant’s Memorandum of Law ( PDF )

Plaintiff Responds to Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and Defendant’s Memorandum of Law
( PDF )

Todd Krautheim and Terance Healy appeared at the Bucks County Commissioners meeting this morning and presented the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and requested the support of the county in presenting the issue and the challenge to those who can help with the resolution of the matter.

Krautheim explained and again requested the assistance of the County Commissioners in the matter. The Bucks County Commissioners are Robert G. Loughery, Charles H. Martin, and Diane M. Ellis-Marseglia.

Krautheim further explained the loss of rights. The loss of constitutionally protected rights is something difficult for Americans to comprehend.

Healy and Krautheim responded to the questions.

Healy and Krautheim’s experiences were discussed briefly. The issue is not the experience, but the resultant loss of rights. The example of Cash for Kids scandal in Luzerne County was offered as an extreme case. No one understood how Cash for Kids could have happened, and gone ignored for so long, and affected so many children and families. Suddenly, there was a reason being presented and the room seemed to understand. There was no lawful approach to the scandal.

Healy explained the problem law being enacted through an unlawful action by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Further explaining how the legislature could not lawfully address the law once enacted. They explained how the Attorney General could not take lawful action against the law. Actually, three PA Attorneys General could not address the issue. Tom Corbett. Linda Kelly. Kathleen Kane.

Someone asked which Governor had signed the law. There had been no governor’s signature. The law was enacted by the Supreme Court in an action which usurped the authority of the legislature and the governor.

The inaction of Attorney General Kathleen Kane was profered as political rhetoric. Healy immediately addressed the AGs lawful responsibility to follow the law. Yes, the Attorney General had to ignore the injustice.

The room fell silent when it was stated that the identical law – RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION – had been enacted in every US State…. and the author of the rule was the American Bar Association. Even the lawyers were silent.

Copies of the challenge were hand delivered to the Commissioners and made available to everyone in attendance.

The Commissioners pointed to a representative from the local newspapers with the suggestion of that being the first place to pursue further action.

It was then explained that while copies of the Challenge Document were hand delivered to each local newspaper in Bucks and Montgomery County, and the Philadelphia television stations had also received copies… there had been no word about the challenge in any media.

The meeting ended with alot of people having questions on their mind and a definitive interest in reading about this injustice spreading across the United States, and the resolution just beginning to see the light of day.

Healy and Krautheim appreciated the opportunity to present the issue, and additionally that the usual restriction on time for public comments was not an issue. The genuine interest of the commissioners and the audience in the room was greatly appreciated…. and a sign of hope. People have understood that the constitution was being ignored, but lacked the understanding of how to visualize it. It was demonstrated in Bucks County. Justice is coming.

The Judiciary is not constitutionally or lawfully permitted to write, make or enact law.

SO HOW DID THE 1987 SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA GET AWAY WITH IT?

Can someone in the Pennsylvania legislature please explain how the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania enacted a law?
Title 204 Chapter 81?

…and how THAT law prevented the legislature from changing the law?
Title 204 Chapter 81?

…and how THAT law also prevents the executive branch from enforcing the law?
Title 204 Chapter 81?

And NOW inform the USA how it happened in every state?
It seems the State Supreme Courts have some ‘splaining to do.

Because the courts acted without authority and in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions… and the resulting injustice in undeniable… and the criminal misconduct and corruption were BEYOND LAWFUL PROSECUTION??? Protected and concealed by an illegal, unlawful, improperly enacted and executed law, which they failed to enforce.

EVIL IS NOT ILLEGAL. But it seems the State Supreme Court made it lawful. And who could declare it unlawful, but themselves. And who could expose the unlawfulness, when lawyers were not lawfully permitted to act? A couple of Pro Se litigants terrorized to the point of extinction.

IT’S CALLED UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS. and THAT’S NOT VALID.

Now who is gonna back up the Pro Se litigants that have lawfully filed this Challenge in Federal Courts?

And who is going to arrest the 1987 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and the Governor and Attorney General?

The nightmare of unconstitutional unprosecuted malicious and deliberate injustice and abuse of power under color of law is ending in the USA because it was always unconstitutional… and now it is clear why, when, where, who and how it happened.

NOW that it is exposed as unconstitutional. Lawyers may step up and assist without fear of disbarment for failing to follow Rule 1.6. Step Right UP! EXPOSE THE INJUSTICE.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct affects everyone… most certainly the unaware.

How would the alumni of Penn State University like to see the resurrection of the legacy of Joe Paterno?

Rule 1.6 prevented criminal prosecution of Jerry Sandusky and resulted in the fall of Joe Paterno for supposed inaction. Let’s hope they have not melted down that statue.

The Rule requires judicial misconduct to be concealed and ignored at every level of law enforcement within the state. Federal prosecutors rarely get involved unless invited by an Attorney General. This is not about immunity… it is all about misconduct. Unlawful misconduct. CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT.

Not one lawyer on or off campus could do anything to restore the reputation of Paterno. They are bouind by Rule 1.6 and face disbarrment for any violation of it.

BTW, Plaintiffs did not go to Penn State. Plaintiffs are also not lawyers. And they have demonstrated standing and a proper cause for relief in Federal Court.

Paterno was a legend who did not deserve to be destroyed. There was nothing he could have done to cause the legal prosecution of Jerry Sandusky. Rule 1.6 prevented lawful action to prosecute, but it also excused the misdirection and the tragedies which occurred to the direct and indirect victims.

www.work2bdone.com/live

www.facebook.com/groups/ChallengeRule1.6/

ChallengeRule16.blogspot.com

Kevinpatrick Brady shared a link. 7 hours ago near Rochester, NY

Holy smokes and sakes alive.

I’ve been trying for nearly two [2] decades to enunciate to my fellow Americans and future generations, the ghastly circumstances under which I fell into a life altering abyss; a labyrinth of abusive, arbitrary government and no win litigation vortex which essentially raped me of every fundamental right of society I though I had. It then abandoned me.

Once I believed in the great American Experiment; the myth that we are all endowed with certain ‘inalienable’ rights that would be instantly recognized, respected and enforced by our honorable, ‘independent’ third branch of government. Today our third branch acts BOLDLY similar to the Third Reich.

PEOPLE! I am NOT just crying wolf. This aint your founding fathers America anymore. If you think ‘it cant happen here, or it won’t happen to me or my children’ I am sorry to report that you are whistling past the graveyard.

This documentary [July 2013] by fellow citizen Larken Rose enunciates contemporary America infinitely better than I’ve been able to do. If the last fifteen [15] minutes [‘Oath Keepers’ ] don’t scare the bejesus out of you then you are indeed one of the sheeple who believe ‘it cant happen here, or it won’t happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx7XG-Ohx-A

In an amazing demonstration, in the Motion To Dismiss filed by Randall Henzes on behalf of Attorney General Kathleen Kane of Pennsylvania, they utilize THE CHEWBACCA DEFENSE – “a technique so advanced nobody understands it.”

THE CHEWBACCA DEFENSE

To think this kind of farce is going on in courtrooms across the United States is demonstrative of why the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct was filed. The AGs cannot lawfully address the issues of judicial misconduct, and the resulting crime… so they stick their heads up their asses and act like those reporting it and suffering from it are crazy. Ever fearful of the ABSOLUTE DESTRUCTION which befalls anyone who addresses the crime. Those who violate Rule 1.6 and are disbarred and destroyed. It is a career, and life ending act.

That’s why it could only be lawfully filed by NON-lawyers…. and after they had been robbed of everything, including their constitutional rights while ignored by every level of law enforcement. Destroyed and terrorized until they HAD to find the resolution… their only escape.

Everything about the Motion To Dismiss is “horseshit”. It would be funny except that it is not.

Every citation is irrelevant. It does not make sense.

Every reference is irrelevant. It does not make sense.

Every footnote is incorrect. It does not make sense.

It is a clear representation of THE CHEWBACCA DEFENSE. They will continue on with such incredible inanity until exhaustion is the cause for dismissal.

They don’t give a fuck that people’s lives are being destroyed while they play their joke. The suggestion that I suffered through 8 years of terror and injustice just so I could play with them is twisted. Kathleen Kane, you, Tom Corbett and Linda Kelly never answered your phone when people called you to do your job. You have permitted the people to be terrorized for long enough. WE FOUND THE EXIT. LET US FREE.

Kathleen Kane won’t even take calls emails or any form of contact to address or discuss the Federal filing. Remarkable, that she hasn’t reviewed her office phone records and see the hundreds of calls from me over the last 8 years.

The insult of having to respond to deliberate error and improper citation. This is really the best they could do? NO. IT IS ALL THEY CAN DO. THEY HAVE NO LAW TO TO USE AGAINST ME FOR POINTING OUT THEIR ACTIONS WHICH UNDERMINED THE CONSTITUTION. THEIR DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL LACK OF RELEVANCE IS FRIGHTENING.

The retaliatory actions against the Plaintiffs has never subsided. The damage to property, cars, homes, constant daily harassment by phone, after 8 years, Terance Healy would rather have committed suicide. But, he’s not capable so he lives to be terrorized another day. Emotionally, physically, mentally exhausted. The methods of terror being exposed weekly in the newspapers that he has experienced personally for the last 8 years while under the Rules which allow judicial terrorism.

I suggest people start attaching the entire Rule 1.6 Challenge to their 1983 Abuse of Judicial Power Complaints. That is the script they are running to excuse judicial crimes. When you attach the Rule 1.6 challenge to your 1983 complaint, they can’t follow their usual script because they can’t address your loss of constitutionally protected rights… not without revealing the judicial crimes… and that would violate Rule 1.6 if they did so.

ASK YOURSELF…

1.) Why did no one from Pennsylvania prosecute Judge Ciavarella when he threw 5000 children in jail?

2.) Why was the one judge who spoke out against Judge Ciavarella removed from the Bench? Ask Judge Ann Lokuta.

3.) Why was Ann Lokuta not permitted to return to the bench after Judge Ciavarella went to prison?

The answer is simple, Rule 1.6 prevented it. Lawfully requiring the Attorney General of the state to ignore the crime and participate in concealing it from Federal Authorities.

4) Why do you think Jerry Sandusky was permitted to rape and molest children on the campus of Penn State University?

Find the act of judicial misconduct, and you will find the crime, the conspiracy and the state-wide cover-up… BECAUSE IT IS MANDATED BY LAW.