A Terroristic Divorce

I spoke with an attorney representing one of the Attorney Generals the other day. I don’t know if he was joking, or not, when he indicated over the course of his career with the AGs office he has never encountered a case where a person had lost their rights. I responded that he was likely correct because THEY DO NOT GET IN THE DOOR. I had tried for years to get the Attorney General to help in my situation the closest I got was the Consumer Form Letter. When every report was dismissed as beyond the realm of any possibility without ever meeting – how would he know a real one when it came along?

I told him that I had met many people who had lost their rights and had been able to recognize their stories and the loss of rights/liberties. I suggested we get together to review the circumstances which have occurred.

It got me thinking. How do you identify the victim of a loss of civil rights? I asked people who had been through the experience. Their responses were accurate, a few off-the-wall quips, all accurate. The first thing you must face. CRAZY. It’s the word you are called (though you are not crazy). It’s the word people say when you tell them about any experience. “They can’t do that.” “Well They Did!” “That’s crazy.” At which point there is no point in continuing that conversation. You cannot validate a situation which should NOT have occurred by throwing even more ‘crazy’ at it.

The second part is the dismissal – They can’t do that. That’s not right. You agree, BUT it did happen. People who witness the events confirm the experience. They realize and understand completely when they tell people about what they witnessed and they are told. ‘That’s crazy’ “They can’t do that.”

No one is following the procedure. No one is following the law. No one explains their actions which are contrary to anything anyone believes, knows, or researches.

The third part was that no situation ever improved. Things just kept getting worse because every one acting against the expectation (and the law) was also acting as if it was you that did no understand… and they were not going to tell you. Nothing happened ‘correctly’. No one helped. No one corrected their previous error.

I realized the answer to my question of how to identify the victim was in front of me every day and had been there for years. There was one message I needed to put out with every post to the web because it was exhausting AND DEMORALIZING to go through the “They Can’t – They Did – That’s Crazy” routine. The Header of the web site since it was started read:
“I am a sane man dealing with an absolutely insane situation. Every person in a position to help has acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter… they each make the situation worse… NO ONE HELPS.”

The statement describes accurately what identifies the victim.

As the call was ending, I again asked about meeting to review the case. The response: I will meet with you to discuss the case, ONLY IF YOU WILL AGREE TO DROP KATHLEEN KANE FROM THE MATTER. Umm. YES, that is crazy. It was repeated/confirmed that I heard correctly. A meeting could not provide any relief – whether he believed the evidence or not. The Constitutional Challenge was a necessity. Dropping Pennsylvania is … He had to be joking. Yea.

In almost every situation since 2007, I have had to endure a diminishing remark, disrespect, further injustice, or a humiliation of some sort. The victim of a loss of his rights loses everything. The hopelessness brings many to their end. The American belief in justice is strong. The victim of injustice keeps going back knowing they will be delivered further injustice, BUT STILL BELIEVING IN JUSTICE.

There have been times where the only person in the courtroom who expects justice is the victim. Everyone else knows they are participating in the injustice against him. They know their testimony is lies and their evidence is fraud. And they will WIN… because Rule 1.6 mandates lies, fraud, lawlessness and injustice. Rule 1.6 rapes the integrity of the court and compels judges to perpetuate that loss of integrity.

Those who have stood up against Rule 1.6 have been disbarred. Ethics and morality have no place in a court where Rule 1.6 TRUMPS EVERYTHING. LAWFULLY TRUMPS EVERYTHING. My Constitution finds Rule 1.6 repugnant.

We won’t be having that meeting. I do look forward to introducing myself.
I’ll be the first victim he has seen. He will be so excited. I’ll also be his last.
JUSTICE IS COMING.

Celebrate the Constitution!

After years of unaddressable injustice, the Constitutional Challenge is poised to return civil rights, restore the integrity of the judiciary, improve the reputation of lawyers, and give the lawmaking legislature back their job… ALL OVER THE USA.

Celebrate the day and let your favorite judge or lawyer know about the challenge. They may have delivered the worst injustice imaginable, but they may have been forced to do that. Rule 1.6 mandates they take no action to reveal misconduct.

I’ve had 18 judges in my divorce. They took everything I had. Family, career, friends, car, home. They left me destitute, and homeless. They were determined to destroy me. And I kept returning to receive more injustice because they were never going to permit my survival. They obstructed justice and prevented appeals, and failed to send evidence and exhibits to the Superior Court. The judges clearly despised my perseverance.

Their corruption, misconduct and injustice was so blatant and obvious and their actions were so extremely deliberate and ‘wrong’ that they created a situation by which I was able to have standing for a constitutional challenge which will make sure that others don’t ever go through what I have survived. I get my rights. Everyone gets their rights. They get the chance to restore their integrity… OR continue to deliver injustice without the protection of Rule 1.6.

[gview file=”http://work2bdone.com/live/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Challenge13-4614.pdf”]

I have been following the case of Gabrielle Drexler since her announcement on the local news.

I am currently trying to get some information to answer a couple of questions.

Her case was strategically positioned for success. Somehow that was completely undermined.

I believe the information which would have been exposed had she been given a hearing would have exposed something so much larger than the ‘scorn’ woman stories.

I want to find out the truth. I’ll post my thoughts on it later. I am still gathering information.

One word on telling a lie to any court. DON’T EVER DO IT. The lawyers who lie under Rule 1.6 are protected.

If you join them, you won’t have that protection. No matter what they tell you. Remember, they lie.

If you are not guilty, NEVER PLEAD GUILTY. That lie will affect your credibility for the rest of your life.

Look at the basic message. You cannot change that decision with any credibility.

The Rule 1.6 debate waves the trust of attorney-client relationships as a badge of honor for the profession. It then authorizes and mandates a denial of justice to anyone who is affected by their inability to tell the truth.

Get this. It is unconstitutional, SO the lawyers must tell the truth to the court. The client must tell the truth to the court. So, if they are afraid of the truth being stated in court, they will lie and be exposed for their fraud.

Rule 1.6 is a ridiculous notion of integrity, ethics and morality which suggests that a LAW which requires an attorney to present untrue information to the court to obstruct the court from learning the truth, while compromising justice, integrity and personal reputation is designed to make a client trust his attorney.

The Client just watched the attorney lie to the Court. To think that builds trust is flawed logic.

We are really supposed to believe that a client will trust someone more because that person will lie for them AT ALL COSTS WITHOUT REGARD FOR ANYTHING OR ANYONE ELSE EVEN AT THE COST OF THEIR OWN INTEGRITY. THAT’S JUST STUPID. Shared lies do not build trust. The relationship is called a conspiracy and it is co-dependant at best. All the honor, truth and integrity synonyms in the world when presented to conceal a MANDATE TO MISLEAD will not result in TRUST.

The pig is still a pig.

Rule 1.6 prevents truth and encourages making every effort to mislead the court to further conceal a falsehood.

There is nothing admirable about telling a lie in a proceeding designed to determine the truth.

The other thing that just doesn’t seem to make ANY appearance in any of the voluminous rhetoric surrounding The Rules of Professional Conduct.

(I have learned that what is not addressed or presented is often the baseline to consider.)

What about when the attorney is the one who initiates the untruth? When the attorney instructs the client to commit a crime? Their client can’t risk exposing that to the court. The client needs the lawyer, AND THE CLIENT KNOWS THAT THE ATTORNEY WILL LIE TO THE COURT. If the lawyer will lie to the court, what kind of lies might he tell the court to retaliate against a client that exposes the lawyers fraud upon the court

The explanation for what necessitates the Confidentiality is a lie. And yes, it seems lawyers MUST do that.

They are telling you they are required to lie and will do so, what makes anyone believe that they are telling the truth?

I have heard an unconfirmed report that Gabrielle Drexler, who had been coerced into a guilty plea to avoid jail time for a perjury charge, has been incarcerated.

Her case indicates the misuse of the technology available to law enforcement to interfere and intercept people’s lives via phones and computers. They got her to plead guilty by aggressively threatening her with jail time. So to avoid jail, she plead guilty. I hear they have put her in jail this week anyway.

In this post-Snowden world, a trial would have been too damaging for the County and very difficult to conceal. So, the County renegs on their coerced deal with a girl represented by a County provided attorney. Ethics is not Montco’s strong suit. One might think that they apparently forgot about the pending case filed by Gabrielle in the US District Court which will expose their actions.

A trial would have revealed the county’s surveillance capabilities. I don’t imagine that DA Ferman informed the Grand Jury of those capabilities when seeking to prosecute the girl for perjury. Rule 1.6 excuses those opopsies. After the Merion School District SPYCAM mess, Montco didn’t want further scrutiny of their misconducts.

Usually, Risa Ferman uses the perjury scenario against the county officials who challenge her. She would need a 24 hour perjury court to handle all the perjury in Montco if she really cared about truth. That Public Corruption Task Force she created when she was elected hasn’t prosecuted anyone.

(You don’t suppose they misunderstood their job, and ARE CAUSING CORRUPTION? Hmmm. No worries Rule 1.6 will cover it up… until JUSTICE RETURNS.)

This last week, Montgomery County has been in the news for the ethics violations of Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio. Judge Carluccio knew she was violating ethics policies when it happened. She announced her violation to all of the parties involved in her unethical buying and selling of the county office space.

Judge Carluccio seems to be under the remarkable belief that if you boast about your lack of ethics you are not violating ethics rules. The PhillyNews editorial was also surprised at the inaccuracy of Judge Carluccio’s personal brand of ethics.

Review the malicious injustice that she has ordered upon litigants in her court and you will learn that her knowledge of the law and procedure is also her own personal brand.

Review the movie ART OF THE STEAL and you can actually see what Judge Carluccio looks like when she concocts her imaginary stories. She does not think well on her feet. Her delusions would be on the transcripts to my case BUT they are not being provided for my Appeal in Superior Court. (And Rule 1.6 is allowing the lower court to obstruct justice while the superior court wrestles with the pointlessness of them issuing an order which wouldn’t be followed citing Rule 1.6 – OR – citing Rule 1.6 themselves to avoid taking any action. A Rule that covers every conspiracy and crime.

I feel bad for Gabrielle. The necessity for the District Attorney to attack a young girl in order to conceal the county’s illegal use of surveillance technology to create and damage evidence was the priority.

The District Attorney is way too busy concealing the crimes of the county judiciary and her various task forces.

The County’s new rule provides methods for hacking into EVERY litigant in the county who files electronically. This will help with cclearing the court calendar…. litigants won’t get their email notices and won’t show up for court. They lose by default, and the county blames the victim indicating they sent an email. SOMEHOW THIS HAS BEEN MADE THE OFFICIAL MONTGOMERY COUNTY PROCESS EVEN WHEN THE FLAWS IN THEIR SYSTEM ARE OBVIOUS, as it their intent to deny access to the courts. I suppose it will reduce the volume and varieties of judicial misconduct.

The Prothonotary has ignored my reports to them of the outdated and invalid certificate on their servers for years which creates an opportunity for computers to be illegally accessed. Is the County behind it? or their Private Investigators? or the opposing counsel? or anyone who goes up on the county web site and sees that “E” and knows your computers are exposed.

Peopple have been wondering why lawyers have begun running for the job of Prothonotary, and other Row Officers. The answer is simple. Rule 1.6. Once they have the Prothonotary as a lawyer mandated to conceal their misconduct and crimes, they don’t have to worry about a rogue individual not cooperating in their injustice. Though Mark Levy has cooperated and not done his job in my case. It is too risky for him to not be under Rule 1.6. Yes, Rule 1.6 makes continued injustice mandatory.

Anyone who breaks Rule 1.6 does not get back into their Bar Organization. That’s what happened to Judge Ann Lokuta when she reported on the misconduct of Judge Ciavarella in the Kids for Cash scandal. She violated Rule 1.6. Even after Ciavarella was convicted by the Federal Govt of incarcerating 5000 kids, Judge Lokuta could not get her job back. Rule 1.6 makes doing the right thing IMPOSSIBLE.

So it seems folks spend way too many TAX DOLLARS on their twisted avoidance of the laws and ethics which they ignore anyway.

At what point did the Montgomery County realize that they were above the law AND free to deny constitutionally protected civil rights of the people. Rule 1.6 has been in effect in Pennsylvania since the 80’s.. and they terrorized me for 8 years by ignoring my rights. That could all be hidden until my case escaped to Superior Court – an action which Judge Page was not able to undo – no action too unlawful, too corrupt. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 will demonstrate the unconstitutional aspect of THEIR failure to enforce (or follow) the law…

Attorney General Kathleen Kane has denied responsibility for enacting or enforcing Rule 1.6. We have asked who has that responsibility. And when she responds with regard to the unconstitutional delegations of authority, the judiciary may regain its integrity, lawyers can regain their self respect, and the legislature can do their job.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

Persevere. When is the media going to notice the effort to resurrect justice? Afterwards, there will still be news to report. There will simply be less injustice.

Regarding the Montgomery County Clerk responsible for issuing Marriage Licenses… (FULL STORY)

“The ruling was clear from the beginning that we could never have a situation where an executive official can pick and choose which laws to enforce,” said Bruce Castor, Montgomery County Commissioner.

The State’s General Counsel also issued a statement about the judge’s decision, saying in part,

“We respect the interests and dignity of all the parties involved in this case, but we are a government of laws and it is important that all office holders across the state enforce those laws uniformly.’’

Seriously? Montgomery County Courthouse has behaves as a lawless organization subverting justice and terrorizing people because they cannot lawfully prosecute the crimes of the judiciary.

Um, Bruce Castor. I have been asking for a meeting with your for years. YOU ARE GROSSLY UNINFORMED or just completely oblivious to the problem you cannot address, wil not address and fail to address.

Once we get the Challenge complete, I look forward to the county prosecutors no longer choosing which laws to enforce.

Bruce, 18 Judges on the Montgomery County Bench have terrorized me and denied my rights for 7 years now… and still ongoing. And you have ignored every crime, every infraction, every attack, every action they did intent on causing my suicide. EPIC FAILURE. EPIC.

BTW, THE MARRIAGE DOCUMENT ON THE COUNTY WEB SITE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT GENDER… AND IS NEITHER ACCURATE NOR PROFESSIONAL IN APPEARANCE.
[gview file=”http://work2bdone.com/live/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/PLANNINGMARRIAGEBROCHURE.pdf”]

1. Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane fails to indicate upon whose authority, or necessity, she is requesting an order extending the responsive pleading deadline for the ‘non-Pennsylvania Defendants’.

2. Attorney General Kane anticipates filing a Motion to Dismiss citing standard procedural defenses which suggest that the lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim; lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient process and/or insufficient service of process; and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

3. The Plaintiffs affirm and reassert the information provided in the initial pleading on August 8, 2013 with regard to jurisdiction invoked under 28 USC 1331, 1343 and 1345; Venue; Service pursuant to Rule 5.1(a)(2); and their claim to which relief can be granted – the restoration of constitutionally protected rights.

4. Attorney General Kane is mistaken that the ‘non-Pennsylvania Defendants’ have not been served, or have been insufficiently served with the documents.

5. A Certificate of Service filed September 6, 2013 with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania indicates proof of service to each of the Attorneys General was accomplished and further provides evidence indicating
– the (1) mailing on August 13, 2013;
– the (2) Certified Mail Receipts indicating acceptance by the United States Postal Service of the documents for delivery to each defendant; and
– the (3) return receipt signature cards confirming delivery of the initial pleading to each defendant.

6. Plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct as the rule causes the complete denial of constitutionally protected rights while subverting justice and corrupting the judiciary.

7. ‘Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information’ has been enacted into law in Pennsylvania and the forty nine other states, the District of Columbia, and the US Virgin Islands. Rule 1.6 has not yet been enacted into law in American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.

8. The Attorneys General have been served with the Civil Action/Challenge pursuant to Rule 5.1(a)(2) as a state statute is being challenged.

9. The Plaintiff’s acknowledge Attorney General Kane’s statement that the Attorneys General are not responsible for enacting or enforcing rules such as Rule 1.6 and that “the Pennsylvania Attorney General does not enact and has no authority to enforce the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct.”

10. The dismissive and deliberate lack of authority is by design. The subsequent lack of any enforcement is intentional. The inability of the legislature to address such matters is evident. These are the symptoms which predict and indicate the loss of constitutionally protected rights to litigants.

11. The Attorneys General are requested and encouraged to provide the identity of the person(s), author(s), contractor(s), or organization(s) responsible for enacting and enforcing Rule 1.6 in their respective state as their action, or inaction, has resulted in the loss of constitutionally protected rights for litigants without recourse.

12. Rule 1.6 does not directly apply to the Pro Se Plaintiffs, but it indirectly results in their loss of constitutionally protected rights.

13. Rule 1.6 does apply to lawyers, the judiciary, the court administrators, the disciplinary boards, the judicial conduct boards, many levels of law enforcement, the state legislature, the Attorneys General and the Governors.

14. The effect of the mandate to follow Rule 1.6 results in a lawful failure to address misconduct.

15. The lawful misconduct evolves into crime and corruption which is not addressed, acknowledged or prosecuted creating the unconstitutional loss of rights, while adversely affecting the integrity of the judiciary, negatively impacting the legal profession, and subverts the legislature who is powerless to take any action to address the rule.

16. Attorney General Kane recently stated that she is responsible to enforce the law, and that she is a lawyer who is responsible to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct.

17. Rules 1.6 makes it lawful, and mandatory, for Attorney General Kane to ignore criminal actions and organizations within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania when they relate to lawyers, the judiciary, the court administrators, the disciplinary boards, the judicial conduct boards, many levels of law enforcement, the state legislature, herself and the Governor.

18. Criminal activity is incorrectly dismissed by the Attorney General and all levels of law enforcement as a lack of jurisdiction where they have jurisdiction, but they lack ability to take lawful action to address the crimes protected by Rule 1.6.

19. Plaintiffs concur with Attorney General Kane’s request for a courtesy waiver of pro hac vice requirements for ‘non-Pennsylvania Defendants’ as it indeed promotes their goal of a ‘just, speedy and inexpensive determination’ of this action.

The Plaintiffs look forward to working with the Attorneys General to address this challenge as our goals are not in opposition and the task before us is great.

The Plaintiffs view the Attorneys General not as adversaries, but fellow patriots, who can see and respect a sincere interest in returning the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the judicial system, delivering to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to manage the law, and restore the rights of all citizens in the United States.

Respectfully,

Plaintiffs hereby certify that on September 10, 2013, a copy of the

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE AND FOR WAIVER OF PRO HAC VICE REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-PENNSYLVANIA DEFENDANTS

was filed in person by the Plaintiffs at

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

and is available for viewing and downloading from the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System.

Respectfully,

PDF Version:
[gview file=”http://work2bdone.com/live/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CCF09112013_0001.pdf”]

A Response to the Initial Pleading was filed on behalf of Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General by Randall J. Henzes, Deputy Attorney General and Gregory R. Heuhauser, Chief Deputy Attorney General.

One might hope that they represent the Attorney General better than they misrepresent the Plaintiffs.

A boilerplate dismissal was expected and delivered couched inside their request for more time to respond to the initial filing, with some confusion regarding their activity – unrequested? usurped? – to assume responsibility for every defendant in the matter and requesting waivers – again acting without request – on jurisdictional necessities.

Initial appearance that this contradicts their proposal of financial and judicial economy as there is no authorization to act on behalf of the other defendants. The failure of the waivers to come from each defendant additionally provide basis for an appeal by any of the defendants prevented from participation by usurped authority of the attorneys for the PA Attorney General, or by order of the Court granting such authority to the attorneys for the PA Attorney General. 55 appeals going to the US Court of Appeals would not be financially economical or judicially practical. Each Attorney Generals’ responsibility to respond is a necessity which cannot be usurped or subverted by courteous offers requesting waivers and representation by the counsel representing Kathleen Kane.

Where ALL 56 Attorneys General have been properly served with the Constitutional Challenge, it would be reasonable to expect their timely response to the pleading.

[gview file=”http://work2bdone.com/live/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Response20130906a.pdf”]

[gview file=”http://work2bdone.com/live/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Response20130906b.pdf”]

[gview file=”http://work2bdone.com/live/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Response20130906c.pdf”]

The Certificate of Service for the initial pleading was filed upon completion of service to ALL 56 Attorneys General.

The document was filed in person at the US District Court in Philadelphia as plaintiffs have not yet been granted permission to file electronically.

The document demonstrates service, delivery and receipt of the initial pleading by each Attorney General.

Initial Pleading Cerificate of Service

As of September 4, 2013, the USPS reports that ALL Attorneys General have received and signed for the certified documents relating to the Constitutional Challenge.

[gview file=”http://work2bdone.com/live/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/0019.pdf”]

0019 Pennsylvania
0026 Alabama
0033 Alaska
0040 American Samoa
0057 Arizona
0064 Arkansas
0071 California
0088 Colorado
0095 Connecticutt
0101 Delaware
0118 District of Columbia
0125 Florida
0132 Georgia
0149 Guam
0156 Hawaii
0163 Idaho
0170 Illinois
0187 Indiana
0194 Iowa
0200 Kansas
0217 Kentucky
0224 Louisiana
0231 Maine
0248 Maryland
0255 Massachusetts
0262 Michigan
0279 Minnesota
0286 Mississippi
0293 Missouri
0309 Montana
0316 Nebraska
0323 Nevada
0330 New Hampshire
0347 New Jersey
0354 New Mexico
0361 New York
0378 North Carolina
0385 North Dakota
0392 Northern Mariana Islands
0408 Ohio
0415 Oklahoma
0422 Oregon
0439 Puerto Rico
0446 Rhode Island
0453 South Carolina
0460 South Dakota
0477 Tennessee
0484 Texas
0491 Utah
0507 Vermont
0514 Virgin Islands
0521 Virginia
0538 Washington
0545 West Virginia
0552 Wisconsin
0569 Wyoming