A Terroristic Divorce

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.

It undermines truth. It undermines the constitution.

The courts crippled themselves. They MANDATED their own corruption by law.

They MANDATED silence and CONFIDENTIALITY of Information.

Every level of state courts participated.

The Courts mandated the participation of every lawyer in their conspiracy to deny and obstruct justice and constitutional rights.

Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information is UNCONSTITUTIONAL… and once removed JUSTICE WILL BE RESTORED.

And then, the Constitution in every state must remove the self-policing power from the judiciary who has betrayed the trust of the people.

When I first encountered THE CORRUPTION FAQ in 2007, the presentation of this most hopeless and despair-filled situation was not anything I could comprehend or imagine being real and accurate.

Then, I lived the experience.

I found the document again in 2011, and found it to be the most complete and precisely accurate documentation of what a victim who has lost their constitutional rights experiences. So precisely accurate and encompassing every aspect of the terror and harassment of the injustice. So exact in every detail where NO ONE HELPED – Lawyers, judges, local, state and federal law enforcement, District Attorneys, Attorneys General, Governors, Senators, Congressmen, Government Bureaucrats, every single level of the government IGNORED me and the overwhelming situation.

So impressed with the completeness and accuracy of the information, I posted the document in it’s entirety for others to find and perhaps find some relief in the knowledge that ‘it wasn’t them’. It was NOT something they were doing or saying or failing to communicate properly. Someone else had documented it. I had lived it. I found the experience exactly as documented.

---

Rule 1.6 causes and mandates each situation documented in THE CORRUPTION FAQ. I reviewed the FAQ and noted how Rule 1.6 was responsible for each part of the thirty questions presented.

EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS CAUSED BY ONE RULE. ONE LAW. EVERY STATE. EVERY VICTIM LOST THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS WITH NO RECOURSE, RESOLUTION, SALVATION or ESCAPE.

THE CORRUPTION FAQ is not misleading. It does not misinform about anything. It is precisely accurate. My experience corroborates everything in it. EVERYTHING.

WELL, EVERYTHING except….

There were only two things which THE CORRUPTION FAQ missed completely. The complete, precise and accurate, rational, well-written, organized and presented document with only two things missing from it.

The document was written by Dr. Les Sachs. His biography lists the following accomplishments.
– graduated high school at 16
– Native American spirituality
– attended Harvard College on a scholarship (graduated at age 19)
– worked for the U.S. Federal Aviation Association
– worked for City of Boston – Mayors Office
– worked for U.S. Department of Justice
      Superior Performance Award – Law Enforcement Assistance
– Masters Degree Harvard’s Graduate School of Education
– Masters and Master of Philosophy from City University of New York
– Fellowship at Catholic University of Washington, DC
– Car Salesman
– Writer, Author Journalist, Novelist
      The Virginia Ghost Murderers
      How to Buy Your New Car for a Rock Bottom Price

Dr. Sachs had earned 7 degrees and his doctorate by the age of 28.

THE CORRUPTION FAQ definitely reads like the work of a man with experience and education.

Two essential things which are deliberately missing from the document.
THE CAUSE – Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information
THE ESCAPE – Sheriffs – The Chief Law Enforcement Officers in the County

How does a document so completely researched, organized and prepared neglect to include that RULE 1.6 caused the situation and the inescapable circumstances.

How does the author further neglect to present the lawful ability of the County Sheriff to address the injustice and corruption. The single point of failure in the conspiracy to conceal Rule 1.6 was that it would require modification of each state constitution to prevent the Sheriff from enforcing the law. It was necessary to convince the Sheriff’s that they had no power.

The Sheriffs were incorrectly convinced by the judges and lawyers that they do not have any authority. The state constitution contradicts that misinformation. The Sheriff was/is lawfully permitted to prosecute the crimes on behalf of the victims. Each level of the state judiciary participated in the unconstitutional removal of the Sheriff’s authority.

The County District Attorney, a lawyer, then usurped the authority of the Sheriff.

It would seem that THE CORRUPTION FAQ is a document specifically designed to discourage and diminish any hope from any source. It is very suspicious that an author this well educated and informed, with work experience in government and Department Of Justice would neglect the CAUSE, and the only available lawful ESCAPE.

WELL PLAYED, INDEED.

(It confirmed two other people and their organizations were also very likely fake. They had never accomplished any of their goals. They were there to steal hope from the hopeless and desperate victims of injustice in America. Sorry, Bill. Sorry, Ron. I always suspected you were frauds.)

As has been the case all along, what was being said was NEVER the issue. Rule 1.6 is about Confidentiality. It was always what was not being said or provided or addressed.

When the New Jersey Governor was ready to release his findings on the BridgeGate fiasco…
Did anyone else notice he had it announced by his lawyer?

The Governor’s lawyer is not permitted to release any information which could incriminate his client, or himself.

WELL PLAYED, CHRIS CHRISTIE!

RULE 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct mandates confidentiality of information by lawyers and judges and prosecutors and attorneys general where the information:
– would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
– would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office, or
– would expose individual liability
– would negatively impact their client.

When applied to judicial corruption and injustice, Rule 1.6 cause an inescapable denial of constitutional rights for a litigant. The victim is further required to return to the courts for resolution, however the judiciary is required to ignore and conceal the injustice pursuant to Rule 1.6. The injustice becomes inescapable as District Attorneys and states Attorneys General are lawyers mandated to confidentiality. Federal Law Enforcement Authorities will not enter the jurisdiction of the District Attorney or the Attorney General without an invitation to investigate.

---

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Plaintiffs have lawfully petitioned the court and served the challenge on every US Attorney General to address a constitutional calamity which has ‘LAWFULLY BUT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY’ persisted in the United State for decades.

RULE 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information by lawyers and judges and prosecutors and attorneys general where the information: – would affect the integrity of the judiciary, – would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office, or – would expose individual liability.

The Questions asked on this site and in The Corruption FAQ written in 2004/5 indicate Rule 1.6 is responsible for the corruption, the injustice and the failure to resolve issues.

When I first read the FAQ in 2007, I absolutely refused to accept or believe that anything could be that insurmountable. By 2011, I had experienced each and every aspect of the hopelessness presented in the FAQ. The FAQ is 100% accurate. It only failed where it did not provide the cause or the escape.

The author, Dr. Les Sachs, left the United States to find a political refuge and escape threats. We exchanged emails a few years ago discussing my experience as it was documented on this web site.

I wrote a letter to the Montgomery County Judiciary. After surviving their injustice and lawlessness for over 7 years and 18 judges, I delivered a letter to the judges. Not out of anger. Not out of frustration. It was a sincere attempt to obtain information. They never replied. (Of Course NOT. Rule 1.6 would not allow it.)

In the letter To the Judiciary of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, I asked:

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Rule 1.6 is what is wrong with them. Rule 1.6 mandates the judiciary to become an organization which coordinates and conspires to conceal errors and injustices. The victim of the injustice must return to the ‘affected’ court to resolve defects and errors, and in doing so causes the corruption to be further exposed by the evidence of the court’s actions. Rule 1.6 mandates further injustice for the victim to protect the integrity of the judiciary.

---

The opening paragraph to the Corruption FAQ.

Information for the many victims of USA legal injustice, and for anyone seeking to understand America’s terrifying legal system, and how America really works.
IT STOPPED WORKING, RULE 1.6 MANDATED THE INJUSTICE IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

Why American lawyers and judges are destroying families, sending innocent people to prison, and why average working people cannot get justice in American courts.
WHEN YOU KNOW AND APPLY RULE 1.6, THE CAUSE OF THE DESTRUCTION, THE CAUSE OF INJUSTICE IN AMERICAN COURTS BECOMES CLEAR.

This FAQ is especially important, because America’s major news media are afraid to talk about wrongdoing by lawyers and judges. Here is the truth that the U.S. media knows, but hides from the public.
RULE 1.6 MANDATES CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. THE AMERICAN MEDIA CLEARS EVERY STORY WITH THEIR LEGAL DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO PUBLICATION. LAWYERS DECIDE THE NEWS THAT GETS DISTRIBUTED. RULE 1.6 IS CONFIDENTIAL.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 HAS NOT BEEN CARRIED BY ANY NEWS MEDIA.
Hard Copies were hand-delivered to every major news outlet in the Philadelphia/New York area. The story was emailed to every major news media outlet on the planet. (That we could find.)
AND NOTHING WAS PUBLISHED.

1. I’ve been a victim of wrongdoing by a judge or lawyer – where do I start in getting help?

RULE 1.6 MANDATES NO JUDGE OR LAWYER TAKE ANY ACTION WHICH EXPOSES THE INJUSTICE. THERE IS NO HELP AVAILABLE BECAUSE RULE 1.6 MAKES THAT HELP ILLEGAL.

2. I thought America was a “free country” with the “greatest legal system in the world” – so why is my situation such a difficult problem?

RULE 1.6 MANDATES LEGAL PROFESSIONALS TAKE NO ACTION TO HELP AS IT MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY, IMPACT THE LAWYERS REPUTATION, OR BE SELF_INCRIMINATING, OR HURT THEIR CLIENTS SUCCESS. RULE 1.6 EXCUSES THEIR INACTION. RULE 1.6 EXCUSES THEIR UNLAWFUL ACTIONS EVEN WHERE IT VIOLATES YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. YOUR SITUATION IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE THE LAWYERS AND JUDGES WHO CAUSED IT ARE MANDATED TO PREVENT EXPOSURE OF THEIR MISDEEDS.

3. What about the grievance procedures for dishonest and criminal judges?

RULE 1.6 PREVENTS PROSECUTION OF DISHONEST AND CRIMINAL JUDGES. THE IRONIC THING IS THE RULE WHICH PURPORTS TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY, SACRIFICES THE INTEGRITY OF EACH JUDGE THAT BECOMES INVOLVED IN YOUR CASE.

4. What about the local Bar or Bar association – Aren’t they supposed to go after crooked lawyers and judges?

RULE 1.6 MANDATES THE PROTECTION OF THE REPUTATION OF CROOKED LAWYERS AND JUDGES. RULE 1.6 WAS AUTHORED BY THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION. THE BAR ASSOCIATION MANDATES REGULAR TRAINING OF ITS MEMBER LAWYERS AND JUDGES – THAT TRAINING TEACHES THEM TO AVOID AND IGNORE THE INJUSTICE CAUSED BY THEIR RULE 1.6.

5. Why is it so hard to find a lawyer to fight legal or judicial corruption, why are all the lawyers afraid to help me?

RULE 1.6 MANDATES THAT A LAWYER IGNORE LEGAL AND JUDICIAL CORRUPTION. ANY LAWYER TAKING ON A CASE TAINTED BY CORRUPTION KNOWS THEY CAN NOT WIN. THE LAWYER WILL BE REQUIRED TO MISLEAD THEIR CLIENT, OR DELIBERATELY FAIL TO PROPERLY REPRESENT THEIR CLIENTS INTERESTS. WHERE THAT MISREPRESENTATION IS ACTIONABLE AND A CLIENT BRINGS THE LAWYER INTO COURT, THE JUDGE IGNORES THE CRIME BECAUSE THE LAWYER WAS MANDATED BY RULE 1.6 TO PROTECT THE REPUTATION OF LAWYERS, OR THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT.

6. Aren’t there lawyers who specialize in “legal malpractice” or misconduct by lawyers?

RULE 1.6 MANDATES CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANY INJUSTICE WHICH OCCURS IN THE COURT. MISCONDUCT IS IGNORED BY THE DISCIPLINARY BOARDS WHICH DISMISS COMPLAINTS TO PROTECT THE REPUTATION OF LAWYERS.

7. I read about crazy lawsuits for trivial reasons where people win money – so why can’t I find a lawyer to fight serious issues of legal corruption?

RULE 1.6 MANDATES CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANY INJUSTICE WHICH OCCURS IN THE COURT. ANY LAWYER IS PREVENTED BY LAW FROM DISCUSSING THE CORRUPTION WITH THEIR CLIENT.

8. I had a lawyer in my original legal case, but he acted weak, timid and stupid in the courtroom, he didn’t try to strongly defend me – Why was that?

WHERE POSSIBLE RULE 1.6 MANDATES THE LAWYER TAKE THE BLAME FOR THE FAILURE OF YOUR CASE. THE LAWYER IS INDEED ‘ACTING’ WEAK, TIMID AND STUPID BECAUSE ANY OTHER TYPE OF ACTION RISKS EXPOSING THE INJUSTICE AND CORRUPTION.

9. What about prosecutors and police – won’t the prosecutors or the FBI go after crooked lawyers and judges?

PROSECUTORS ARE LAWYERS. RULE 1.6 MANDATES PROSECUTORS IGNORE CROOKED LAWYERS AND JUDGES. FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT LACKS JURISDICTION IN THE STATE UNLESS INVITED IN BY A PROSECUTOR, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR ATTORNEY GENERAL – ALL LAWYERS MANDATED TO IGNORE CROOKED LAWYERS AND JUDGES. THERE ARE LIMITED ALTERNATIVES WHICH PERMITS PEOPLE TO INVITE FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS INTO ANY JURISDICTION. THOSE LOOPHOLES ARE QUICKLY ADDRESSED BY AMENDMENT OF RULE 1.6. (THIS LEAVES AN AUDIT TRAIL WHICH REVEALS THE TRUE PURPOSE OF RULE 1.6).

THE SHERIFF IS THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL IN EVERY COUNTY – AND USUALLY IS NOT A LAWYER. THE SHERIFF HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE LAW AND/OR TO REQUEST FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INVESTIGATE. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES HAVE UNDERMINED AND MISLEAD THE SHERIFFS. JUDGES HAVE RULED AGAINST SHERIFFS CONVINCING SHERIFFS THAT THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THE COUNTY LACKS ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.

10. Is it true that once I become a victim of judicial and legal corruption, I basically become an “outlaw” to the whole legal system in America?

RULE 1.6 IS LAW IN EVERY STATE. THE INJUSTICE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY JUDGE IS NOT RESTRICTED TO ANY ONE COURTROOM OR COUNTY OR STATE. THE VICTIM LOSES ALL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND HAS NO PROTECTION OF THE LAW. THE INJUSTICE CAN FURTHER EXTEND INTO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 WILL SOON TEST THE INFLUENCE ON THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS, AND THEN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. SHOULD THOSE COURTS DEMONSTRATE INFLUENCE BY RULE 1.6, PLAINTIFF’S WILL BE LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO SEEK AN ACT OF CONGRESS TO ADDRESS THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND PERVASIVE RULE WHICH UNDERMINES THE JUDICIARY AT EVERY LEVEL.

11. Is it just a question of money – could I fix things if I had some money?

RULE 1.6 WILL LEAVE YOU IN A FINANCIAL RUIN. NO AMOUNT OF MONEY CAN RESOLVE THE INJUSTICE WITHIN THE COURT. THE INJUSTICE MAY FADE, BUT THE VICTIM IS ALWAYS AT RISK.

12. Why doesn’t someone fight this whole big crooked system – What is keeping all of this going?

RULE 1.6 IS SELF SUSTAINING. ONCE IMPROPERLY ENACTED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT, THE RULE COULD NOT BE REPEALED OR REMOVED AS IT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE REPUTATION OF LAWYERS. THE RESULT: THE STATE SUPREME COURT COULD NOT LAWFULLY ACT TO CORRECT THEIR ERROR.

13. But with the judges so out of control in America, aren’t there rich people and political groups that have even more power than the judges?

NO. THOSE RICH PEOPLE AND POLITICAL GROUPS ARE ALSO ADVISED BY LAWYERS. RULE 1.6 REQUIRES THEIR LAWYERS TO DO NOTHING WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY.

14. How is the power of the big corporations in America, connected to the abuse of power by judges and lawyers?

THE BIG CORPORATIONS ARE GUIDED BY LAWYERS. RULE 1.6 REQUIRES THEIR LAWYERS TO DO NOTHING WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY.

15. What kind of a deal is in place between America’s judges and lawyers, on the one hand, and the corporations and multi-millionaires?

THE AUTHOR OF RULE 1.6 IS THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION. MEMBERSHIP INCLUDES ALL LAWYERS AND JUDGES WHO ARE PRACTICING LAW. MOST DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AGAINST LAWYERS ARE DUE TO THEIR FAILURE TO PAY THEIR DUES OR TO ATTEND ABA TRAINING CLASSES.

16. I couldn’t get help from my political representative, about my battle with a crooked judge or crooked lawyer – Why won’t the politicians help me?

MANY POLITICIANS ARE LAWYERS WHO ARE MANDATED NOT TO HELP. THOSE WHO ARE NOT LAWYERS OFTEN CONSULT WITH THE POLITICIANS WHO ARE LAWYERS AND ARE MISINFORMED AND PREVENTED FROM ASSISTING THE VICTIM.

NON-LAWYER POLITICIANS HAVE NOTICED THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS, AND THEIR INABILITY TO ASSIST THEIR CONSTITUENTS BUT THEY HAVE BEEN PREVENTED FROM ACTION.

17. So the current state of legal corruption, is really supported by both political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans together?

RULE 1.6 CROSSES ALL POLITICAL, SOCIAL, RACIAL AND IDEOLOGICAL BOUNDARIES.

18. Is the problem of judicial and legal corruption, the same as the problem of “political activist judges”, or is that a different issue?

RULE 1.6 AFFECTS ALL JUDGES.

19. There are so many organizations out there – isn’t there an organization that will help me fight wrongdoing by a judge or lawyers?

THE ONLY ORGANIZATION WHICH COULD POSSIBLY HELP WOULD HAVE NO LAWYERS MANDATED BY RULE 1.6.

THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU) COINCIDES WITH RULE 1.6 BEING ENACTED IN THE MID-80’s.

VICTIMS OF INJUSTICE AND DENIAL OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ALL SHARE A COMMON STORY OF BEING TURNED AWAY BY THE ACLU.

20. I’ve got great evidence, and an important story, of judicial or legal corruption. How do I get the news media to cover my case?

THE MEDIA IS GUIDED BY THEIR LAWYERS WHO PREVENT EXPOSURE OF ANYTHING WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE REPUTATION OF LAWYERS.

HAVE YOU SEEN ANY COVERAGE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 WHICH WAS FILED IN AUGUST 2013? NOT A WORD HAS BEEN PUBLISHED IN ANY MEDIA OTHER THAN THE PLAINTIFF’S SITES AND THEIR FRIENDS FACEBOOK WALLS.

21. What about investigative reporters – won’t they be interested in my story of legal or judicial corruption?

THE MEDIA IS GUIDED BY THEIR LAWYERS WHO PREVENT EXPOSURE OF ANYTHING WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE REPUTATION OF LAWYERS.

22. What about the alternative or radical or foreign news media – won’t they be interested in my story of legal or judicial corruption?

THE WORLDWIDE MEDIA IS GUIDED BY THEIR LAWYERS WHO PREVENT EXPOSURE OF ANYTHING WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE REPUTATION OF LAWYERS.

23. What about the professors at the law schools – aren’t they studying and writing about legal corruption?

MANY LAWYERS HAVE WRITTEN OF THE MORAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEM CAUSED BY RULE 1.6. UNFORTUNATELY, AS LAWYERS THEY MAY NOT LAWFULLY ADDRESS THE PROBLEM. RULE 1.6 DOES NOT END WHEN A LAWYER CEASES BEING A LAWYER. RULE 1.6 AFFECTS AND CONTROLS LAWYERS AND JUDGES UNTIL THEIR DEATH.

24. There’s all these rich business executives getting convicted now, like Martha Stewart – Doesn’t that prove that the system is really working?

RULE 1.6 JUSTIFIES AND EXCUSES THE MISINFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE NEWS MEDIA. RICH BUSINESS EXECUTIVES CAN BE VICTIMIZED BY INJUSTICE ALSO.

25. What about being my own lawyer in court, and filing lawsuits against legal corruption on my own?

YOU WILL BE ABLE TO DOCUMENT EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR INJUSTICE ON THE COURT RECORD. RULE 1.6 WILL MANDATE THAT IT ALL BE IGNORED BY SUBSEQUENT JUDGES. THE INJUSTICE MANDATED BY RULE 1.6 DOES NOT END UNTIL RULE 1.6 ENDS.

26. What things should I keep in mind in dealing with lawyers?

RULE 1.6 IS THE CORE OF THE LAWYERS CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. THE THINGS THAT A LAWYER IS SAYING ARE NOT NEARLY AS RELEVANT AS THE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT BEING SAID. WHEN THE COURT FAILS TO ADDRESS YOUR EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION AND INJUSTICE, IT IS DELIBERATE, INTENTIONAL AND MANDATED BY RULE 1.6.

27. What is the history of how judges and lawyers got so much power in America?

RULE 1.6 WAS ENACTED INTO LAW IN RESPONSE TO THE FBI’S OPERATION GREYLORD WHICH DECIMATED THE CORRUPT JUDICIARY IN THE COOK COUNTY COURTHOUSE IN CHICAGO IN THE 80’s. THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION WANTED TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY BY MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO PROSECUTE CORRUPT JUDGES.

28. Is the problem of legal and judicial corruption really different or better in other countries, or is it just the same as in America?

RULE 1.6 DOES HAVE VARIANTS IN THE LAWS OF OTHER COUNTRIES. THE COUNTRIES WHICH HAVE ORGANIZATIONS OF LAWYERS STRUCTURED SIMILARLY TO THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION HAVE SIMILAR INJUSTICE PROBLEMS.

29. So what can I do to fight my personal battle against judicial and legal corruption – or is it just hopeless?

PRIOR TO FINDING THE NEEDLE IN THE HAYSTACK OF JUDICIAL CORRUPTION AND INJUSTICE, THE SITUATION WAS HOPELESS.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 LAWFULLY ADDRESSES THE CONSTITUTIONAL CALAMITY AND CRISIS CAUSED BY RULE 1.6.

30. What is the best thing happening to fight judicial and legal corruption in America?

AS A SURVIVOR OF JUDICIAL TERROR AND INJUSTICE SINCE 2007, FACING NO FUTURE WITH MY PAST DESTROYED, AND INCAPABLE OF SUICIDE, IT BECAME A NECESSITY TO FIND OUT WHY EVERYONE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT THOUGHT IT WAS OK TO IGNORE MY UNDENIABLE SITUATION.

FINDING THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE NATIONAL FAILURE TO ADDRESS CORRUPTION AND INJUSTICE PRESENTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO FIX WHAT NO LAWYER OR JUDGE COULD LAWFULLY FIX.

TERANCE HEALY AND TODD KRAUTHEIM PREPARED THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 WHICH WAS FILED ON AUGUST 8, 2013 AND SERVED UPON THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF EACH STATE TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, RESURRECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND REPAIR THE REPUTATION OF LAWYERS NATIONWIDE.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
NORRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA

Terance Healy	:
(Appellant/Plaintiff)	:#2013-29976
	:
v.	:
	:
David R. Miller	:
Jennifer K. Miller	:
(Appellee/Defendants)	:
	:

CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL

1. The Appellant responds timely to the Order of March 6, 2014 issued and signed by the Honorable
Gail Weilheimer to file of record a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b).
– the Order dated March 6, 2014,
– entered indicating a filing date of March 7, 2014,
– “docketed and sent on 03/10/2014 pursuant to Pa. R. C. P. 236”

2. The Appellant timely files this document with the Montgomery County Prothonotary. Time
Stamped copies to be delivered to Judge Gail Weilheimer on March 27, 2014, with time stamped
courtesy copies to Philip A. Magen and Scott Goldstein of Zarwin, Baum, Devito, Kaplan, Schaer,
Toddy, PC representing the Appellee.

FINAL ORDER

3. The Order dated 4th of March 2014 represents a Final Order issued by Judge Gail Weilheimer at the
end of a hearing on the same day.

HISTORY OF THE CASE

4. On October 3, 2013, a COMPLAINT – ACTION IN EJECTMENT was filed by Plaintiff.

5. On October 22, 2013, Defendants filed their Preliminary Objections. In their Preliminary
Objections, Defendants acknowledged a true and correct deed recorded and filed on December 28,
1995 which indicates the Plaintiff as the legal owner.

6. On November 12, 2013, Plaintiff responded to the Preliminary Objections.

7. The Defendants presented a deed recorded on October 6, 2011 as the basis for their ownership of the property. That deed recorded on October 6, 2011 is not properly recorded and is incomplete. The
improperly filed document has been confirmed by the County Recorder of Deeds, Nancy Becker.

8. To substantiate their improperly recorded deed and claim of ownership, Defendant’s presented a
defective and void Divorce Decree and Order dated May 9, 2011. This document had not been
recorded along with the deed as it was known to be defective and void.

9. On November 12, 2013, Plaintiff responded to the Preliminary Objections in a document which
challenged the failure of the Defendants to produce a valid deed or title to the property. The 54
paragraph document detailed the fraudulent conveyance of the property which had occurred without the
Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, and where all parties involved in the transaction (Title Company, Real Estate Agents, Underwriters, Seller) had indicated their knowledge of the impropriety of the
transaction.

10. On November 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed a MOTION TO STRIKE A DEFECTIVE AND VOID
ORDER. The 24 paragraph motion detailed the reasons that the order was defective and void, clearly
demonstrating the defect on the court record/docket, citing law, case law and precedents upheld by the higher courts. The court had lacked jurisdiction to issue the order. The requirements for validity were not met.

12. On December 6, 2013, Defendants filed their RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION
TO STRIKE A DEFECTIVE AND VOID ORDER. The Defendants neglected to provide any evidence
of validity or proper jurisdiction of the court to issue the [defective and void] order.

13. On February 24, 2014, the Court scheduled Argument “on the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections
to Plaintiff’s Complaint” for Tuesday March 4, 2014.

14. Plaintiff filed a pre-hearing statement with exhibits prior to the hearing. A copy was provided to the Court and the Defendants’ counsel when the Plaintiff arrived prior to the proceeding.

PERCIEVED BIAS

15. The Court required the Plaintiff to be sworn in “in an abundance of caution” without explanation.
The phrase demonstrates a predetermination and bias regarding the Plaintiff’s testimony and
documentation.

16. The Defendants were unavailable to testify to their association with Judge Gail Weilheimer and
their efforts in her judicial campaign.

17. The Court neglected to concurrently address the Plaintiff’s MOTION TO STRIKE A DEFECTIVE
AND VOID ORDER filed on November 27, 2013, and included in the Plaintiff’s PRE-HEARING
STATEMENT AND EXHIBITS FOR MARCH 4, 2014.

CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION OF THE ORDER OF MAY 9, 2011

18. Plaintiff challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to issue the Order of May 9, 2011. The Court
neglected to prove proper jurisdiction.

19. Plaintiff presented the defects and failure to follow law and procedure which causes the order of
May 9, 2011 to be defective and void.

20. The Defendant failed to address the Plaintiff’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court to issue the order of May 9, 2011.

21. The Defendant failed to address the fatal defect in the Order of May 9, 2011, or to provide any
basis in law for the Courts’ jurisdiction to issue that order.

22. The Defendant relies on the validity of the Order of May 9, 2011, yet fails to present any evidence or testimony or information establishing validity of the order as a divorce decree or equitable distribution order..

VOID JUDGMENT

23. The Court fails to recognize that the defective and void of order of May 9, 2011 may be challenged at any time in any proceeding as long as it it properly before the court.

24. The Court fails to recognize and address that the defective and void order can be
attacked/challenged in any proceeding where the validity of the judgment comes into issue.

25. The Court fails to recognize and address that when presented with a void order relief from the void order is not discretionary, but mandatory.

26. The Court fails to recognize that a void judgment grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions
taken thereunder and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack and is limited by no statue of
limitations.

27. The Court neglects to notice that unless and until a valid decree in divorce has been entered, then there can be no equitable distribution of marital property.

IRRELEVANCY OF STAYS AND POWER OF ATTORNEY

28. The Court guided the Defendants counsel to issues concerning stays and power of attorney,
ignoring that without a valid divorce decree, the order for equitable distribution is a nullity.

29. The Court directly queried the Plaintiff inquiring if any stays were requested, and then changing
the question to if any stays were issued, demanding a ‘yes or no answer and focusing on the invalid
order in equitable distribution which is a nullity and void because of the defects in the divorce decree.

THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT

30. The Court clearly indicates understanding the question before the court relates to the lack of
jurisdiction to issue the order (divorce decree) of May 9, 2011.

31. The Court is aware of the Plaintiffs deed indicating ownership of the property.

32. The Court is aware that the Defendant’s only claim to ownership is based on a defective and void
order, a nullity.

33. The Court neglects the evidence, ignores sworn testimony, and disregards ‘all of the documents’
including the court records, and without any basis in law improperly dismisses the Plaintiff’s complaint indicating his lack of ownership does not permit him to bring an action in ejectment.

34. The Court fails to make any statement on the record that proves the validity of the Order of May 9, 2011 as required by law.

35. The Court then improperly indicated that the MOTION TO STRIKE A VOID AND DEFECTIVE
ORDER is moot because the matter has been dismissed, failing to recognize that the providing relief
from void judgments is not a discretionary matter, but is mandatory.

36. When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order
issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason.

Respectfully submitted,

Terance Healy

PDF Version

April 23, 2014 – Still waiting on the trial court’s opinion to explain the ruling. Of Course knowing the above information is factual, there is nothing that the trial court can write to make all of the injustice go away.

THE TEAM OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AND AGENCIES WHO REFUSED TO GET INVOLVED WILL ALSO BE EXPOSED FOR THEIR FAILURE TO ACT..

The District Attorney refused to get involved.
The FBI agent was told by his supervisor to not get involved.
The Montgomery County Detective was told to not get involved.
The Attorney General refused to get involved.
The Department of Justice refused to get involved.
The PA State Police refused to get involved.
Pennsylvania Senators and Representatives refused to get involved.
United States Senators and Congressmen refused to get involved.

Whatever way this action goes, there remains THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6. RULE 1.6 caused and mandated the complete failure of justice, destroyed the integrity of the judiciary, and exposed the sedition and conspiracy involving every lawyer and judge in the USA.

This is only one aspect of what it has done as it annihilated my life for the last 8 years.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

IF YOU HAD DONE YOUR JOB RIGHT, THE INJUSTICE AND TERROR INFLICTED BY A CORRUPTED AND PERVERTED JUDICIARY WOULD NEVER BE EXPOSED… It never would have occurred.

DOMESTIC TERRORISTS ON THE BENCH OF EVERY STATE COURT.

THIS NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

The sedition of the judiciary in every state by the American Bar Association is a crime of a natioonal scale. It undermines the foundation of the United States.

The state Attorneys General have failed.

The United States Attorney Generals have ignored their failures.

The actions of retaliation by the American Bar Association furthering their injustice by murder, suicide, destruction of families, etc… and the lies and venom they will spew at any honest law enforcement personnel puts the fabric of the country at peril.

The American Bar Association never contemplated the only hole in their nationwide criminal endeavor. That two people who were not lawyers would figure it out and have a lawful approach to resolution.

This is an act of deliberate terrorism against the people of the United States.

We demand enforcement of the United States Constitution.

It may happen in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals… or if they must recuse because of their misguided allegiance to the Bar Association, and the Supreme Court of the United States is equally misaligned. We continue the notices to every US Senator to issue an act of Congress to restore the Constitution.

The US Constitution is not broken, but the judiciary has demonstrated their disregard for the trust placed upon them by the People.

Confiscating the guns of the people who may rise up in response to the illegal actions and terror inflicted by the lawyers and the judiciary is unconstitutional.

The surveillance of the entire country necessitated by those who were inflicting their terror will not be necessary any longer.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

The Attorney / Client Rhetoric

First, Rule 1.6 is called CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. It is NOT called Attorney-Client privilege.

The thing is that Lawyers, such as the state Attorneys General, are often not even certain of their client.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is demonstrating the attorneys general dancing around the responsibilities of their office.

From the National Association of Attorneys General we can learn about their dance moves.

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

NOW, as AG you have to maintain confidentiality of information for all of the above ‘clients’.

AND

You must follow Rule 1.6… and maintain confidentiality where the information
– would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
– would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office, or
– would expose individual liability.

Do you now see why lawyers are not legally allowed to even approach the unconstitutional aspects of Rule 1.6?

But two pro se litigants with over 8 years of experience with the terror of injusrtice are lawfully allowed to do what the lawyers made illegal for each other to do.

Healy & Krautheim can address the unconstitutionality… They file… SILENCE.

Take a look at recent events… Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane has ended a multi-year investigation of corruption where confidential informant(s) were deliberately targeting and setting up a handful of black politicians in Philadelphia. Never so succesfully to result in any prosecution. And this had been going on for years (AG Tom Corbett) and years (AG William Ryan) and years (AG Linda Kelly). The investigation was halted upon the election of AG Kane. So who is the Attorney General’s client? Herself? Her predecessors? The Commonwealth? The AG’s Office? The Investigators? The Public? Along comes Frank Fina beating his chest like TARZAN and making all kinds of ridiculous accusations about what the Attorney General is keeping secret about HIS investigation gone horribly off track. Fina is a lawyer. He’s making broad remarks… wide allegations… talking about the information he knows can’t be presented… If any of them ever get specific about the information… They will violate Rule 1.6 Confidentiality and be disciplined/prosecuted. Rule 1.6 is how corruption goes unprosecuted and unpunished. Rule 1.6 is being used as a political game to mislead the public. They all know what they cannot say. They know what each other cannot say. Whenever you are viewing the actions of lawyers who must follow the mandate for corruption and injustice defined by Rule 1.6… The story is more about what they are not saying… and what they are accusing each other of not saying… because they feel safe, hidden and protected. Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Imagine. The things we will learn about corruption and injustice when their safe, protected hiding place is no longer available. Those with honor and integrity will be clearly revealed once they are not required to conceal the criminal malice, corruption and injustice of those who undermine our society. Hey Frank Fina… Sit down with us and we will explain it to you. Shouting loud at Attorney General Kathleen Kane who cannot lawfully respond is a cowardly move. Bring the media… It’s time the people learned what has happened to their Constitution.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

The Sedition by the American Bar Association IN EVERY STATE.

SEDITION:

In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.

The American Bar Association authored the law for the state Supreme Courts to enact, promulgate or mandate without the review by any state Legislature or Governor.

There was no review of the constitutionality of the law, directly, indirectly or collaterally.

Once enacted it became unlawful for the state to remove or repeal.

The victim was left with no where to turn.

The only ones who profited were the lawyers and judges – the membership of the American Bar Association.

The victim was left with no resolution, … but could continue to try to escape by paying lawyers who were mandated by law to not reveal the cause of the injustice.

Lawyers making work for lawyers. The ABA, a trade organization, was looking after the interest of their members. The motivation for the crime.

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land…

The people find the seditious actions of the American Bar Association in every state repugnant to their constitution.

The people find the conspiracy by every lawyer acting directly indirectly or collaterally to deny people of their constitutional rights to be criminal.

ON BEHALF OF THE VICTIMS, AND OURSELVES, WE RESPECTFULLY PETITION THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL – the only lawyer in the country who may lawfully act as he cannot be bound by Rule 1.6 to ignore the crime – TO PROSECUTE.

---

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Plaintiffs have lawfully petitioned the court and served the challenge on every US Attorney General to address a constitutional calamity which has ‘LAWFULLY BUT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY’ persisted in the United State for decades.

Rule 1.6 made it illegal for a lawyer to fix this crisis. It took two pro se defendants to find the needle in haystack of injustice… all deliberately and intentionally caused by the author of the ‘law’ … The American Bar Association.

The same unconstitutional law, same number, same name, in every state.

Read more at www.work2bdone.com/live

JUSTICE IS COMING.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
Eastern District of Pennsylvania # 13-4614 (2-13-cv-04614-TON)
Third Circuit Court of Appeals # 13-4591

Rule 1.6 refers to the Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION unlawfully enacted into ‘law’ by each state Supreme Court. Unlawfully enacted because it results in the denial of rights and privileges protected by the United States Constitution.
JUSTICE IS COMING.