A Terroristic Divorce

We stopped this morning at the Richard Hughes Justice Complex to inquire about the communication/letter with the Third Circuit regarding the non-participation of the New Jersey Attorney General in the Constitutional Challenge.

There is nothing filed with the court which indicates ANY contact with New Jersey since the Constitutional Challenge was filed and served in August 2013.

Deputy Attorney General Brian Flanagan was unavailable. He hasn’t returned phone calls or emails as yet either.

Attorney General John J. Hoffman was unavailable.

We left copies of the Overview and the Reply Brief filed with the Third Circuit for their review. Their representative was gracious enough to accept the document. It was not a ‘service’ of the documents to the Attorney General. We wanted to have a conversation about New Jersey’s non-participation and non-response in the foregoing matter and it made sense to inform them of the case and provide the documents.

The Appeal to the Third Circuit will be presented to the judges WITHOUT an opportunity for oral argument on April 3, 2014. Letter

The Appeal will be submitted before the following panel:

Judge Marjorie Rendell

Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr.

Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert

In a letter dated January 28, 2014, Brian Flanagan, Deputy Attorney General – New Jersey, writes “I was informed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit does not require the appearance of any Attorney General, other than the Pennsylvania Attorney General, in the appeal.”

The source for this information is “Kathleen of your office.”

Mr. Flanagan then indicates he informed the other Attorneys General of “the Court’s position”.

Letter from New Jersey Deputy Attorney General

In a letter dated January 31, 2014, David T. Jones, Senior Assistant Attorney General – Alaska writes “to confirm my understanding that the Third Circuit does not require an appearance on behalf of Alaska’s attorney general” based on the indication of Mr Flanagan of New Jersey.

Letter from Alaska Senior Assistant Attorney General

There seems to be a deliberate breakdown and prevention of any communication between the parties in the matter.

The trouble is…
THERE IS NO ‘KATHLEEN” IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WORKING FOR MARCIA WALDRON.

The lack of a “Kathleen” was confirmed with the receptionist and several people at the Clerk of Courts offices.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT – CLERK’S Office Directory

There was no explanation offered. Calls to Marcia Waldron – Clerk of Courts were not returned. Calls to Tanya – Case Manager were not returned. Calls to Shannon – Case Manager Coordinator were not returned. Calls to Brian Flanagan – New Jersey were not returned. There was no response to an email to Brian Flanagan.

There seems be to activity in the Clerk of Courts Office which is preventing the Attorneys General from participating. Very strange indeed.

The Current Dockets for the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
District Court #13-4614

Third Circuit Court of Appeals #13-4591

Michael R. Kehs
Court Administrator
P.O. Box 311
Court House – 2nd Floor
Norristown, PA 19404-0311

Mr. Kehs,

We wish to call to your attention a national Constitutional issue which is in the Federal Courts as the issue relates to cases in the Montgomery County Courts.

Please be advised and on notice of the activity which causes the denial of rights and liberties protected by the United States Constitution.

We respectfully request distribution of this letter and attachment to the Montgomery County Judiciary.

Respectfully,

Todd M. Krautheim Terance Healy

(Attachment 2 pages)
cc:
Hon. William J. Furber, President Judge
Hon. Joseph A. Smyth
Hon. Bernard A. Moore
Hon. William R. Carpenter
Hon. Rhonda Lee Daniele
Hon. Emanuel A. Bertin
Hon. Thomas M. Del Ricci
Hon. R. Stephen Barrett
Hon. Arthur R. Tilson
Hon. Thomas C. Branca
Hon. Steven T. O’Neill
Hon. Thomas P. Rogers
Hon. Garrett D. Page
Hon. Kelly C. Wall
Hon. Carolyn T. Carluccio
Hon. Wendy Demchick-Alloy
Hon. Patricia E. Coonahan
Hon. Gary S. Silow
Hon. Richard P. Haaz
Hon. Cheryl L. Austin
Hon. Stanley R. Ott
Hon. Lois E. Murphy
Hon. William T. Nicholas
Hon. S. Gerald Corso
Hon. Calvin S. Drayer, Jr.
Hon. Kent H. Albright

By Fax to District Courts:
HON. ALBERT J. AUGUSTINE
HON. FRANCIS J. BERNHARDT
HON. HAROLD D. BOREK
HON. ESTER J. CASILLO
HON. CHRISTOPHER J. CERSKI
HON. KENNETH DEATELHAUSER
HON. ANDREA DUFFY
HON. CATHERINE M HUMMEL FRIED
HON. JAY S. FRIEDENBERG,
HON. WALTER F. GADZICKI, JR.
HON. JAMES P. GALLAGHER
HON. MARGARET HUNSICKER
HON. JOHN D. KESSLER,
HON. EDWARD C. KROPP SR.
HON. FRANCIS J. LAWRENCE, JR.
HON. PAUL N. LEO
HON. DEBORAH LUKENS
HON. WILLIAM MARUSZCZAK
HON. CATHERINE E. MCGILL
HON. ELIZABETH MC HUGH
HON. HARRY J. NESBITT III
HON. SCOTT T. PALLADINO
HON. JUANITA A. PRICE
HON. CATHLEEN KELLY REBAR
HON. MAURICE H. SAYLOR
HON. HENRY SCHIRESON
HON. ROBERT M. SOBECK
HON. KATHLEEN VALENTINE
HON. PATRICIA ZAFFARANO
HON. KAREN EISNER ZUCKER

The following United States Attorneys have been notified of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 and the affect it has on law enforcement in their state.

They are lawyers obligated to follow Rule 1.6. Under the authority of US Attorney General Eric Holder, they may be permitted to address the issue with each state Attorney General.

The United States Attorney General cannot be restricted from his authority by any law. Rule 1.6 does not apply to him. This authority should be transferrable to the attorneys who report to him throuigh the Department of Justice.

The US Attorneys may now react to the exposure of the nationwide conspiracy perpertrated by the American Bar Association which mandates the participation of every lawyer in their injustice and sedition of the judiciary.

George L. Beck – Alabama, Northern District
Kenyen Ray Brown – Alabama, Southern District
Karen L. Loeffler -Alaska
John S. Leonardo – Arizona
Christopher R. Thyer – Arkansas, Eastern District
Conner Eldridge – Arkansas, Western District
André Birotte, Jr. – California, Central District
Benjamin B. Wagner – California, Eastern District
Melinda L. Haag – California, Northern District
Laura E. Duffy – California, Southern District
John F. Walsh – Colorado
Deirdre Daly – Connecticut
Charles M. Oberly, III – Delaware
Ronald C. Machen – District of Columbia
Lee Bentley – Florida, Middle District
Pamela C. Marsh – Florida, Northern District
Wifredo A. Ferrer – Florida, Southern District
Michael J. Moore – Georgia, Middle District
Sally Quillian Yates – Georgia, Northern District
Edward J. Tarver – Georgia, Southern District
Alicia A.G. Limtiaco – Guam & Northern Mariana Islands
Florence T. Nakakuni – Hawaii
Wendy J. Olson – Idaho
James A. Lewis – Illinois, Central District
Zachary T. Fardon – Illinois, Northern District
Stephen R. Wigginton – Illinois, Southern District
David A. Capp – Indiana, Northern District
Joseph H. Hogsett – Indiana, Southern District
Kevin W. Techau – Iowa, Northern District
Nicholas A. Klinefeldt – Iowa, Southern District
Barry R. Grissom – Kansas
Kerry B. Harvey – Kentucky, Eastern District
David J. Hale – Kentucky, Western District
Kenneth A. Polite – Louisiana, Eastern District
Walt Green – Louisiana, Middle District
Stephanie A. Finley – Louisiana, Western District
Thomas Edward Delahanty, II – Maine
Rod J. Rosenstein – Maryland
Carmen Milagros Ortiz – Massachusetts
Barbara L. McQuade – Michigan, Eastern District
Patrick A. Miles, Jr. Michigan, Western District
Andrew M. Luger – Minnesota
Felicia Adams – Mississippi, Northern District
Gregory K. Davis – Mississippi, Southern District
Richard G. Callahan – Missouri, Eastern District
Tammy Dickinson – Missouri, Western District
Michael Cotter – Montana
Deborah K.R. Gilg – Nebraska
Daniel G. Bogden – Nevada
John P. Kacavas – New Hampshire
Paul J. Fishman – New Jersey
Steven Yarbrough – New Mexico
Loretta E. Lynch – New York, Eastern District
Richard S. Hartunian – New York, Northern District
Preet Bharara – New York, Southern District
William J. Hochul, Jr. – New York, Western District
Thomas G. Walker – North Carolina, Eastern District
Ripley Rand – North Carolina, Middle District
Anne Tompkins – North Carolina, Western District
Timothy Q. Purdon – North Dakota
Steven M. Dettelbach – Ohio, Northern District
Carter M. Stewart – Ohio, Southern District
Mark F. Green – Oklahoma, Eastern District
Danny Williams – Oklahoma, Northern District
Sanford Coats – Oklahoma, Western District
S. Amanda Marshall – Oregon
Zane D. Memeger – Pennsylvania, Eastern District
Peter J. Smith – Pennsylvania, Middle District
David J. Hickton – Pennsylvania, Western District
Rosa E. Rodriguez-Velez – Puerto Rico
*Peter F. Neronha – Rhode Island
*William N. Nettles – South Carolina
*Brendan V. Johnson – South Dakota
William C. Killian – Tennessee, Eastern District
David Rivera – Tennessee, Middle District
Edward L. Stanton, III – Tennessee, Western District
John Malcolm Bales – Texas, Eastern District
Sarah R. Saldaña – Texas, Northern District
Kenneth Magidson – Texas, Southern District
Robert L. Pitman – Texas, Western District
David B. Barlow – Utah
Tristram J. Coffin – Vermont
Ronald W. Sharpe – Virgin Islands
Dana Boente – Virginia, Eastern District
Timothy J. Heaphy – Virginia, Western District
Michael Ormsby – Washington, Eastern District
Jenny A. Durkan – Washington, Western District
William J. Ihlenfeld, II – West Virginia, Northern District
R. Booth Goodwin, II – West Virginia, Southern District
James Santelle – Wisconsin, Eastern District
John William Vaudreuil – Wisconsin, Western District
Christopher A. Crofts – Wyoming

Douglas R. Praul
Steve Watson
Court Administrator
55 E. Court Street
Doylestown, PA 18901

Gentlemen,

We wish to call to your attention a national Constitutional issue which is in the Federal Courts as the issue relates to cases in the Bucks County Courts.

Please be advised and on notice of the activity which causes the denial of rights and liberties protected by the United States Constitution.

I respectfully request distribution of this letter and attachment to the Bucks County Judiciary.

Respectfully,

Todd M. Krautheim Terance Healy

(Attachment 2 pages)
cc:

Honorable Jeffrey L. Finley, President Judge
Honorable Susan Devlin Scott
Honorable Rea B. Boylan
Honorable Alan M. Rubenstein
Honorable Robert J. Mellon
Honorable C. Theodore Fritsch Jr.
Honorable Albert J. Cepparulo
Honorable Clyde W. Waite
Honorable Diane E. Gibbons
Honorable Wallace H. Bateman
Honorable Robert O. Baldi
Honorable Gary Gilman
Honorable James M. McMaster
Honorable R. Barry McAndrews
Honorable John J. Rufe

By Fax to District Courts:
Hon. Leonard J. Brown
Hon. Frank W. Peranteau, Sr.
Hon. Joanne V. Kline
Hon. Robert L. Wagner
Hon. John I. Waltman
Hon. Daniel Baranoski
Hon. John J. Kelly, Jr.
Hon. Daniel J. Finello, Jr.
Hon. Jan Vislosky
Hon. Michael J. Burns
Hon. Joseph P. Falcone
Hon. William J. Benz
Hon. Mark D. Douple
Hon. Charles W. Baum
Hon. C. Robert Roth
Hon. Donald Nasshorn
Hon. Maggie Snow
Hon. Jean Seaman
Hon. Gary Gambardella

I was curious if you were aware of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6?

Rule 1.6 made it illegal to prosecute injustice in the United States. A ‘law’ in every state enacted by the state Supreme Court results in an unconstitutional loss of rights and privileges of a litigant victim when an act of injustice occurs in a courtroom. (In Civil, Criminal or Family Courts)

The ‘law’ makes it illegal for any prosecutor, district attorney or attorney general to prosecute the crime – because it
– would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
– would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office, or
– would expose individual liability.

The victim is left with no recourse, or escape. They are bullied and harassed by the courts until one of three possible outcomes results. Loss of EVERYTHING in their life, prison, or suicide.

There is nothing any judge can do to address the injustice. This is not judges protecting their own. It is a violation of Rule 1.6 if the judge even tries to address the injustice. Their judicial integrity is sacrificed. This angers the judge who then seems to take it out further on the victim.

When the act which caused the injustice is known and exposed (even in court) the damage to the victim worsens. The injustice grows each time the victim appears in court because no lawyer or judge may acknowledge or address the injustice or resolve the matter.

The overall result is abuse of power under color of law. In criminal courts the prosecutor’s aggressive misconduct is ignored. All ‘lawful’, but unconstitutional – as they are mandated to never reveal it or they are quickly disciplined and discredited. It cannot be dealt with until the litigant has his constitutional rights restored. But the victim would have to figure out how they lost their rights – and there is NO ONE TO HELP. (They made helping the victim of injustice illegal. No lawyer may participate. If they try, they are disciplined.)

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.

Each state lost the ability to address the injustice of their own courts, and mandated that no lawyer, attorney general or district attorney invite the federal government to investigate.

Each time the Federal Government has acted to address injustice and corruption of any state court, that state’s Supreme Court has modified Rule 1.6 to close the loophole. This leaves a trail which exposes the corruption caused by this ‘law’ which perverts the entire justice system.

Kids for Cash is one huge example in Pennsylvania. No one could stop it until a judge violated Rule 1.6 and reported it. Judge Ann Lokuta was disciplined and removed from the bench for doing the right thing.

A massive example is the foreclosure crisis nationwide, where a fraud upon the court – a forged and false mortgage note or deed – resulted in the actual fraud being ‘lawfully’ ignored by the court while people everywhere lost their homes. It wasn’t necessarily the banks that caused the crisis. It was the lawyers who committed the initial fraud upon the court which could not be addressed.

The victims of injustice lost their home because of a deliberate injustice and the mandate by Rule 1.6 that no one reveal it.

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

JUSTICE IS COMING.
PDF Version

Plaintiffs Terance Healy and Todd M. Krautheim filed this Constitutional Challenge on August 8, 2013 and served it upon Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane and the Attorneys General of the United States challenging the Constitutionality of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Plaintiffs are seeking to restore their constitutional rights; restore the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession; and to return to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Case and Controversy before the Court

Article III Requirements are met

Rooker – Feldman Doctrine

Younger Abstention

Article V Section 10 (c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution

Article V – The Attorney General

Article V – The Supreme Court

Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information

Jurisdiction for the Constitutional Question

National Issue

Summary of Case

The Controversy Before The Court – Summary Of Argument

Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s DOMA Decision

CONCLUSION Oral Argument is requested

Addendum – Misinformation in the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Brief
– Statement of Jurisdiction
– Statement of Issues
– Statement of the Case

Addendum – Plaintiffs Questions/Issues

Plaintiffs have been denied rights and liberties which are granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1343, 1345.

Kathleen Kane is the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. Kathleen Kane is a lawyer.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane failed to act and did nothing to address the Plaintiff’s matters.

The Attorney General of Pennsylvania has indicated a lack of jurisdiction or ‘lawful’ inability to become involved in the cases of the litigants as the basis for her inaction.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s deliberate and intentional failure to take any action regarding the denial of the constitutional rights of the litigants is the basis of the ‘controversy’ before the Court.

The Attorney General’s failure is based on a perceived ‘lack of jurisdiction’ due to a ‘law’ improperly enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court without the proper authority of Article V Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution – unlawfully and unconstitutionally denying plaintiffs of any forum for the redress of grievances, denying the plaintiffs of any resolution, obstructing appeals to higher courts and further denying the plaintiffs of justice.

The Plaintiffs have proper standing for this matter before the court.

Plaintiffs have documented their proper standing pursuant to Article III as Attorney General Kathleen Kane has failed to act to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and failed to address the denial of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

A case or controversy between the plaintiffs and the defendant is properly placed before the court.

(1) an “injury in fact”;

The Court acknowledged the Plaintiffs injury in the Memorandum of the Court dated October 29, 2013.
“[Plaintiffs] assert, inter alia, that Rule 1.6 denies a Pro Se litigant of an opportunity to petition the government for redress of grievances, denies a Pro Se litigant of life, liberty and or property without due process of law; causes a denial of constitutionally protected rights by the State and as such is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.”

(2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of – the injury had to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.

From Appellee Breif page 14.
“Attorney General Kathleen Kane has never has anything to do with Healy or Krautheim themselves, or with their previous litigation efforts (in which they allegedly were injured)”

Attorney General Kane acknowledges the failure to take any action to address the injuries to the Plaintiffs, to investigate the extensive reports of the judicial misconduct and corruption, and the damage caused to the plaintiffs because of the failure of the Attorney General to enforce the laws of the commonwealth.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The office has the responsibility for the prosecution of crime prosecuted by the commonwealth, including organized crime, public corruption, and consumer protection. The Attorney General represents the commonwealth in all actions brought by or against the commonwealth, reviews all proposed rules and regulations by commonwealth agencies.

The failure of the Attorney General to enforce the laws of the commonwealth, and also the Attorney General’s failure to follow the law, directly caused the resultant injury to the plaintiffs.

The Attorney General’s inaction in the matter further causes the inescapable injustice to the plaintiffs which continued for years.

Once an act of misconduct occurred within a courtroom, the failure of the Attorney General to enforce the law and to address the injustice and resultant public corruption sacrificed the integrity of the judiciary and caused the plaintiffs situation to worsen without any possibility for resolution.

(3) A showing that it ‘be likely, as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable outcome.

A ruling that Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL resolves the matter for the plaintiffs and returns them to the state with their previously denied rights and liberties available with equal protection under the law.

A ruling that Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL permits the Attorney General to perform the law enforcement responsibilities required of the office of Attorney General.

A ruling that Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL permits the judiciary to acknowledge address and resolve matters before their courts without a mandate to ignore and deny injustice, judicial misconduct and public corruption.

A ruling that Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL permits the legislature to resume responsible management of the laws of the commonwealth