A Terroristic Divorce

The following letter was sent to the Justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Using the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice Report to demonstrate the failure within the ‘system’ to take responsibility for the Kids for Cash injustice and the failure to present the cause of the problem – Rule 1.6 Confidentiality.

There have been filings with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania by which they were aware of our effort though dismissals by unsigned per curiam orders offer plausible deniability to their being informed. As petitions had been filed with the court, it would have been inappropriate to communicate with the judiciary at that time.

One persistent Question lingers…

WHY DID THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ENACT THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT INTO LAW?

What was the reason which necessitated their action? You may wonder why the supreme court in EVERY state did the same thing at staggered times from 1984 through 2009.

We have asked for a meeting where the issue can be discussed and those essential questions can be answered.

August 28, 2014

Chief Justice Ron Castille
Justice Max Baer
Justice Michael J. Eakin
Justice Seamus P. McCaffrey
Justice Thomas G. Saylor
Justice Correale F. Stevens
Justice Debra Todd
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Your Honor,

After meetings with Senator Chuck McIlhinney have failed to demonstrate any progress, it is clearly necessary to raise this issue to your attention directly.

The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was made up of lawyers (9 of 12) who heard information from county judges, district attorneys, public defenders and the Judicial Conduct Board. Attributing the blame to “silence, inaction, inexperience, ignorance, fear of retaliation, greed, ambition, carelessness.”, the lawyers on the commission maintained ‘confidentiality of information’ as required by law – Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Their realization was correct – “What good would [reporting] it do?” HOWEVER, the Commission’s report neglected to indicate the reason for the silence (Rule 1.6) and it also neglected to expose the cause (the Rule 1.6 mandate) , and as such their recommended reforms do nothing to prevent a recurrence of the judicial corruption.

Rule 1.6 mandates confidentiality of information where it adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary, the reputation of legal professionals, self-incriminates, or negatively affects their client. Protecting the integrity of a judicial which lacks integrity is foolishness. Mandating it has unconstitutional effects.

The Commission Report and Reform Recommendations amount to fraud – a deliberate effort to conceal the root cause of the failure of the justice system to address judicial misconduct, corruption and injustice.

Far more frightening and perilous, is that the lawyers associated with the Commission have now been ‘educated and trained’ in how to execute and conceal crimes such as those committed by Ciavarella and Conahan – who only went to prison because they had failed at money laundering.

The Supreme Court’s authority to enact law is limited to situations where ‘such rules are consistent with this Constitution [Pennsylvania] and neither abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of any litigant.’

The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who must follow the US Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Rules of Professional Conduct which were enacted by the Supreme Court.

For the Attorney General, the Rule 1.6 mandate of ‘confidentiality of information’ with regard to client information undermines ‘everything’ where an attorney general’s clients include (1) the public, (2) the Pennsylvania government, (3) the Office of the Attorney General, (4) government agencies and departments statewide, (5) personnel within those agencies and departments, (6) and themselves.

The Rules of Professional Conduct enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have substantially affected the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Attorney General preventing and obstructing law enforcement responsibilities when it relates to judicial corruption and injustice within the courts.

The Supreme Court, by the same mandate, has caused a ‘lawful’ requirement within every court and by every lawyer in the commonwealth to ignore injustice and judicial corruption.

Previous Codes of Professional Responsibility (among other titles) have included similar guidelines, BUT once enacted into ‘law’ in 1987 ignoring injustice and judicial corruption ceased being discretionary and was MANDATED BY LAW.

The result, the Rules of Professional Conduct collaterally affect and negate ‘the substantive rights of the litigant’. Specifically, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality causes a mandatory conspiracy of silence within the courts which ignores the damage and harm caused to litigants and further hinders and prevents any resolution.

The substantive rights of the children and families of Luzerne County were clearly ignored.

The Supreme Court lacked authority to enact Rule 1.6 into law as the substantive rights of the People have been ‘abridged’, ‘modified’, denied and ignored.

Additionally, the role of the Sheriff as Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the county has been negated and minimized by judicial decisions. Constitutionally, the Sheriff has the lawful authority and resources to enforce the law within the county.

Failing to act because the judiciary has convinced them of a greatly diminished role, the non-lawyer Sheriffs (reluctantly) defer authority to the county District Attorney who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.6. A necessity to prevent prosecution. District Attorneys take no action to investigate and prosecute the injustice and judicial corruption. Related crimes against the victims of injustice are ignored leaving the litigant with no protection under the law.

The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct were rolled out to the states and enacted into law nationwide without the involvement of the state legislatures, the signature of the governors or any constitutional review.

“What is right is not always the same as what is legal.” was offered by Edward Snowden as an explanation for his actions revealing unconstitutional activity. This statement may also apply to the failure of attorneys general, judges, district attorneys and lawyers to address the unconstitutional actions made ‘legal’ which have undermined justice over the last 25 years.

It is the responsibility of the Governor to represent the People, to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution and the state Constitution, and to recognize that collaterally Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional to the People.

The act of sedition which enacted Rule 1.6 and mandated the silent participation of all legal professionals, perverted the judiciary, sacrificed the personal integrity of every judge, and undermined justice can no longer be ignored and excused because of the intimidation and threats of disciplinary action by the corrupt who have deliberately violated the public trust.

The Commission on Juvenile Justice have not done what was requested of them. They have participated in concealing the truth. They have endorsed and enabled continuing injustice.

You, the members of the Legislature and the Judiciary who assembled the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice must review their report findings and recommendations. The deliberate knowledgeable failure of those lawyers to indicate the root cause of the problem in Luzerne County, which also less publicly affects every court in the Commonwealth, was caused by Rule 1.6 – An unconstitutional and repugnant law which has been improperly enacted by the state Supreme Court without proper review of its affect on constitutional rights.

You attention to this matter of statewide importance is appreciated. A meeting to discuss the issue would be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

PDF version
Attachment – Letters sent to other government officials

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation. These 25 rules are everywhere in media, politics, television shows, blog articles, and the hateful comments which often prevent discussion of an issue, and of course they are Facebook trolling tactics.

These are the tactics which have been experienced and used to ignore the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6.

Even when the issue is very clear and easily explained, these methods have been used to prevent discussion, interfere with communications, and misinform. I’ve experienced these tactics. More often than not exposing the disinformation tactic is the best way to counter. BUT, you must always be prepared for combinations of the tactics being used by teams.

When compiled into a list like this along with an issue, examples, facts and truths, the DISINFORMATION techniques are undeniable AND often are coordinated and systemically used by oprganizations.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000)