A Terroristic Divorce

The United States was founded on the ethical and moral statements which appear in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States. The ethical principles of Do No Harm, Make Things Better, Respect Others, Be Fair, and Be Loving are the true basis of our society,

With those principles as a guide, the Constitution set out to form a more perfect union… establish justice… ensure domestic tranquility… provide for the common defense… promote general welfare… and secure the blessings of liberty for every American.

The US Constitution – The Supreme Law of the land.

No law may violate the provisions of the US Constitution. If any state of federal law is found to violate the Constitution… IT IS NO LAW. A NULLITY, AS IF IT NEVER EXISTED. BUT, it is, until it ain’t.

Law

Each State Constitution must respect and not infringe on the rights and liberties secured by the Constitution. Every State Law must adhere to the provisions of the US Constitution and the respective state constitution. The constitutionality of laws are challenged regularly in Federal courts, and in the state courts.

Privacy

Although the word “privacy” does not occur in the United States Constitution, some amendments (e.g., freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble, protection from unwarranted search and seizure, and to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects) provides safeguards against unbridled government intrusion.

The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness.

They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect.

They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things.

They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations.

They conferred to individuals, as against the Government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.

Privacy involves the basic entitlement of people to decide how much of their property, thoughts, feelings, or personal data to share with others. In this sense, privacy seems essential to ensure human dignity and freedom of self-determination.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects against searches that violate your reasonable expectation of privacy, which is loosely defined as something for which society as a whole would consider legitimate.

The 1967 Supreme Court case Katz v. United States held that the government may not record a conversation made from a public phone booth (with the glass door shut), even if the recording device is on the outside, since the individual making the call has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

You have a reasonable expectation of privacy within your home; your office (if closed to the public); and most mail sent or received through the U.S. Postal Service, to name a few examples. You have a much more limited expectation of privacy when out in public places, though none with respect to items left in the garbage outside your home.

An invasion of one’s privacy could raise one of the following claims:
Intrusion of Solitude
Appropriation of Name or Likeness
Public Disclosure of Private Facts
False Light
Most U.S. jurisdictions allow civil lawsuits for the claim of invasion of privacy, the specifics of which are largely controlled by state laws.

Confidentiality

Confidentiality refers to a general standard of professional conduct that obliges a professional not to discuss information about a client with anyone. The concept is represented in the middle-sized inner square – narrower than the concept of privacy, but more broad than privilege.

Confidentiality may also originate in statutes (i.e., laws enacted by legislatures), administrative law (i.e., regulations promulgated to implement legislation), or case law (i.e., interpretations of laws by courts).

When cited as an ethical principle, confidentiality implies an explicit contract not to reveal anything about a client except under certain circumstances agreed to by both parties.

The roots of the confidentiality concept are in professional ethics rather than in law. A discretionary matter where disclosure of confidential material without the client’s consent was permitted in those unusual circumstances where not to do so would result in clear danger to the person or others.

Privilege

The concepts of privilege and confidentiality often become confused, and the distinction between them has critical implications for understanding a variety of ethical problems.

The concept of privilege (or privileged communication) describes certain specific types of relationships that enjoy protection from disclosure in legal proceedings. The breadth of this very narrow concept is represented in the smallest oval.

Designation of privilege originates in statute or case law.

Traditionally, such privilege extended to attorney-client, husband-wife, physician-patient, and certain clergy relationships. Normal court rules provide that anything relative and material to the issue at hand can and should be admitted as evidence.

When privilege exists, however, the client has a degree of protection against having the covered communications revealed without explicit permission.

THE DILEMMA

Dilemmas around confidentiality arise when the principle of confidentiality is in possible conflict with other ethical principles such as avoiding harm to others.

The Judicial Branch is permitted to enact laws for the administration of the courts. Those laws must still abide by and not interfere with or infringe upon the protections of rights and liberties within the state constitutions and the Constitution of the United States.

WHEN THE STATE JUDICIARY ENACTED A CONFIDENTIALITY LAW FOR THE LEGAL PROFESSION PROVIDED BY THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION IN THEIR MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT,

– THE JUDICIARY NEGLECTED TO EXAMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LAW – Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

– Where the law collaterally infringes upon the protections of the US Constitution, the Judicial Branch did NOT have the authority to enact the law.

The resulting nondisclosure and confidentiality required of all legal professionals can result in a victim of injustice having no protection of the law, finding all constitutionally protected rights ignored, without any ability to address the situation or protect himself from being victimized further within a system which is not permitted to explain… and where all lawyers must participate.

– THE LAW IS THE LAW. It must be respected until it is proven unconstitutional and is NO LAW, a nullity which never had the force or effect of law.

– THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW – A MANDATE OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISCLOSURE – DOES NOT PERMIT THE JUDICIARY TO SUSPEND OR REMOVE THEIR UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

– SINCE MARBURY v MADISON, THERE HAS BEEN NO PROVISION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BY THE EXECUTIVE OR LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES. Constitutional review is under the exclusive purview of the judiciary.

– The American Bar Association promoted their Rules to every state. From 1984 (New Jersey) to 2009 (Maine), Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information began ignoring the victims of injustice within the courts.

EVERY PERSON MATTERS

The McDade Murtha Amendment prevents any federal lawyer or investigator from assisting the victim in regaining their rights. McDade Murtha requires federal employees to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct within the jurisdiction they are working. Contrary to the strong efforts of many US Attorneys and Attorneys General, the US Congress passed the bill into law. (Could it be that the AG’s obligation of nondisclosure prevented them from fully explaining the disasterous results to Congress?)

The Federal Courts have adopted into their “Local Rules” the same requirement to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct within the jurisdiction.

IT GETS WORSE…

When the ABA committee wrote their Model Rules, their membership voted to remove two provisions from Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information. Removed were ‘The Fraud Provisions’ which would have permitted disclosure to prevent a further fraud, OR to rectify a fraud.

Once removed, further fraud and efforts which prevents rectification AND ACTIONS WHICH PREVENT RULE 1.6 FROM PUBLIC EXPOSURE would be held confidential.

The membership of the affiliated state and federal bar associations, which exist at every jurisdiction of the courts, could interfere with the administration of the courts, obstruct justice, deny access to the courts, provide unsigned per curiam opinions which neglected any relevant issue, etc…

Under the belief that they were protecting the judiciary from the tainted cases, the legal professionals held the judiciary hostage and prevented judges from fully witnessing and experiencing the affects of the Confidentiality.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6. the improperly enacted and unconstitutional law which provided “nondisclosure” to the interfering lawyers and legal professionals was not immune. Even when filed and served upon the state Attorneys General from every state and territory.

In the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, unsigned per curiam orders without any basis in law undermined the case. There were no hearings.

In the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, unsigned per curiam orders failed to address the issue. There was no opportunity to address the fraud in the lower court’s opinion.

In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane having been informed of the constitutional issues before the court in Healy v Healy and Healy v Miller – WHERE THE DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS WERE OCCURRING REALTIME BY THE COURT STAFF – ‘secret orders from unidentified courts’ ordered Kathleen Kane, the individual, to neglect the responsibilities of the office of Attorney General. Requests for Court documents were denied without any basis in law.

Without a cause for relief and damages, Kathleen Kane was prevented from having standing to challenge the secret orders before the court. Where Rule 1.6 Confidentiality was demonstrated unconstitutional, it was recaste into a direct order for the Attorney General to ignore the injustice.

Healy v Healy had been before twenty judges of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas since 2007. A deliberate injustice – a secret court order issued in August 2007 by Judge Rhonda Daniele triggered lawlessness and nondisclosure without relief. That secret order was discovered in August 2010.

Where the Court has acted without jurisdiction, and has no way of retroactively addressing their corruption, the denial of constitutional rights and any protection of the law continues.

in August 2013, The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 finally addressed the problem within the American Legal System. I had survived to discover that it was illegal for a lawyer to address the issue.

The lower court’s deliberate neglect and failure to address defective orders and the resulting lack of jurisdiction demonstrates that their judicial independence had been compromised and justice undermined throughout the matter. The egregious abuse of power under color of law by the members of the Montgomery County Judiciary can only be described as a farce. A very cruel farce.

Failing to address the lower courts reprehensible and systemic lapse in integrity does nothing to absolve the judiciary of responsibility for their actions or to resolve the damage and harm caused to their victim.

Yes, I know what the lower court has done. I survived the abuse. I am attempting to escape it. I am prevented from life while any resolution is prevented. But, I am not a lawyer. I am under no improperly enacted unconstitutional mandate of confidentiality. I have been referred to as ‘the worst kept secret in Pennsylvania.”

TO FIX THE PROBLEM WITHOUT THE INTERFERENCE OF LAWYERS, AND LEGAL PROFESSIONALS…

I am requesting a meeting with Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf. A non-lawyer.

1. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Governor may call the Legislature to assemble in Harrisburg.

2. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Constitution, The Legislature has the only authority to suspend a law. The non-lawyer Senators and Representatives can take that action, while the lawyers on the Judiciary Committees take no action to expose their hostage judiciary.

3. Once suspended, without Rule 1.6 Confidentiality to conceal their corruption, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania can restore independence and integrity to the judiciary, the LAW to every Pennsylvanian and the Constitution to every American.

…. and then, the other states (but one) can follow suite.

Expect a humiliating series of judicial mea culpas… The over 45 million foreclosures in the US. Thousands of families from Cash for Kids. Family Court. While the courts have terrorized less than 10% of the US population, nobody has paid attention.

Justice is Coming.

Pennsylvania, America Restarts Here.