A Terroristic Divorce

Pursuant to Rule 521 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellant hereby notifies the Attorney General that the above referenced matter before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania raises the issue of the constitutionality of a statute.

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. 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 Rules of Professional Conduct enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have substantially affected the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Attorney General to act to address injustice and corruption within the courts. 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 attorney general is prevented and obstructed from law enforcement responsibilities by a mandate to maintain ‘confidentiality’ of ‘client’ information where it adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary, the reputation of legal professionals, self-incriminates, or negatively affects their client.
The result, the Rules of Professional Conduct collaterally affect and negate ‘the substantive rights of the litigant’. Specifically, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information causes a mandatory conspiracy of silence within the courts which ignores the damage and harm caused to litigants and prevents resolution.

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

The unconstitutional situation has now been raised in a lawful manner by litigants who are not prevented by law from exposing the matter and have filed with the government to address the issue.

WHILE PROVEN UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ‘SECRET ORDERS FROM UNIDENTIFIED COURTS’ prevent Kathleen Kane, personally, from the responsibilities of her elected office.

As such, it remains the responsibility of the Attorney General 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.

Unconstitutional Rule 1.6 is repugnant and a nullity which can pose no threat of disciplinary action. Any threat of disciplinary action for revealing the injustice, corruption and sedition by the judiciary is a false threat.

Injustice does not end injustice. It extends it.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy

cc: Internet – Work2bDone.com/live
Superior Court of Pennsylvania #900 EDA 2014 Healy v Miller
Superior Court of Pennsylvania #1330 EDA 2014 Healy v Healy
Superior Court of Pennsylvania #OBSTRUCTED Healy v Healy
Montgomery County #2007-12477 Healy v Healy
Montgomery County #2013-29976 Healy v Miller
Third Circuit Court of Appeals # 13-4591 Healy, Krautheim v The Attorneys General
Eastern District of Pennsylvania #13-4614 Healy, Krautheim v The Attorneys General