A Terroristic Divorce

How to identify that actions are occurring pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.
1. The law is being ignored.
2. Constitutional Rights are being ignored.
3. Lawyers can see the problem in general, BUT can do nothing. They cannot address the injustice, corruption and lawlessness.
4. Lawyers may not disclose that the problem with Confidentiality is CONFIDENTIAL.
5. Lawyers find that the mandate for Confidentiality is Confidential.
6. Lawyers are required to participate in concealing the truth of what occurred from EVERYONE.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Blocking of Clergy Sex Abuse Report Devastates Victims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to block the release of a grand jury investigative report into clergy sexual abuse hit Mark Rozzi “like a punch in the gut.” “At first, (the decision) was very emotional and frustrating,” Rozzi said. “But then my thoughts turned to all the other victims and their families who have been hanging on by a thread. We have heard from dozens of them.” Rozzi, a state representative from Berks County, previously testified before a grand jury about his abuse at the hands of a priest 30 years ago. “The pain never goes away,” he told the Tribune-Review. Victims of clergy sexual abuse and their attorneys were stunned last week at news that the report would not be made public. The grand jury investigation examined decades of allegations of abuse and cover-ups in six Catholic dioceses across the state, including Pittsburgh and Greensburg. “They’re hurt, and a lot of them will say to me, ‘Mark, this is what they have done to me from day one. When I finally was able to talk about it, they hired an investigator to silence me,’ ” Rozzi said of other victims. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro last month said he planned to make the panel’s findings public by the end of June. With all six dioceses on record supporting the release of the document, the stage appeared set for its publication. But Wednesday, the Supreme Court ordered the 800-plus-page report remain sealed, even though it was given to diocesan officials in Greensburg, Pittsburgh, Erie, Harrisburg, Allentown and Scranton last month. “It’s disappointing,” said Altoona lawyer Richard Serbin. Serbin, who identified 106 suspected predator priests for the Attorney General’s investigators, set the stage for many of the state’s early laws involving child sexual abuse when he filed suit against the Altoona-Johnstown Catholic Diocese 31 years ago. The suit established Serbin as a victims’ advocate. He said he went on to represent nearly 300 victims of clergy sexual abuse over the next 30 years. “I’ve never heard of this. But when it comes to the Catholic Church, a lot of things have taken place that under the ordinary course of the judiciary or investigative process would not occur,” Serbin said. The high court’s order blocking the release of the secret proceedings does not say why the court acted or when or if the report will be published. The sweeping probe, believed to be one of the most exhaustive in the United States, has yielded only two criminal cases to date — one each against priests who served in the Erie and Greensburg dioceses. But many believe the grand jury’s report will unveil a history of abuse and cover-ups spanning decades. An effort earlier this month to delay the release of the report failed. The Supreme Court weighed in on the issue after grand jury presiding Judge Norman A. Krumenacker III denied requests from parties who were named in the report, but not indicted, seeking to question individuals who testified against them. A half-dozen lawyers from Pittsburgh, Harrisburg and Philadelphia were notified of Krumenacker’s decision, but it’s unclear who they represented. In addition to the dioceses themselves, a number of individuals could have challenged the release of the report, said Duquesne University law professor Bruce Ledewitz. “Anybody named would have standing to challenge it. As a matter of fact, let’s say they redacted things so as to not mention people by name. Then, even if you felt you would be identified, you’d have standing to challenge it,” Ledewitz said. “I’m not defending the layer on layer of secrecy. To a certain extent, this is Josh Shapiro’s fault. He could have conducted the investigation out of his office, but then he wouldn’t have had subpoena power. So he went to the courts. And he who lives by judicial power dies by judicial power,” Ledewitz said. It’s difficult for the public to challenge such secrecy, said Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania News Media Association. “There is no accountability here. There is no good cause shown on the record, and that’s what the public needs to file an appeal,” she said. “It is important for the court to be clear with the public about why access is being withheld and how long it will be withheld.” Although parishes across the state struggle with church consolidations and school closings, the Catholic Church, which counts 3.2 million members in 962 parishes across Pennsylvania, is a powerful presence in Harrisburg, where a stable of influential lobbyists represent its interests. Tim Lennon, president of SNAP , a national survivors network of clergy abuse victims, said he was sickened to learn of the state Supreme Court’s decision. Back in Altoona, Serbin agreed. He said he received anonymous phone calls, letters and death threats when he first sued against a predator priest in 1987. He still receives calls from victims. “Not all of them want to file a claim. Some of them just want to tell someone. I’ve had elderly men contact me just to finally tell someone,” Serbin said. Previous grand juries detailed lengthy histories of sexual abuse and cover-ups in the Philadelphia and Altoona-Johns­town dioceses. Indeed, a statewide victims’ hot line established in the wake of the 2016 grand jury report on the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese prompted the current grand jury probe. Shapiro, whose jurors heard heart-wrenching testimony from victim after victim over the past two years, vowed to make their findings public. “My legal team and I will continue fighting tirelessly to make sure the victims of this abuse are able to tell their stories and the findings of this investigation are made public to the people of Pennsylvania,” he said. Debra Erdley is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach her at 412-320-7996 or derdley@tribweb.com or via Twitter @ deberdley_trib

REVIEWING THE ARTICLE….

There are a series of interesting CLUES which ought to be noticed (maybe even addressed/).

Rep Rozzi heard from many victims of clergy abuse. His acceptance was found where the people had been permitted to tell their stories.
– NOT PUBLISHING THEIR STORIES is at least very adjacent to not permitting their stories to be told.
– Mark Rozzi, PA Constitution Article V Section 10(c) is the tool you need. – The Legislature controls jurisdiction of any court. (There are jurisdictional issues. READ ON.)

Anonymous petitioners require permission by the court to not reveal their identity.
GRANTED WITHOUT ASKING? Unsubstantiated? No support in Law.

“It’s disappoinmting” – NOW THAT’s FUNNY. Has anyone noticed that ORDERS issued by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (and the other courts) have less information on them than a grocery store receipt.

Orders without explanation and applicable laws make appeals difficult – you need to know what to assert/challenge. You may not even see a signature, or a date, an address, a Letterhead…. there’s often no information. (There may be a RULE which supports the incompleteness.)

If you appeal, there will very likely be a RULE which will dismiss your appeal by reference and without any review.

THE PROBLEM WITH RULES – THEY COMPLETELY AVOID ANY CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW.
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW of RULES enacted by the Judiciary.
The Judiciary has no authority to review the Rule which they enact (and have enacted) to determine if it is constitutional.

A Conflict of interest is obvious.

Marbury v Madison, the Judiciary took on the exclusive mantle of deciding constitutionality.

When the RULES of the judiciary affect the substantive rights of a litigant, the PA Constitutional indicates that there is no authority provided to the Judicial branch to enact that Rule.
But, the Judiciary did it… AND THEY CAN:T UNDO IT.
The Executive branch has no authority.
The Legislative Branch has the exclusive authority to determine the jurisdiction of the courts. This is accomplished by law which indicates and provides JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY.

IT AFFECTS EVERYONE, EVERY LITIGANT, EVERY FAMILY MEMBER
A previous PA Attorney General attempted to expose the problem with Rule 1.6, she was personally and secretly ordered to neglect; she was falsely & maliciously prosecuted; her appeal just left Superior Court – AFFIRMED.

Problems with the facts in the Opinion are obvious. THEY’RE NOT FACTS.
The Problem with JURISDICTION is so HUGE that the word doesn’t appear in the >80 page document.
The Problem with the RULE OF LAW is demonstrated by the failure to include ANY reference to any law applied, or applicable, to the issues.

Once the Judiciary acts without jurisdiction, and without authority, a litigant has no escape.
The Laws do not apply to the farce being conducted in the courtroom.
The Rules do not apply to the farce being conducted in the courtroom.
Rights are ignored during the farce being conducted in the courtroom.
No Escape – There is no oversight by the Legislature to evaluate or review where jurisdiction is lacking or void.
On appeal to higher courts, the confidentiality mandate will prevent escape where non-disclosure is mandated when the lack of jurisdiction will adversely affect the integrity of the court,.

THE JUDICIARY IS AWARE:
There is no more destructive force in government than what occurs when a court acts without jurisdiction. The litigant is destroyed, denied any protection of the Rule of Law, all constitutional rights are ignored, and confidentiality is mandated preventing any explanation of what has occurred.

Issues affecting Jurisdiction can often be resolved and addressed by raising them to the Court.

When the Court neglects to address the issues which affect jurisdiction, the litigant becomes trapped in a system without Laws, Rights, Rules, EXPLANATIONS, Decorum, …

It was done to me. It was deliberate. It was documented. It was NEGLECTED. The DA and the Judge proceeded under color of law with intent to cause emotional distress and harm.

It was done to Kathleen Kane. (and by the very same people – Carpenter, Carluccio’s, Ferman )

They knew they were wrong. They did it anyway.
The LAW which would have provided jurisdiction to the Court was deliberately and intentionally lapsed out of effect. No jurisdiction to appoint a Special Prosecutor BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW TO PROVIDE THAT OR ANY JURISDICTION.

The Court CANNOT act in “the interest of justice” to grab jurisdiction for the purpose of conducting malicious prosecution and retaliatory actions against the Attorney General who became involved, informed and targeted upon learning about the prolonged farce being perpetrated by Montgomery County under the guise of a divorce. Their actions have been and continue to be terroristic, evil, corrupt, lawless, an aggregious abuse of power under color of law which sought to destroy every aspect of a man’s family and prevent an y future recovery – personal, professional or financial.

Legislature has exclusive authority to indicate jurisdiction (authority) of the courts. It is done by LAW. Without jurisdiction, without Law, without rights, the judiciary is powerless. PROBLEM IS THAT NO ONE WILL STOP THEM.

Rep Rozzi & non-lawyers in the Legislature need a lesson regarding the RULE 1.6 (not law, not constitutional, not properly enacted) confidentiality mandate of lawyers