A Terroristic Divorce

                                April 17, 2019

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, House Committe on the Judiciary
Adam Shiff, Chairman, House Permanent Committee on Intelligence
Charles E, Schumer, Senate Demotratic Leader
Dianne Feinstein, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Mark Warner, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Congress of the United States
Washington, DC 20515

You have been aware of the Constitutional Conundrum of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality for several years. Having that information, you have written or put your name to a farce to distract Americans while you continue ignoring the problem.

Where it would be entirely lawful for you to maintain a respectful silence, you have instead taken an action which seeks to permit the problem to persist. This is a direct contradiction of your oath. While Rule 1.6 excuses the disregard for the Rule of Law and Constitution, you demonstrate where it conceals the disregard for your oath of office.

You may have been advised by your legal counsel, or are yourself a lawyer, obligated by non-disclosure. You seek to shift responsibility for the failure to disclose the information to another lawyer while aware Attorney General William Barr is similarly obligated.

You are aware of the legal compulsion (Rule 1.6) which requires the AG to redact the report. The misdirection by your suggestion that any non-disclosure is based on political party is a disingenuous fraud. Your accusation seeks to divide and confuse all Americans.

Your effort seeks to prevent the cause of EVERY AMERICAN INJUSTICE IGNORED from being exposed. Worse still, continued disinformation and fraud will permit, perpetuate, ignore and conceal the injustice.

If there were a possibility of review, Rule 1.6 would mandate non-disclosure. Demonstrating it’s self-defense. The unconstitutional Confidentiality Rule mandates non-disclosure that it is unconstitutional.

There is no review for unconstitutional Rules enacted by the Judiciary. Other rules serve to deflect or obstruct any recourse. Rule 1.6 is often amended by each state judiciary to assure continued non-disclosure perhaps intending to protect the integrity of the judiciary. Those amendments have left a trail of crumbs which indicate the intent and forethought seeking to perpetuate the injustice and conceal the scandal without regard for the continuing injustice . The Kids for Cash case involving thousands of children abused by judges demonstrates an extreme silence by the lawyers and the extreme neglect by the PA Supreme Court in failing to review. Silence in spite of extreme injustices per Rule 1.6.

I am an American without any protection of the Rule of Law. I have been denied every right reportedly protected by the US Constitution. The Pennsylvania courts failed to address these issues (laws and rights) non-disclosure or review denied by unsigned unsubstantiated per curiam orders. I have faced severe retaliation for seeing this problem and recognizing it as the source of EVERY inexplicable American Injustice since 1983.

When demonstrated ‘unconstitutional’, the Rule was re-caste into ‘secret orders from an unidentified court’ which required the Pennsylvania Attorney General to PERSONALLY neglect the responsibilities of her office. Unappealable without a loss or cause for releif, the Attorney General then neglected my effort to address the unconstitutional law, The target, myself, who had loss and cause for releif was prevented from the distribution of the documents. After requesting copies of documents which appeared on the court docket, the documents were not provided and the entries disappeared.

The Pennsylvania Legislature and Governor failed to inquire about the ‘secret orderS’. The existence of the orders was not Confidential. The court remains unidentified. The purpose for unexplained.

The resposibilities of the Office of the Attorney General are established by Law enacted by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. Neither the Governor nor any Legislator inquired about the nature and content of the orders which undermined their Law and usurped their constitutional authority.

Rule 1.6 also causes a malicious prosecution to proceed where a District Attorney is prevented from exposing his staff. The malicious prosecution will prevail absent the Rule of Law and ignoring all constitutional rights. Further, the Defendant will be prevented from presenting any defense. Each effort to apply Law or rights will be ignored and held confidential. Rule 1.6 conceals the wrongdoing and causes false and malicious prosecutions to be succesful. There can be no opportunity for appeal which exposes the failure by the court to apply the Rule of Law or where it has ignored protected rights. Myself, former PA Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane, William Cosby and Todd Krautheim, and millions of others, have experienced this retaliation.

As such, I take great concern regarding your letter.

If Barr & Rosenstein redact Mueller’s report for Congress, it will be by choice, not legal compulsion. 

Rosenstein chose to give a GOP House nearly 1 million pages of discovery in Clinton & Russia probe. 

But they choose not to give 400 pages of Trump-related info to a Dem House.

The “legal compulsion” is Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION, an unconstitutional law improperly enacted in each state and federally. Injustice capable of repetition while evading review.

There is no review for constitutionality of Rules enacted by the Judiciary.

Rule 1.6, in and of itself, mandates non-disclosure where it would be exposed as the cause of EVERY AMERICAN INJUSTICE IGNORED.

Your letter is a fraud. You each ignore your oath of office. Your actions indicate you prefer to be a part of perpetuating the problem instead of permitting it’s resolution.

Your false rhetoric is deceptive to the general public and to non-lawyer members of the Congress whom you encourage to participate and endorse your fraud.

There remains a lawful way to remove this unconstitutional Rule while abiding it until it is determined to be unconstituitional. After 56 state Attorneys General had defaulted in a Constitutional Challenge, Fraudulent efforts of lawyers obstructed the matter and prevented appellate review.

I will persevere towards the lawful removal of Rule 1.6, and the exposure of the damage caused by Rule 1.6. When there has been fraudulent interference the effort has been obstructed.

Rule 1.6 can only be challenged by a non-lawyer. In 2013 , the US Supreme Court issued a Rule which removes them from involvment in any review or resolution as they required all parties before them to be represented by a lawyer. Preventing any non-lawyer from recourse, and preventing any non-lawyer from challenging their new Rule. Their intention is evident. Their action is likely unconstitutional, but only a lawyer obligated by non-disclosure … exactly. The involvement of the US Supreme Court is not a necessity, though it would have been a more responsible and fitting place for the issue to be raised.

For over 5 years, meeting requests have been ignored by state senators and representatives, and Senators and Representatives in the US Congress. The legal staff (Office of General Counsel) of Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf, a non-lawyer, has prevented any meeting. Previously, Governor Tom Corbettt, a lawyer, was prevented from any effort to expose or resolve the issue.

I welcome any opportunity to discuss this issue with yourself or any member or committee of Congress.

Sincerely.

Terance Healy

www.work2bdone.com/live

Justice is coming.

Cc: President Donald Trump
US Attorney General William Barr
PA Governor Tom Wolf
PA Attorney General Josh Shapiro
US Senate Judiciary Committee
US House Judiciary Committee
US Supreme Court