Integrity means following your moral or ethical convictions and doing the right thing in all circumstances, even if no one is watching you.

Having integrity means you are true to yourself and would do nothing that demeans or dishonors you, or those you represent.

Your integrity is questioned.  You responding with righteous indignation.  You neglect to counter any of the reasons for the challenge.
You continue to do the wrong thing.
Your actions further prevent anyone else from doing the moral or right thing.
Your actions can only be attributed to you.
Even though you have been told to do the wrong thing by someone else.
Your decisions and your actions affect YOUR integrity.
When YOU decide to do the wrong thing, IT’S ON YOU.
When you know that you are being instructed to do the wrong thing,  IT’S ON YOU.

When you know you are committing or participating in a crime, IT”S ON YOU.

A grown man who knows right from wrong won’t be excused for his crime because someone else told him to do it.  IT’S ON HIM.

And… IF THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS A LAWYER WHO ALSO KNOWS BETTER.  He knows legal from illegal.  Lawyers must protect their clients truths.  Because of that rule, lawyers cannot always disclose the truth.  Lawyers can always lie.  And they do.

If you sell out your integrity to a person who can’t legally tell you to commit a crime.  Rest assured he will lie. 
His lack of integrity is protected by his lie.
“He couldn’t have told you to commit a crime.  He knows its a crime. He isn’t permitted by law to do that.”

AND… YOU’RE A GROWN MAN.  IT”S ON YOU.

If you trust your integrity to someone who can lie with impunity, someone who can shift the blame to you, someone who will lie, someone who tells you to do the wrong thing, …

You will find your integrity is insufficient or overdrawn…
when they are incredulous at your suggestion that a lawyer told  you to commit a crime,
when the grown-assed man who knows right from wrong commited a crime,
The truth is not considered.  The lies are more logical.
Your credibility is GONE.
Your integrity?

If you had integrity, you never would have followed the advice of a known liar. 
You being law enforcement protect hims completely. 

The same cannot be said for yourself.

HE HAS NO INTEGRITY.  HE USED YOURS. 
AND NOW, YOU’RE OVERDRAWN / INSUFFICIENT. 

WHEN YOU HAVE NO INTEGRITY AND YOUR INTEGRITY IS CHALLENGED, … SET UP.  THE BEST YOU CAN DO IS GET ANGRY. 
CONVINCE YOURSELF AND OTHERS OF INTEGRITY YOU DON’T REALLY HAVE.

YOU CAN’T BACK ANY OF YOUR ACTIONS UP, WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS  RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION IS THE LAST DITCH EFFORT TO CONCEAL YOUR SHAME. 

NO INTEGRITY.   THEN, THE  CELL DOOR SLAMS CLOSED.  

Lawyers saying everything they can say.  BUT, it’s whar they are not saying that is more obvious.  Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is the cause of this crisis.  NON-DISCLOSURE is mandated of all lawyers.  

Improperly enacted and unconstitutional Confidentiality, has affected every state and the federal government bringing the US to a dangerous time.  The sedition by American Bar Association was deliberate, and concealed, while it destroyed people.

December 10, 2018 at 8:30 PM

Dear Senate colleagues,

As former members of the U.S. Senate, Democrats and Republicans, it is our shared view that we are entering a dangerous period, and we feel an obligation to speak up about serious challenges to the rule of law, the Constitution, our governing institutions and our national security.

We are on the eve of the conclusion of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation and the House’s commencement of investigations of the president and his administration. The likely convergence of these two events will occur at a time when simmering regional conflicts and global power confrontations continue to threaten our security, economy and geopolitical stability.

It is a time, like other critical junctures in our history, when our nation must engage at every level with strategic precision and the hand of both the president and the Senate.

We are at an inflection point in which the foundational principles of our democracy and our national security interests are at stake, and the rule of law and the ability of our institutions to function freely and independently must be upheld.

During our service in the Senate, at times we were allies and at other times opponents, but never enemies. We all took an oath swearing allegiance to the Constitution. Whatever united or divided us, we did not veer from our unwavering and shared commitment to placing our country, democracy and national interest above all else.

At other critical moments in our history, when constitutional crises have threatened our foundations, it has been the Senate that has stood in defense of our democracy. Today is once again such a time.

Regardless of party affiliation, ideological leanings or geography, as former members of this great body, we urge current and future senators to be steadfast and zealous guardians of our democracy by ensuring that partisanship or self-interest not replace national interest.

(* = lawyers)

Max Baucus (D-Mont.) *
Evan Bayh (D-Ind.)*
Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)*
Bill Bradley (D-N.J.)
Richard Bryan (D-Nev.)*
Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.)
Max Cleland (D-Ga.)
William Cohen (R-Maine)*
Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)
Al D’Amato (R-N.Y.)*
John C. Danforth (R-Mo.)*
Tom Daschle (D-S.D.)
Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.)*
Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)*
Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)
David Durenberger (R-Minn.)*
Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)*
Wyche Fowler (D-Ga.)*
Bob Graham (D-Fla.)z*
Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)*
Gary Hart (D-Colo.)*
Bennett Johnston (D-La.)*
Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.)
John Kerry (D-Mass.)*
Paul Kirk (D-Mass.)*
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)*
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)*
Richard Lugar (R-Ind.)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)*
Sam Nunn (D-Ga.)*
Larry Pressler (R-S.D.)*
David Pryor (D-Ark.)*
Don Riegle (D-Mich.)
Chuck Robb (D-Va.)*
Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.)*
Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.)*
Mark Udall (D-Colo.)
John W. Warner (R-Va.)*
Lowell Weicker (I-Conn.)*
Tim Wirth (D-Colo.)

The little girl who could never imagine not speaking to her parents has fone so much; worked so hard; taken more steps to prevent communication between me and my sons for over a decade.

She and her mother have isolated me and excluded me FROM EVERY family event. Even to the point where they invited admitted crimina!s who nearly beat a man to death in Philadelphia to her wedding.

If i complain, i am attacked gor complaining… YET MY WHOLE FUCKING FAMILY ACCEPTS MY MISTREATMENT. They say nothing. Imagine being isolated from evetu birthday, holiday, graduation, etc… for 10 years.

THIS IS FROM THE PEOPLE WHO DID NOT WANT TO GET INVOLVED.

YES, THEY ARE INVOLVED. THE PUSH FOR A SUICIDE. THEIR DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL EFFORT TO PREVENT FAMILY SUPPORT. THEIR EFFORT TO OREVE T ANY POTENTIAL REU ION WITH MY CHILDREN. NOW 27 AND 30, AND STILL TOO AFRAID OF THE RETALIATION BY LAW ENFORCEMENT IF THEY REVEAL WHAT WAS DONE.

THIS IS PARENTAL ALIENATION. People who dont want to get involved are ALWAYS involved. They just dont want to help. They dont want to get caught exposing the tactics used to destroy a family.

They are a cancer on society.

Karma can be more brutal and relentless because it’s deserved.

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

Would the judiciary simply answer the question which was asked?

They just don’t. They just won’t. Methods are not concealed. Techniques are easily noticed and identified.

Have you ever been asked to respond to a multi-part compound question using either a YES OR NO answer? One word.

Have you ever been attacked, criticized and prevented from providing the complete answer?

Have you ever found yourself threatened for attempting to provide an accurate and complete answer?

An accepted practice regarding adverbs in legal briefs and opinions – Edit them out.
If the sentence is accurate without the adverb, then the adverb is unnecessary.
If the sentence is not accurate, then the sentence should be re-written, NOT sanitized with a misleading adverb.

Misleading Adverbs and adjectives often are unnecessary. They are included to influence the reader. They can be very negative, disrespectful, imprecise, incorrect, insulting, offensive, arrogant… even used in an attempt to substantiate pure speculation.

Three columns. The Litigant, The Prosecution, The Court. The adverbs appear beneath the party they reference.

Notice how thsee word choices (adverbs and adjectives) signal misleading statements, and things which were just pure speculation without ANY basis in fact or truth or evidence. It’s deliberate. The Opinion begins… “After careful review…” (Already, … OBVIOUSLY, this is a HUGE LIE.)

A 23 page Opinion. The Litigant got beaten up pretty badly. The Prosecution was flawless, and ENTIRELY FALSE. The Court has a very high opinion of themselves.

BUT, there is an immediate problem. It’s HUGE. It’s arrogant. It’s careless.
The Court described itself as well-reasoned, ably, complex, certainly, lawfully, expressly, properly (4x), fully, not lightly, legally (2x), correctly. The court was NONE of those things.

There are NO REASONS listed.
Not a single logical relevant statement or explanation.
There are pages of unnecessary disinformation carefully disguised as half-truths which offer no support. Those pages serve to exhaust the reader. The volume of unnecessary sentences undermines comprehension. Glad to be finished the reading, the Reader contemplates the motivation for the volume of vexatious irrelevance to which he has been subjected.

There are NO LAWS listed. NOT ONE.
There are NO LAWS expressed (properly, correctly or otherwise).
Instead of indicating an applicable law and it’s relevance, the writer has instead indicated other decisions by other courts with the suggestion of similarity without the details. The Court applies this ‘we did this before” (well, maybe it was the same), as it shoots holes in the Litigants attempts to substantiate their position. This method quickly ignores any reasoning presented by the Litigant. With that dismissed, the COurt next suggests their prompt dismissal of the Litigant ios reason enough to not provide reasoning or explanation.

Every RIGHT asserted by the Litigant, is ignored, dismissed, or waived.
The waiver of a right which is being asserted cannot be disregarded based on the failure to assert the right – BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN ASSERTED. SO, CLEARLY NOT WAIVED. Any further reasoning or explanation is unnecessary where the Court has incorrectly indicated the waiver by the Litigant.
(Logical fallacies when combined with deliberate and intentional stupidity CANNOT BE ADDRESSED AND MUST BE NEGLECTED because you cannot argue with stupid.)

The Court demonstrates a tremendous disdain for the Litigant, the Law, the Rules, Constitutional Rights. Facts are of no consequence when
beating up this Litigant. Speculation and suggestion outweigh Facts and Truth.

The Court has only itself to blame. Where the integrity of the court is affected, there is a mandate of CONFIDENTIALITY which denies and prevents justice. It’s unlawful and unconstitutional. But, as the sole and exclusive arbiters of all things constitutional, the judiciary cannot address THEIR OWN BAD RULE. Conflict of Interest applies. CONFIDENTIALITY applies to the confidentiality problem.

HOW DO YOU GET ONE OF THE LARGEST LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM?
The STANDARD RESPONSE from Senate and House is “THEY DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN MATTERS CONCERNING THE JUDICIARY.” I guarantee that excuse was provided by lawyers (and likely the ones on the judiciary committee.)

Try getting a meeting with the Chairman of Judiciary, who happens to be the Senator from my location. Senator Stewart Greenleaf has been unavailable to meet with me since 2008. Greenleaf obstructed the legislature a few years ago by requiring special hearings to determine the constitutionality of a statute of limitations for child predators. The law was stalled allowing the time available to prosecute to continue to toll – ASSERTING PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PREDATORS. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE? FOR OVER 30 YEARS??? DIDN’T UNDERSTAND CONSTITUTIONALITY? The legislature and the media accepted this farce. Greenleaf knows exactly how the improperly enacted and unconstitutional law has remained a secret since 1987. He’s been there the entire time.

The thing is… THE PA CONSTITUTION IS VERY CLEAR. A law is required to provide jurisdiction to the courts. The courts are NOT permitted to affect the jurisdiction of the courts. Pa Const Article V Section 10(c)
– The court without jurisdiction cannot grant it to themselves. NOPE. No authority.
– The court cannot assume jurisdiction. It can only be provided by LAW.
– The court knows this to be FACT.
– The opinion of the court neglects to even use the word JURISDICTION. Not once.
– The assertion by the Litigant that the court lacked authority is ignored. Ignored by every level of the judiciary. All have the mandate of confidentiality to conceal information which adversely affects the integrity of the court.
– There had been a law for a brief period of time. It lapsed. The lapse was the deliberate and intentional action of the Legislature. The court cannot assume jurisdiction where the Legislature INTENDED there to be no jurisdiction.
– The litigant is not being DIRECT. The litigant is a lawyer mandated by the improperly enacted and unconstitutional CONFIDENTIALITY. The Litigant cannot expose the cause of the corruption maliciously and falsely prosecuting her.
– BUT, I AM NOT A LAWYER. I can. I did. I earned the title of ‘the worst kept secret in Pennsylvania”
– And the same people are involved in the cases which deny any protection of the Law and ignore all constitutional rights.
– President Trump is NOT A LAWYER. The lawyers have a problem. The lawyers know that what they have done and are doing is WRONG. They do it anyway.

It is important to consider that the CONFIDENTIALITY MANDATE ONLY APPLIES TO TRUTHFUL STATEMENTS. The TRUTH is confidential.
There is no similar requirement for LIES.

Hmm, hmm, hmm! Lolly Lolly Lolly, get your adverbs here! Lolly Lolly Lolly, got some adverbs here! Come on down to Lolly’s, get the adverbs here! You’re going to need If you write or read Or even think about it Lolly Lolly Lolly, get your adverbs here! Got a lot of Lolly, jolly adverbs here! Anything you need And we can make it absolutely clear! An adverb is a word (That’s all it is and there’s alot of ’em. That modifies a verb (Sometimes a verb, sometimes) It modifies an adjective Or else another adverb And so you see that it’s positively, very, very, necessary. Lolly Lolly Lolly, get your adverbs here! Father, son and Lolly selling adverbs here! Got a lot of adverbs and we make it clear So come to Lolly! [Hello Folks, this is Lolly senior saying we have every adverb in the book so come on down and look.] [Hello Folks Lolly junior here. Suppose your house needs painting. How are you gonna paint it? That’s where the adverb comes in.] [We can also give you a special intensifier so you can paint it very neatly or rather sloppily.] [Suppose you are going nut gathering. Your buddy wants to know where and when. Use an adverb and tell him.] Get your adverbs. Use it with an adjective, it says much more Anything described can be described some more Anything you’d ever need is in the store. And so you choose very carefully every word you use. Use it with a verb it tells us how you did. Where it happened where you’re going Where you’ve been Use it with another adverb at the end. And even more. How, where or when. Condition or reason These questions are answered when you use an adverb. Lolly Lolly Lolly, get your adverbs here! Quickly quickly quickly, get your adverbs here! Slowly surely really, learn your adverbs here! You’re going need them If you read them If you write or talk or think about it Lolly . . . [If it’s an adverb we have it at Lolly’s!] [Bring along your old adjectives too, like slow, soft and sure.] [We’ll fit them out with our “l-y” attachment.] [And make perfectly good adverbs out of them!] Get your adverbs here!  [Lots of good tricks.] Lolly, Lolly, Lolly!    [Adverbs deal with manner place and time.] Lolly, Lolly, Lolly!    [Condition and reason.] Father, son and Lolly!  [Comparison Contrast] Lolly, Lolly, Lolly!    [Enrich your language with adverbs.] Lolly, Lolly, Lolly!    [Besides they’re absolutely free.] Lolly, Lolly, Lolly!    [At your service.] Indubitably!

There is an unspeakable reason.

How do you tell an entire population, an entire country, that their government has lied to them? … for decades? … has operated on two fronts. One front protecting, propping up, covering up, concealing corruption, crime and criminals. The other side working to prevent exposure of the truth.

People at the top were so corrupt and so arrogant that they thought they could get away with anything. They proceeded down the path, protecting themselves, covering up, giving immunity to people who were clearly breaking the law. They went after anyone who learned what occurred, and their supporters were targeted also. Directly affecting MILLIONS of Americans, they misinformed the other 90% of Americans. But, the truth has been there, every time we turn around, another piece unraveled. Unravels.

I AM NOT THE LITIGANT IN THIS EXAMPLE.

The Litigant is/was a lawyer. Educated. Informed. Knowledgeable. Discovery of the Truth by the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania caused a demonstration of an arrogance so powerful, it could falsely prosecute the State Attorney General. It’s not just a Pennsylvania thing. It went national… gradually. The corrupt could silence any lawyer within it’s control. Confidentiality Of Information is the needle in the haystack of American Injustice. They attacked Kathleen Kane when she learned. Our first conversation. Face to face. Her words, “I know what they did to you.” resound in me still.

I KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO HER AND WHY. Justice is coming.

But, confidentiality could not silence a non-lawyer targeted for over a decade. Unrelenting abuse and destruction while without any protection of the Rule of Law, and denied his constitutionally protected rights. Upon finding the Rule 1.6 Confidentiality problem, I experienced running into walls of lawyers permitted to maintain confidentiality of the problem regarding CONFIDENTILITY.

Since Ronald Reagan was President, the office of the American President has been held by lawyers – obligated by an improperly enacted and unconstitutional confidentiality. The first non-lawyer President since Reagan will restore the US Constitution, the RUle of Law and Make America Great Again. The efforts against President Donald Trump are tghe actions of lawyers scared to death they will be drawn into and exposed in the treason which undermined the judiciary and crippled the US Constitution. The main thing to understand is that the corruption was so deep at the top. Friendly news media was attempting to spin the story the way they wanted to, because the noose was tightening.

The Opinion of the Superior Court must be shown for the farce it perpetrates and attempts to protect. I was there at the trial. I was at the Superior Court when they heard arguments in the appeal. It is also essential in my litigation to be identified as a part which Kane was not permitted to present as part of her defense.

It is useful in my litigation to identify the connection to the prosecution of Bill Cosby which abruptly halted his plans in the broadcast media.

And then there’s that CASTOR MANIFESTO that details the corruption of the District Attorney and the abilities for a career professional prosecutor skilled in how to [screw] others.

Justice is Coming.

In the months since Edward Snowden revealed the nature and extent of the spying that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been perpetrating upon Americans and foreigners, some of the NSA’s most troublesome behavior has not been a part of the public debate. This behavior constitutes the government’s assaults on the American legal system.

Those assaults have been conducted thus far on two fronts, one of which is aimed at lawyers who represent foreign entities here in America, and the other is aimed at lawyers who represent criminal defendants against whom evidence has been obtained unlawfully and presented in court untruthfully.

Investigative reporters at The New York Times recently discovered that the NSA has been listening to the telephone conversations between lawyers at a highly regarded Chicago law firm and their clients in Indonesia. The firm, Mayer Brown, has remained publicly silent about the revelations, as has its client, the government of Indonesia. …this is how the feds work: secretly, unfairly, and in utter derogation of the attorney-client privilege.

But it is well known that Mayer Brown represents the government of Indonesia concerning trade regulations that govern exports of cigarettes and shrimp to the U.S. The lawyers on the other side of the bargaining table from Mayer Brown work for the federal government, which also employs, of course, the NSA.

Can the NSA lawfully tell lawyers for the government who are negotiating with Mayer Brown lawyers what it overheard between the Mayer Brown lawyers and their client?

The answer, incredibly, is yes. Federal rules prohibit the NSA from sharing knowledge with lawyers for the federal government only about persons who have been indicted. In this case, Mayer Brown is attempting to negotiate favorable trade relations between Indonesia and the U.S., and the lawyers for the U.S. have the unfair advantage of knowing in advance the needs, negotiating positions, and strategy of their adversaries. In the Obama years, this is how the feds work: secretly, unfairly, and in utter derogation of the attorney-client privilege.

For 100 years, that privilege — the right of lawyers and their clients to speak freely and without the knowledge of the government or their adversaries — has been respected in the U.S., until now. Now we have a lawyer who, as president, uses the NSA to give him advance warning of what his office visitors are about to ask him. And we have lawyers for the federal government who work for the president and can know of their adversaries’ most intimate client communications.

This is profoundly unfair, as it gives one side a microscope on the plans of the other. It is unwise, too, as clients will be reluctant to open up to counsel when they know that the NSA could spill the beans to the other side. In the adversarial context, for the system to work fairly and effectively, it is vital that clients be free to speak with their lawyers without the slightest fear of government intrusion, particularly when the government is on the other side of the deal or the case.

If you have spoken to a lawyer recently and if that lawyer is dealing with the federal government on your behalf, you can thank the constitutional scholar in the Oval Office for destroying the formerly privileged nature of your conversations.

But that is not the only legal protection that President Obama has destroyed. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case in which journalists in the pre-Snowden era challenged the government’s spying on them. The government won the case largely because it persuaded the court that the journalists did not have standing to bring the lawsuit because their fears of being spied upon were only hypothetical: They suspected that their communications with their sources were being monitored, but they couldn’t prove it. In this post-Snowden era, we now know that the journalists in that case were being spied upon.

Nevertheless, during the oral argument in that case, government lawyers told the high court that should government prosecutors acquire from the NSA evidence of criminal behavior against anyone whom they eventually would prosecute and should they wish to use that evidence in the prosecution, the Justice Department would inform defense counsel of the true source of the evidence so that the defendant would have the ability to challenge the evidence.

Yet last week, in a case in federal court in Oregon, the same Justice Department that told the highest court in the land last year that it would dutifully and truthfully reveal its sources of evidence — as case law requires even when the source is an NSA wiretap — told a federal district court judge that it had no need or intention of doing so.

If this practice of using NSA wiretaps as the original source of evidence in criminal cases and keeping that information from the defendants against whom it is used is permitted, we will have yet another loss of liberty. Federal law requires that criminal prosecutions be commenced after articulable suspicion about the crime and the defendant. Prosecutions cannot be commenced by roving through intelligence data obtained through extra-constitutional means. That is the moral equivalent of throwing a dart at a dart board that contains the names of potential defendants and prosecuting the person whose name the dart hits.

For the past 75 years, federal prosecutors have not been permitted to use unlawfully obtained evidence in criminal cases, and they have been required to state truthfully the sources of their evidence so that its lawfulness can be tested. This rule generally has served to keep law enforcement from breaking the laws it has sworn to uphold by denying to its agents the fruits of their own unlawful activity.

Liberty is rarely lost overnight. It is lost slowly and in the name of safety. In the name of keeping us safe, the feds have spied on the lawyers who negotiate with them, lied to the lawyers whose clients they are prosecuting, and misrepresented their behavior to the Supreme Court. As far as the public record reveals, they have not corrected that misrepresentation. They have done all of this in utter defiance of well-settled law and procedures and constitutional safeguards.

What will they do next?

Regards,

Andrew Napolitano
for The Daily Reckoning

Ed. Note: What makes this loss of liberty so disconcerting is the fact that, because it’s happening so gradually, it tends to go largely unnoticed by the American people. So by simply by staying informed, you’re already one step ahead of the vast majority of U.S. citizens who don’t have clue about what’s happening to their freedom. To make sure you stay one step ahead of the feds, sign up for the FREE Laissez Faire Today email edition, right here.

This article originally appeared here on Reason.com

Article posted on Laissez Faire Today

America, it’s necessary to read the news with the following in mind.

1. To forget a LIE requires ANOTHER LIE. (Truth can’t fix it.)

2. Lawyers are required by law to keep TRUTHFUL information CONFIDENTIAL, but, there is nothing which prevents lawyers from spreading lies to distract from the truth.

FOR LAWYERS, ONLY THE TRUTH MUST BE HELD CONFIDENTIAL.

The same law mandates non-disclosure where the info adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality. Enacted by the judiciary.
No review for CONSTITUTIONALITY ever.

The Judiciary ignores their own corruption.
The Judiciary enacted a law that requires ALL LAWYERS to remain silent.

If any lawyer discloses the problem, the Judiciary disciplines the lawyer and covers it up.

Judiciary can’t review it. Conflict of interest
Govt can’t review it. Marbury v. Madison

The American Bar Association caused it. Deliberately. Overthrow each state govt from 1983 New Jersey to 2009 Maine.

Rule 1.6 requires confidentiality about Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY.

This is why Washington DC is spinning. All the lawyers trying to remain silent.

The non-lawyer President is trying to fix this.
The non-lawyer President is not prevented from disclosing the truth.

The TRUTH is that the the non-lawyer President has an ability that has not been available since Ronald Reagan.

President Trump can MAKE AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN.

The lawyers are prevented from disclosing the truth. All of the conflicting stories have a similar source…. LAWYERS AND THEIR LIES.

Pennsylvania Superior Court demonstrated their fraud within their first two paragraphs of the Opinion affiming the trial court in the Kane case.

When writing the truth could have been easy, honest, ethical, moral, constitutional, just, … Judge Lazarus decided to take a different path. The path that no one might ever read the opinion she authoered in the Kane case.

She seemd like an interested, aware, understanding, cognizant, and learned person at the January 2018 Argument appearance.

Those words do not match the stupidity written in the Opinion.

By the time she had written the first two paragraphs, it is clear that she would make stuff up. There’s nonapparent reason or motivation for her actions.

In para 1:

After careful review, we affirm, in part on the basis of the trial court’s well reasoned opinion.

CAREFUL REVIEW IS A LIE. IT MUST BE A LIE. THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST ANY REVIEW OCCURRED.

In para 2:

The matter inplicates constitutonal issues, the rule of law, and a fundamental tenet underlying our legal system – the truth and sanctity of testimony under oath. [Syntax: Truth, truth, misdirection, stupidity.]

Careful review of the testimony of Josh Morrow would indicate he told three or four ‘truths’. Morrow also demanded immunity for changing his story. He got it. Even on the night before his testimony, he threatened to not speak unless he received immnity.

There cannot be 3-4 differing and differing stories from the same person/perspective which are TRUTH.

“The truth and sanctity of testimony under oath” has got to be the most ridiculous and illogical made up thing.

The only reason to logocally put it in the opinion would be to demonstrate the acceptance of the lies told by Josh (probably at each inquiry.) but without being responsible for their actions.

IT MAY BE FRAUDULENT FOR A JUDGE TO MAKE UP THE CONCEPT, …

THE SIMPLE FRAUD INDICATING “After Careful Review” when there could not have been any review of Morrows different truths.

But, it’s a perjury trial. PERJURY is not telling the truth under oath. The Superior Court suggests truth is truth, and lies told under oath are truth.

Accepting the preposterous position presented, there could not have been any perjury.

The Lies are oathy. SO, THE COURT CONSIDERS THEM TRUTH.

Its been a crime for a long time…. but there seems to be very limited records indicating any perjury being prosecuted for it in Montgomery County.

1. County Commissioner James Matthews

2. Gabriele Drexler

3. Kathleen Kane

Only three?

Matthews was politically motivated. Drexler had reported being haraased and stalked by a police officer.

As disgraceful as it can be to author this stupidity, TWO OTHER JUDGES CONCURRED.

After those first two paragraphs, the true misdirection commences. All of the usual techniques appear… Or do not appear?

Two words. JURISDICTION and CONFIDENTIALITY.

TWO WORDS WHICH DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THE DOCUMENT.

NECESSARY WORDS. If theres no jurisdiction, the judge lacks authority. No authority, no power, all orders are void ab ab initio.

NEXT, you may notice the failure to address the issues listed. Logic could accept the simple neglect. Another word for not disclosing and not being able to explain or substantiate is CONFIDENTIALITY.

CONFIDENTILITY may even prevent any indication of the existence of the missing information. Confidentiality may mandate non-disclosure that there is confidential information withheld.

Yes, the convoluted Confidentiality adversely affects the infegrity of the judiciary. There has been so much stealth rhetoric and disinformation by the Judiciary.

The next 7-8 pages in the opinion appear to be BAD FAITH RHETORICAL ARGUMENTATION. The information has no purpose but to distract tbe reader from noticing the flaws, fraud and deceptive writing style.

The specious statements may sound good or amusing or pleasant at first glance, but in fact it is useless or meaningless.

And one other thing, ALL references used to support / substantiate the information relies on other court opinons. There is no supporting Rule of Law provided.

You know, when it comes to jurisdiction, authority can only be provided to the judiciary by LAW. The General Assembly has reaponsibilty for jurisdiction. They also “dont get involved with issues that involve the judiciay.”. [This is the place where the ball was dropped.]

Next up will blow your mind. Rules and Laws.

I have learned that when it comes to the opinions of the judiciary, it is what they avoid, neglect and obfuscate (hide) that exposes the deception and corruption of the justice problem.

In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania – Commonwealth v Kathleen Kane Opinion dated May 25, 2018

As such, the Superior Court has failed in their task. The Superior Court BLEW THE OPPORTUNITY to indicate that some rules mandate a person to violate the LAW. WHY? It’s simple. A rule requires the Superior Court to participate in the problem, to exacerbate the injustice and to neglect actions which could lead to resolution.

Obstructing the administration of law, CHECK.
Official oppression, CHECK.
Criminal conspiracy, CHECK.

The Superior Court has committed those crimes as defined by LAW. But, their actions are mandated by RULE.

Their cowardly act sends the issue back to the PA Supreme Court which previously avoided, neglected and obfuscated the issue presented in May 2014.

In January 2018, the judges on the panel had questioned why a definitive answer had not been provided by the Supreme Court on March 31, 2015. z
That answer is confidential?

[PANEL: Lazarus, Ott and Ransom. The Opinion offers no explanation regarding Judge Platt replacing Judge Ransom.]

The May 25, 2018 Opinion reads like a document drafted accurately and sincerely,…
… BUT THEN EDITED TO REMOVE THE THINGS WHICH THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO DISCLOSE…
… AND THEN EDITED AGAIN TO REMOVE ANY COLLATERAL REFERENCE WHICH COULD LEAD TO DISCLOSURE…
… THEN, THE COPY FROM WHICH THEY PLAGIARIZED IS ATTACHED IN SUPPORT.
(The edits are clearly visible… along with the addition of unnecessary phrases – misdirection.)

They seem to lack the self respect required to write their own opinion Carelessly indicating a loss of integrity without pretending to be ashamed. Their disdain and disrespect for litigants civil, constitutional and human rights for which they are not held accountable. In an age where people lose their careers after a single thoughtless sentence on Twitter, the court’s integrity (mandated by law) won’t sink much lower. They don’t even try to care or seem interested.

Against all hope for the proper resolution, the Opinion follows the established standard “avoid, neglect and obfuscate” from the Superior Court.

Two words missing from the Opinion of the Superior Court… JURISDICTION and CONFIDENTIALITY

Also missing from the Opinion of the Superior Court is any reference to the LAW which applies and substantiates their opinion.

To support their Opinion, they plagiarize and then submit “the trial court’s well reasoned opinion” so you can see their edits. Laughably obvious misdirection. The failure to cite ANY LAW is hidden by a long (and repetitive) litany of opinions issued by other Pennsylvania courts.

The Rule of Law may be a tenet. The outdated and conflicting opinions from completely different types of cases – Surel;y this cannot be a tenet as well?

There should be a LAW which provides for JURISDICTION of Judge Carpenter’s actions appointing a Special Prosecutor. There’s not. There was one years ago, BUT the General Assembly took deliberate and intentional actions to NOT continue that LAW and it lapsed.

There is no LAW which provides the Judiciary any power to ignore the deliberate and intentional actions and decisions of the General Assembly and usurp jurisdiction to take any action. The PA Constitution is very specific in this regard. Article V Section 10(c). The RULES of the Judiciary may not “affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court.”

BTW, SEVERAL RULES ENACTED BY THE JUDICIARY DIRECTLY AFFECT THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS. The Senators and Representatives of the General Assembly provide their standard “We do not get involved in issues involving the judiciary” response to their constituents. The negligence of Senators and Representatives does NOT delegate their constitutional responsibilities to another branch or agency.

The word JURISDICTION was not used in the Superior Court Opinion. NOT EVEN ONCE. This action to “avoid, neglect and obfuscate” prevents any member of the General Assembly from being reminded of their responsibilities which could be triggered by using the word JURISDICTION – a collateral reference. Yes, the Judiciary is informed and aware of their problem. Their statements are deliberate, intentional and precisely formed.

When the court lacks jurisdiction, it has no authority. When the court acts without jurisdiction, the appellate courts deliberately fail to address the lower court’s lack of jurisdiction. This will often be substantiated by a RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE which neglects to address the actions of the lower court. The supporting RULE indicates the lack of jurisdiction of the Appellate Courts.

WHOA! The supporting RULE “affect(s) the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court.” and violates the Pennsylvania Constitution. The RULE is improperly enacted and unconstitutional.

Where the RULE prevents a prompt and timely end to the litigation in the lower court, the litigants are denied rights provided by the US Constitution. An unconstitutional RULE which requires attendance at judicial proceedings denies the freedom of a litigant to live without unnecessary interference of the government. The US Constitution.

Judiciary RULES must be consistent with the Pennsylvania Constitution. “if such rules are consistent with this Constitution” The RULES ARE IMPROPERLY ENACTED.

Judiciary RULES may “neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant.” Substantive rights are protected by the PA Constitution AND provided pursuant to the US Constitution. The RULES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

PROBLEM:
IMPROPERLY ENACTED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL RULES enacted by Judiciary

NO OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW:
Judiciary cannot review the constitutionality of rules that THE JUDICIARY HAS ENACTED.
1. Conflict of Interest
2. No authority for review by Executive or Legislative branches.
3. Another RULE mandates the CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION by all lawyers where disclosure will adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.

Disclosure that the judiciary has improperly enacted unconstitutional rules which undermine the constitutional rights of litigants WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY.

THE LAWYERS SILENTLY PARTICIPATE because an improperly enacted and unconstitutional CONFIDENTIALITY LAW prevents disclosure (and resolution) and must be abided until it is declared unconstitutional by the judiciary.

In August 2013, THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION was served to Kathleen Kane and the attorneys general of the United States. As lawyers, they silently participated as required by rule. Every state defaulted in the matter. Rule 1.6 was unconstitutional.

Lawyers mandated to non-disclosure obfuscated the matter in the federal courts.

Where Kathleen Kane had the first hand involvement and responsibility as Attorney General along with the information to recognize the improperly enacted and unconstitutional rules affecting a litigant in Montgomery County, the issue was ripe for resolution and all involved had been informed of the situation.

In May 2014, there was a proceeding which occurred before Judge William Carpenter. The transcript had subsequently been provided to the PA Supreme Court within a document from Judge Carpenter. Copies were distributed to those involved including employees of the Office of Attorney General.
Upon learning of the transcript being distributed, anyone who had seen, read, reviewed, or learned of the transcript of that proceeding has been ordered by Judge Carpenter to forget they had any knowledge of the proceeding, the transcript, or the information in the document.

(Bill Cosby, Yes. Judge Carpenter issued an order to UNRING A BELL.)

In the next few months, Kathleen Kane additionally received two confidential court orders from unidentified courts ordering her to PERSONALLY neglect the responsibilities of the Office of the Attorney General. Making the order PERSONAL prevented disclosure to the Legislature and the Governor who could be informed where the secret order interfered with the LAW which established the Office of the Attorney General. Appeal was prevented where Kathleen Kane could not seek relief because she was not a party with injuries. The order was mandating her continued non-disclosure of the unconstitutional Confidentiality rule. Where the unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality had fallen, it was re-caste as a court order with specificity to continue to deny the rights of Americans.

(President Donald Trump. Yes. Attorney Client Privilege is dead. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information includes attorney client privilege within its broader confidentiality mandates.)

Two words that the Superior Court failed to use. JURISDICTION and CONFIDENTIALITY.
The silent mandatory participation of lawyers in a system of justice which is BROKEN.

Bill Cosby may not even be aware that he had been contacted through other channels regarding disclosure of a confidentiality which has caused and perpetuated the CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IN THE USA. Check the timeline. Montgomery County began pursuing Cosby’s destruction before a single meeting had occurred.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information has caused this problem. If non-disclosure is mandated by rule, then the issue may not be disclosed. It’s the thing left unaddressed (by all parties) which indicates the problem. THE PROBLEM WITH CONFIDENTIALITY IS THAT IT IS CONFIDENTIAL.