2017
01.16

There are likely millions of Fraudulent Foreclosures which were improperly handled through the courts, or their default processes.

So many, in fact, that there’s a name for what is on the horizon… THE IBANEZ TIMEBOMB.

Property Title Trouble in Non-Judicial Foreclosure States: The Ibanez Time Bomb?

This Article explores the extent to which the Ibanez ruling may influence the jurisprudence in other non-judicial foreclosure states and the likelihood that clear title to foreclosed properties is jeopardized by the shoddy handling of notes and mortgages.

2017
01.15

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
MOTION TO STRIKE DEFAULT JUDGMENT(s)
MOTION TO VOID SHERIFF SALE(s)
MOTION TO ENJOIN FURTHER HARASSMENT
MOTION TO ENJOIN FURTHER FRAUDULENT ACTIONS

The Complaint was delivered on Thursday, January 12, 2017. Filed with the Bucks County Prothontary to put the Motions before the county judges. Copies delivered to the offices of …
Bucks County Prothonotary, Patricia Bachtle
Bucks County Sheriff, Edward Donnelly
Bucks County District Attorney, Matt Weintraub
Bucks County First Assistant District Attorney, Michelle A. Henry
Bucks County Recorder of Deeds, Joseph J. Szafran
Honorable Jeffrey Finley, President Judge

Copies prepared and filed for each property involved.
#1 Woodspring Circle and Attachments
#2 Mary Street and Attachments
#3 East Ashland Street and Attachments

Todd M. Krautheim, Defendant in the above captioned case and the following cases in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, has been denied protection of the Rule of Law; Due Process and Procedure; and rights which are guaranteed by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

#2011-00193 Bank of America v Todd M. Krautheim
#2012-05546 US Bank NA v Todd M. Krautheim
#2013-07214 First Savings Bank of Perkasie v Todd M. Krautheim

The county officials have neglected the responsibilities of their elected office and by their informed deliberate and intentional negligence have permitted the authority, integrity and independence of the County Judiciary to be undermined and usurped.

The county officials have actively participated in the grossly unconstitutional conduct having permitted constitutional rights and the Rule of law to be ignored.

The county officials have directly, or indirectly by directing their staff, contributed and participated in the harassment and intimidation of the Defendant while preventing the matter(s) from being presented to the Bucks County Judiciary for review and adjudication.

Defendant provides the following statement and documents in support of the matter:

On December 13, 2016, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Zane David Memeger, filed an indictment containing indications of actions and means available to engage in unlawful and corrupt ‘sham’ actions through Bucks County court.

The indictment named John I. Waltman, Robert P. Hoopes and Bernard T. Rafferty indicating they “conspired and agreed, together and with persons known and unknown to the grand jury to commit offenses” [sic] “to conduct, attempt to conduct, or aid and abet the conducting of, financial transactions involving property” [sic] “with the intent to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership and control of property believed to be the proceeds of the specified unlawful activities.”

ATTACHMENT A – US District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Indictment – Criminal No. 16-509 filed December 13, 2016

While the indictment did not indicate any relationship(s) between Waltman, Hoopes and Rafferty and the personnel in the Office of the Prothonotary, the Sheriffs office, and other county offices, several relationships are significant in light of their claims and the inappropriate fraudulent default foreclosures being perpetrated against Defendant while having been denied any opportunity or hearing before any Court.

ATTACHMENT B – Delaware Valley News.com
“Lower Southampton officials arrested by federal authorities” December 22, 2016

“Hoopes is an attorney that prior to this indictment, used to represent car accident victims and people that claimed they fell on other peoples property.”

“[Hoopes] was a cop many years ago serving Lower Southampton Township.”

“[Waltman] replaced Susan McEwen, who was caught tampering with judicial records involving a family member and giving a cop a very hard time as he used to court to get warrants.”

“Waltman will be removed from the bench shortly.”

“Waltman is not a lawyer.”

“Rafferty has been involved in law enforcement for almost 20 years, service as Deputy Constable.”

ATTACHMENT C – ABA Journal
“Judge is charged with money laundering in FBI sting operation” December 16, 2016

“The indictment claims Rafferty’s consulting firm account was used to launder money, and all of the defendants obtained bogus documents to make their transactions appear legitimate.”

“They are also accused of planning to obtain a sham default judgment…”

ATTACHMENT D – Bucks County Courier Times
“There has to be a better way” December 21, 2016

“Upon his appointment to Lower Southampton’s newly created position of public safety director, Robert Hoopes was called “the perfect candidate” by board of supervisors Chairman Patrick Irving.”

“Likewise, when District Judge John Waltman was appointed to the bench in 2010 by then Gov. Ed Rendell, a spokesman for the governor said Waltman received “very strong endorsements” from state Sen. Tommy Tomlinson and state Rep. Frank Farry.”

“[Tomlinson] agreed that a more formal vetting process would be a good idea.”

“Still, the township supervisors appointed [Hoopes] following a closed-door process.”

ATTACHMENT E – Levittown Now.com
“Constable Crashes School Board Meeting; Board Member Takes Verbal Swings At Judge” August 16, 2016

“During the board comment portion of the meeting, [Mike] Morris called out Waltman on the documents he received and accused Waltman of “political abuse.”

“Unfortunately, this is how it gets done,” Morris said. He also additionally claimed he had witnessed the judge “destroy people’s lives.”

“Morris, who has talked to reporters at previous meetings about claims of harsh politics in Lower Southampton, called Waltman a “political hack” and implied that members of his family were corrupt. He also stated the elected judge had influence over the Lower Southampton Police Department.”

“In addition, Morris made claims to members of the media after the school board meeting that Waltman had made threats of violence against him in the past and had mishandled a criminal case involving someone the elected official knew.”

ATTACHMENT F – Patch.com
“Grassroots Politics” August 1, 2011

“Magisterial District Judge John Waltman spoke at the end of the event, first announcing he’s not a fan of long speeches. But he, like other Repuiblicans in attendance spoke about keeping grassroots politics in mind.”

“Our secret to success is when we all stick together,” [Waltman] said.

ATTACHMENT G – Bucks County Constables Assocation
Bucks County Constables Association 2010 Officers
PRESIDENT – John Waltman
Lower Southampton Twp

TREASURER – Barney Rafferty
Pendel Boro

The impropriety which surrounds and envelopes the careers and relationships of those involved in the indictment is cause for serious concern and demonstrates opportunities for abuse and corruption, conducted with extreme arrogance and indifference and affirms their belief that they were above the law.

ATTACHMENT H – Judicial Conduct Board
Press Release December 16, 2016
Petition for Relief for Interim Suspension With or Without Pay
Indictment
Verification
Proof of Service

“Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Court of Judicial Discipline has the authority to issue an interim order suspending [Waltman], prior to a hearing, based on the filing of the indictment charging felonies.”

ATTACHMENT – I The Committee to Expose Dishonest and Incompetent Judges, Attorneys and Public Officials
“Ex-Judge Susan E. McEwen of Philadelphia; scofflaw, arrogant, potty-mouth loser”

“… Judge McEwen was charged with egregious misconduct by the Pennsylvania Judicial Commission.”

“When Judge McEwen’s neighbors called the police complaining about a loud party at her house, the cops responded and discovered ten teenagers boozing it up, of all of whom were underage and all of whom were arrested. One of the teens was McEwen’s grandson Matthew Keller.”

“Subsequently, the case was assigned to Judge David Heckler who found all of them guilty; however, Keller didn’t appear in court but was fined $200 + $121.64 in court costs by Heckler. Shortly thereafter, Judge McEwen illegally “altered” Judge Heckler’s court ruling by crossing out the $300 fine and substituting it with $150.”

“Officer Outland attempted to offer an explanation of the circumstances to Judge McEwen, but she continued to scream calling him a “Bastard” and “Stupid Asshole.”

“You Asshole, I can’t believe you called me out for this.”

“Upon leaving the courthouse, Judge McEwen continued to point her finger and yell at Officer Outland, referring to the police as a bunch of “Stupid Assholes”

“Knowing she would be found guilty of egregious misconduct and likely removed from the bench, Judge McEwen did what any respectable coward would do, she resigned, which caused the charges against her to be dismissed.”

ATTACHMENT J – Court of Judicial Discipline
ORDER June 24, 2010

“the Complaint filed by the Judical Conduct Board in this case is marked withdrawn and the case closed, without prejudice.”

ATTACHMENT K – Expose Corrupt Courts
“Is It Too Much to Ask That Employees Stop Altering Court Records?” July 1, 2009
“Judge Accused of Altering Her Grandson’s Court File, Calling Cop an “A$$#@!=”
July 1, 2009

“altering official records”

“indecorous language and behavior towards a police officer”

“engaging in conduct that prejudices the proper administration of justice”

“engaging in activity that brings the judicial office into disrepute”

“The board also charged McEwen with violating Rule 2A of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges, which states that district judges ‘shall respect and comply with the law and shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary’ and ‘shall not allow their family, social or other relationships to influence their judicial conduct or judgment.” The board argued McEwen was also in violation of Rule 8A of the district judge rules, which requires district judges to recuse themselves from cases “in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Their relationships with county personnel shows they had the personnel and resources in place to conduct their criminal enterprise and avoid detection where county officers ignored and failed to respond to issues when brought to their attention.

It can be demonstrated on the court record (documents, letters and notices, etc) that the Defendant has been denied access to the court, and denied any opportunity for hearings; denied the opportunity to present testimony and provide evidence; and his property has been unconstitutionally taken using an improperly applied default process in favor of a plaintiff who lacks proper standing to bring this matter before the court.

For these reasons, and possibly others, an improper default action has been attempted which prevents any judicial review of any facts, evidence, testimony, etc.

The denial of access to the courts is being perpetrated by persons in positions of authority who have refused to meet; speak; respond to letters, documents, court petitions, court orders, etc;
-They have additionally deliberately neglected to sign any documents, or indicate responsibility for the decision making authority or applicable law under which their action, or in-action, is appropriate.

-They have additionally filed false reports, or made false statements, regarding the Defendant (and others) which have lead to the harassment of the Defendant (and others) by other county personnel – who know the deception involved and are ‘following orders’.

“Our secret to success is when we all stick together,” [Waltman] said.

Any law which is preventing a litigant from access to the courts is unconstitutional as it is denying a right protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.
– This is the reason that County Officials neglect to substantiate or indicate the applicable law which supports their actions/inaction.
– This is the reason that documents are not signed.
– Elected officials, and their employees, have a responsibility by law and are ultimately responsible for the negligence and corruption within their departments.

AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW CANNOT PROVIDE ANY DEFENSE FOR THE DENIAL OF ANY RIGHT.

ATTACHMENT L – Office of Prothonotary
Letterhead

Indicates Patricia L. Bachtle as Prothonotary
Indicates Nicole Waltman as First Deputy

RE: RETURN OF DOCUMENT
Indicates Patricia L. Bachtle as Prothonotary
Indicates Nicole Waltman as First Deputy
Timestamp: November 2, 2016
Form revised 03/2012

Rule 1037.B
Rule 1037.B provides for the Default resolution of a matter by the Prothonotary upon praecipe by the Plaintiff.

Rule 1037.b is unconstitutional in that it unfairly provides procedures to the Plaintiff in litigation which are not similarly provided to the Defendant. This unfair practice denies the Defendant of “fairness” and his right to due process of law.

Rule 1037.B has been enacted by the Judiciary pursuant to their power to prescribe by general rule the practice and procedure in civil actions for the courts of common pleas.

The rulemaking authority of the judiciary requires “such rules are consistent with Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive right of any litigant.”

The General Assembly, by Act of June 21, 1937, P. L. 1982, as amended, 17 P. S. § 61 et seq. (repealed), vested in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania the power to prescribe by general rule the practice and procedure in civil actions for the courts of common pleas. This concept was incorporated into the Constitution of 1968, Article V, Section 10(c) which continued to vest in the Supreme Court:

‘‘. . . the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure, and conduct of all courts . . . if such rules are consistent with Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive right of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of peace, nor suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose. All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions.’’

A clear conflict of interest exists for the judiciary to review the constitutionality of a Rule which the judiciary has improperly enacted without any constitutional review.

PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE

IN AN ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL THE CORRUPTION OF THE COUNTY OFFICERS, the Pennsylvania Legislature has been presented with legislation which would move several county departments, and elected Row Offices, under the direct responsibility of the Judiciary. The legislation has not moved forward in any of the last six (6) sessions of the Pennsylvania Legislature. A clear indication that the Legislature is aware of the deception involved in this effort.

It can be demonstrated that the Defendant has attempted to engage and solicit the efforts of the elected county officials, departments and law enforcement. Those requests have been ignored.

ATTACHMENT M
Email – April 23, 2013 – Doylestown Township Police – Eva Gebre
Letter – November 1, 2013 – Judge Rea Boylan
Fax – November 1, 2013 – Judge Rea Boylan
Letter – March 11, 2014 – Judge Rea Boylan
Letter – March 11, 2014 – President Judge Jeffrey Finley (cc)
Letter – March 11, 2014 – former President Judge Susan Scott (cc)
Letter – March 11, 2014 – Patricia Bachtle, Prothonotary (cc)
Fax – March 11, 2014 – Judge Rea Boylan
Fax – March 11, 2014 – President Judge Jeffrey Finley (cc)
Fax – March 11, 2014 – former President Judge Susan Scott (cc)
Fax – March 11, 2014 – Patricia Bachtle, Prothonotary (cc)
Notice – Letter & Fax March 11, 2014
Email – March 26, 2014 – Bucks County District Attorney – David Heckler
Letter – May 29, 2015 – Judge Robert J. Mellon
Letter – May 29, 2015 – Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane (cc)
Letter – May 29, 2015 – Chief Counsel Judicial Conduct Board Robertn Graci (cc)
Letter – May 29, 2015 – Bucks County Sheriff – Edward Donnelly (cc)
Letter – June 5, 2015 – Central Bucks Regional Police – Pat Penecale
Letter – June 8, 2015 – Bucks County Sheriff – Edward Donnelly
Letter – June 25, 2015 – Bucks County District Attorney – David Heckler
Letter – July 6, 2015 – Bucks County Sheriff – Edward Donnelly
Letter – Feb 11, 2016 – Bucks County Sheriff – Edward Donnelly
Email – Feb, 16, 2016 – Judge Rea Boylan
Letter – February 18, 2016 – from Office of Court Administration (UNSIGNED)
Letter – March 14, 2016 – Bucks County Sheriff – Edward Donnelly
Letter – March 14, 2016 – Office of Court Administration – Douglas Praul
Letter – March 14, 2016 – Office of Court Administration – Robert Pollack
Letter – March 14, 2016 – Office of Court Administration – Thomas Stoehr
Letter – March 14, 2016 – Office of Court Administration – Carmen G. Thorne
Letter – March 14, 2016 – Office of Court Administration – Steve Watson
Letter – March 14, 2016 – Office of Court Administration – Rhona Nagelberg
Letter – March 14, 2016 – Judge Rea Boylan (cc)
Letter – March 14, 2016 – Judge Jeffrey Finley (cc)
Letter – March 14, 2016 – Office of the Attorney General – Jonathan Deucker (cc)
Letter – March 14, 2016 – Central Bucks Regional Police Department – Lance Carlen(cc)
Letter – March 28, 2016 – Pennsylvania Attorney General – Kathleen Kane
Email – December 8, 2016 – Bucks County Sheriff – Edward Donnelly
Fax – Decenber 8, 2016 – Bucks County Sheriff – Edward Donnelly
Notice – Email & Fax December 8, 2016 – Bucks County Sheriff – Edward Donnelly

THESE LETTERS AND DOCUMENTS HAVE ADDITIONALLY BEEN FILED AS NOTICES, HAND DELIVERED, MAILED, FAX’d, SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL, HAND DELIVERED TO JUDGES CHAMBERS.

BUCKS COUNTY PROTHONOTARY, PATRICIA BACHTLE

Meetings have been requested with Patricia Bachtle EACH time documents were filed in the matters. THE REQUESTS WERE IGNORED.

Prothonotary Staff regularly made excuses for the unavailability of the Prothonotary, and the inability to schedule a meeting.

Documents were served upon Patricia Bachtle. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.

Prothonotary staff was challenged when documents presented to the Prothonotary were not posted to the docket on multiple occasions.

When time-stamped copies were presented, the Documents were then filed/docketed using an incorrect date on the Docket. Prothonotary staff insisted there was no way to adjust the date. Meetings were requested with Patricia Bachtle. THE REQUESTS WERE IGNORED.

When seeking to take a default where the plaintiff had failed to respond to ANY filings, the time-stamped documents had again not been entered. Second Deputy Patricia Zimmerman proceed to back-date the documents on the docket, and produce back-dated time-stamped bar coded stickers for the documents. A PRACTICE AND ABILITY WHICH HAD BEEN VEHEMENTLY DENIED IN THE PAST WHEN CHANGES TO THE DOCKET WERE INDICATED. Meetings were requested with Patricia Bachtle. THE REQUESTS WERE IGNORED.

Further, Terance Healy, a witness to the conversations with the Prothonotary staff, was removed from the Prothonotary at the direction of Patricia Bachtle by County Deputies. There was no reason provided by County Deputies acting on the direction of “the woman who’s name is on the door.”

County Deputies had come to know the Defendant, and Terance Healy, as they regularly accompanied each other to the Courthouse when filing and serving documents to county officials. Deputies indicated there had been no reports or incidents regarding their activities at the courthouse.

Filings related to the Defendant’s request for the Default, were not filed by the Prothonotary.

Filings related to the Defendant’s request for the Default, were not acted upon by the Prothonotary.

Filings related to the Defendant’s request for the Default, have reportedly been returned to the Defendant BUT HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE DEFENDANT, nor has any indication of the actions of the Prothonotary been filed/docketed in the matters..

The First Deputy Prothonotary, Nicole Waltman, has held that position for years.

A man believed to be her husband, John I. Waltman, has been named in an indictment (Attachment A) by the US Attorney.

The indictment (Attachment A) having included an ability to obtain ‘sham default judgments’.

The Prothonotary has provided and delivered ‘sham default judgments’ in the above named matters, while the Defendant HAS NOT DEFAULTED and has responded to each document filed by the Plaintiff and been prevented from any hearings on any issue.

The deliberate failure and negligence of Patricia Bachtle, Prothonotary, to perform (or supervise) the responsibilities of the elected office while providing improper, unsubstantiated and unlawful default judgments (sham default judgments) which deny the Defendant of real property is cause for investigation.

Prothonotary staff has become nervous and agitated at the Defendant when he presents documents to be filed in the matters.

Prothonotary staff has become defensive where the Defendant has asked to address the issues with Patricia Bachtle, Prothonotary.

Requests for Investigation have been made to the Bucks County Prothonotary.
THE REQUESTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED.

Requests for Investigation have been made to the Bucks County District Attorney.
THE REQUESTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED.

Requests for Investigation have been made to the Bucks County Sheriff.
THE REQUESTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED.

Requests for Investigation have been made to the Bucks County Commissioners.
THE REQUESTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED.

Requests for Investigation have been made to the Bucks County Recorder of Deeds. THE REQUESTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED.

Requests for Investigation have been made to the Pennsylvania Attorney General.
THE REQUESTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED.

BUCKS COUNTY SHERIFF, EDWARD DONNELLY

Improper and unlawful default judgments have been presented to Bucks County Sheriff Edward Donnelly.

The errors and problems with the judgments have been brought to the attention of the Sheriff and the staff within the Sheriff’s office.

The Sheriff has failed to acknowledge, or investigate, or respond to the reports of errors, problems with unsubstantiated default orders issued by the Prothonotary

Ignoring the ‘sham default judgments’, the Sheriff has proceeded to offer the Defendants property at monthly Sheriff’s sales.

Lieutenant Thomas Waltman, has been an employee of the Bucks County Sheriffs Department – her reports to the Sheriff and his responsibilities include supervising the sergeants who in turn supervise the deputies who comprise the department.

There is reason to believe that a relationship exists between Thomas Waltman and John I. Waltman, who has been named in an indictment (Attachment A) by the US Attorney.

The indictment (Attachment A) having included an ability to use ‘sham default judgments’ to obtain property or documents relating to concealing money laundering acitivites described in the indictment.

The Sheriffs department has been used in attempts to harrass, intimidate and slander the Defendant, including improper arrest and detainment based on an ‘imagined’ bench warrant; posting of the Defendants photograph at the entrance to the Courthouse under the title ****THREATS***THREATS***THREATS” and suggesting the Defendant has “harassed judges in the past” (ATTACHMENT N)

The Sheriffs Department has additionally harassed, intimidated and detained Terance Healy for over two hours based on the same ‘imagined’ bench warrant.

Even after producing a valid Pennsylvania Drivers License which indicated he was NOT the person named on the purported bench warrant, Healy was detained for over two hours, his drivers license was held while he was photographed, fingerprinted, subjected to inquiry, subjected to a line up, etc by Bucks County Sheriffs Department Deputies who refused to produce the warrant when requested, and who failed to provide any report of the incident when requested.

It is important to note that the Defendant and Mr. Healy were frequently at the courthouse to address the activites necessary for the above-listed matters. They were familiar, friendly, and known by the deputies and other courthouse personnel.

The fraudulent sales of the Defendant’s properties and the harassment and intimidation efforts of the Sheriffs Department have been reported to the Bucks County Sheriff. THE REPORTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED.

The fraudulent sales of the Defendant’s properties and the harassment and intimidation efforts of the Sheriffs Department have been reported to the Bucks County District Attorney. THE REPORTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED.

The fraudulent sales of the Defendant’s properties and the harassment and intimidation efforts of the Sheriffs Department have been reported to the Bucks County Commissioners. THE REPORTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED.

The fraudulent sales of the Defendant’s properties and the harassment and intimidation efforts of the Sheriffs Department have been reported to the Pennsylvania Attorney General. THE REPORTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED.

BUCKS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, DAVID HECKLER
BUCKS COUNTY FIRST ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MICHELLE HENRY
BUCKS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MATTHEW WEINTRAUB

The Defendant has requested investigation of the fraud and corruption to the Bucks County District Attorney on multiple occasions. THE REQUESTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED.

The Defendant has filed and served the Bucks County District Attorney with documents which detail the fraudulent activities seeking investigation and prosecution of the crimes involved. THE REQUESTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED.

The Defendant has requested the escalation of the matter to the appropriate level of law enforcement where the Bucks County District Attorney lacks jurisdiction or has a conflict of interest in the matter. THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE.

THE BUCKS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ROBERT LOUGHERY, DIANE MARSEGLIA, CHARLES MARTIN

The Defendant has provided copies of the documents delivered to the Prothonotary, Sheriff and District Attorney, and other law enforcement officials to the Bucks County Commissioners seeking assistance in resolving the matters. THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE.

The Defendant has requested the assistance of the Bucks County Commissioners to obtain information about the actions/inactions of the Prothonotary, Sheriff and District Attorney. THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE.

The Defendant has requested the assistance of the Bucks County Commissioners to escalate the matter to the proper level of law enforcement (including the Pennsylvania Attorney General, and the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania). THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE.

BUCKS COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS, JOSEPH SZAFRAN

The Defendant has advised the Bucks County Recorder of Deeds of the fraudulent conveyance of properties, sham default orders and the fraudulent statements which appear on documents filed with the Recorder of Deeds office. THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE.

The Defendant is aware that the Recorder of Deeds accepts responsibility only for the filing of documents and has no legal obligation to verify or confirm any detail information.

The Recorder of Deeds has no legal authority for refusing to accept documents which have been formatted properly regardless of the validity of statements in the documents.

The Recorder of Deeds is aware that he has no authority to restrict, deny or prevent the filing of fraudulent documents with his office.

DOCKET(s)

Bucks County Court of Common Pleas

ATTACHMENT O
Case# 2011-00193 (232 entries)

ATTACHMENT P
Case# 2012-05546 (91 entries)

ATTACHMENT Q
Case# 2013-07214 (179 entries)

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Case# 400 MT 2013
Case# 1767 EDA 2016
Case# 943 EDA 2014

United States Bankruptcy Court
15-14919-SR

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Case #13-4614
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION

Incorporated by Reference
-served upon the state Attorney General(s) of the United States,
-copies to the state Governors of the United States
-distributed to Pennsylvania Government (Executive, Legislative and Judiciary- Supreme Court), the Sheriffs of Pennsylvania,
-distributed to United States Government (Executive, Legislative and Judiciary – Supreme Court),

United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Case #13-4591

Incorporated by Reference
-served upon the state Attorney General(s) of the United States

ATTACHMENT R –
“REPORT ON FRAUDULENT & FORGED ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGES & DEEDS IN U.S. FORECLOSURES”

at Background paragraph#5
“you need to sue the layers, they are all in on it” meaning the scam and scheme of fraudulent and unlawful foreclosures being conducted in the name of the servicers who had no real ownership or interest in the note and thus no right or authority to conduct a foreclosure.

UNDERMINING JUSTICE

The lawyers’ creation of a “strawman” when coupled with the relentless pursuit of constant and exhausting unfounded litigation for a plaintiff without standing;
or without any requirement to produce standing;
or where standing is purportedly concealed by confidentiality, or privilege;
or where lawful standing has been excused by UNCONSTITUTIONAL and IMPROPER action of the state judiciary;
or where default authority is improperly delegated outside the judiciary;
or where a local rule
…enables a situation where any person may experience the theft of their property while denied their constitutionally protected rights and any protection of the law
WHILE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EVERY LEVEL OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT STANDS IDLE only indicating that the crime is not within their jurisdiction – a misdirection which prevents law enforcement from indicating that the judiciary has endorsed the theft of property when perpetrated by lawyers.

A situation enabled and caused when the American Bar Association presented their unethical, unlawful and immoral rules to the state Supreme Courts – and once enacted by the Supreme Courts, the improper and unconstitutional laws were prevented from exposure pursuant to an aggressively enforced CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION (Rule 1.6) which similarly was improperly enacted and unconstitutional.

The situation further exasperated by the McDade-Murtha Act which was mocked for creating “THE CORRUPT POLITICIANS’ PROTECTION BOARD”, A stripped down McDade Murtha provision became the “Citizens Protection Act of 1998” which was included in H.R. 4276 the House Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriations bill, preventing federal law enforcement efforts through improperly enacted and unconstitutional laws of the state judiciary(s).

McDade-Murtha is an unconstitutional delegation of the Legislative Authority of the US Congress to each state Judiciary – which is prevented from any Constitutional Challenge or review because of the UNDENIABLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST of the judiciary – the self appointed deciders of ‘constitutionality’ since Marbury v. Madison.

A conspiracy by the American Bar Association which undermined the authority of the state and federal judiciary. An act of treason against the American government concealed by the aggressively enforced mandate of Confidentiality of Information (Rule 1.6) – improperly enacted and unconstitutional in every state. An aggressive and violent rape of the public trust.

ANYONE WHO WOULD MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO EXPOSE THESE ACTIONS WOULD BE DESTROYED BY THE LAWYERS WHILE EVERY LEVEL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IGNORED, CONSPIRED or PARTICIPATED.

The Criminal Prosecution of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane demonstrates the use of false prosecution by several Pennsylvania District Attorneys for the purpose of concealing the conspiracy.

Bucks County Assistant District Attorney, Michelle Henry
Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Ferman
Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin Steele
Pennsylvania Attorney General Bruce Castor
Pennsylvania Attorney General Bruce Beemer

SUMMARY
The Defendant has no recourse. The Bucks County Judiciary has been removed from the matter.

The government and law enforcement officials with proper jurisdiction who are responsible for their duties defined by law have deliberately neglected their responsibilities which has resulted in the fraudulent conveyance of the Defendant’s property.

The Defendant has been subjected to harassment, abuse and the theft of his property; denied EVERY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT; and prevented from any protection of the Rule of Law.

The fraud is obvious. The failure of government officials to act is inexcusable.

The Defendant requests the immediate action by your office.

RESPECTFULLY.

2017
01.13

A Federal indictment of a Judge, Constable and Police Chief indicated their ability to obtain SHAM DEFAULT JUDGMENTS.

They each have immediate family members in positions which control Default Judgments (Prothonotary) AND SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT personnel who can sell your home right out from under you at Sheriffs Sale…. while you are denied hearings, any constitutional rights, and any protection of the law.

The District Attorney ignores complaints and does nothing… permitting fraud, burglary, threats, intimidation, harassment…

If anyone attempts to expose their corruption… THEY WILL DESTROY YOU. They have the resources in place and law enforcement in their control. They will ruin your life, destroy your finances, take your homes… because they can, and no one will stop them.

Apparently, Senator McIlhinney is very afraid. He was directed to IGNORE… and he has hidden ever since.

2011-00193

2012-05546

2013-07214

Attachments

Copies of the Documents set for filing and delivery to Bucks County Prothonotary, Sheriff, District Attorneys, etc…

Delivery to Bucks County President Judge Jeffrey Finley (Judges Chambers)

Delivery to Bucks County District Attorney Matt Weintraub (District Attorneys Office)
Copy delivered to Michelle Henry – First Assistant District Attorney, Former District Attorney, and (pending) First Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania

Delivery to Bucks County Sheriff Edward Donnelly

Delivery to Pennsylvania Senator Charles McIlhinney

2017
01.11


Extracted From LEGISLATORS AS THE “AMERICAN CRIMINAL CLASS”: WHY CONGRESS (SOMETIMES) PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF DEFENDANTS by
Craig S. Lerner

Citizen Protection Act

The McDade Amendment, also grandiosely known as the Citizen Protection Act (CPA), has been described as “Joseph McDade’s swan song—and a parting shot at the Department of Justice . . . .” The law requires that “[a]n attorney for the Government shall be subject to [s]tate laws and rules, and local Federal court rules, governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages in that attorney’s duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.” Simply put, the CPA imposes state ethics rules on federal prosecutors. However equitable that may sound, it has in practice proven highly problematic, and has been the subject of substantial academic criticism. Prior to 1998, for at least a decade, state and federal courts, as well as the local bar associations, had grappled with the problem of developing ethical rules for federal prosecutors. The CPA stunted any possibility of gradual development, neglected the panoply of conflicting interests at stake, and shackled federal prosecutors with a law that has proven difficult and costly to administer.

It originated just weeks after McDade’s acquittal, when he introduced the original version of a bill that would eventually become law. In a subcommittee hearing, Representative McDade was the first and principal witness, summoning his “first-hand knowledge of the overzealousness and excessiveness of federal prosecutors.” Although McDade alleged that the “problem” of prosecutorial misconduct was “serious,” he provided virtually no evidence to support this claim, other than anecdotal claims based on his own experience. Why, then, should the members of the House heed his words? Because, said McDade, he spoke “with the authority of one who has had his life turned upside down . . . .” He added:

So I come to you today with a bias borne of hard personal experience. I used to blindly trust that our system worked. Now I have learned that our law enforcement community has to some extent lost its way, strayed from its mission.

The Department of Justice dispatched the Solicitor General, Seth Waxman, to Capitol Hill to respond to McDade and to urge the House of Representative to reject his proposal, and the executive branch won a temporary victory when the subcommittee buried the bill. Undeterred, McDade reintroduced the bill in the next Congress. The bill made it out of subcommittee, but the House Committee on the Judiciary then failed to take any action.

McDade soldiered doggedly on. In March 1998, he introduced an expanded version of the legislation in the Committee on the Judiciary. At this point, the bill had thirty-three sponsors, virtually all of whom were, like McDade himself, Republicans. Yet a few members of the House crossed the political aisle. They included: Representative Murtha, whose run-in with the law during the Abscam investigation has already been noted; Representative Traficant, who had been indicted two decades earlier and would be indicted again in a few years; and Representative Ford, Jr., whose father (also a member of Congress) had been indicted for bank fraud and tax evasion. Although the bill claimed thirty-three sponsors, the House Judiciary Committee declined to take action on it.

At this point, the progress of the CPA becomes murky. It seems that McDade convinced the House Appropriations Committee to include his proposed legislation in an appropriations bill. After a perfunctory hearing, the Committee passed the appropriations bill, with McDade’s provision included, in July 1998. The McDade provision found its logical place in an appropriations bill, nestled immediately between a provision allocating $17 million for the maritime administration and a section amending the National Whale Conservation Fund Act. Support for the McDade provision swelled in Congress when it emerged that Independent Counsel Starr had engaged in allegedly questionable tactics during the Lewinsky investigation, including the questioning of a suspect outside of the presence of her counsel.

The bill was then collapsed into an Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill, and presented to the Senate on August 31, 1998. Although the House had been a congenial place for McDade’s law, the Senate accorded it a relatively chilly reception. Senator Leahy (D.-Vt.), the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, spoke out on the floor against the CPA, noting that the provision placed “unnecessary and ill-advised obstacles in the path of effective interstate and international prosecutions.” The ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch (R.-Utah), also criticized McDade’s measure as harmful to the legitimate interest of law enforcement. In addition, noting the remarkably unified opposition to the measure inside and outside the administration, Hatch and Leahy expressed displeasure that the Judiciary Committee had been bypassed, and they sent a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee urging removal of the provision from the conference report.

Indeed, far from there being any groundswell of support for the measure, most outside observers were critical. Here again, as with the Hyde Amendment, Congress proved itself determined to enact a measure that satisfied no real constituency, and that few in the general public considered to be in the public interest. The Washington Post, for example, hardly a bastion of law-and-order conservatism, ran an editorial critical of the CPA. Although acknowledging that steps should be taken to check federal prosecutors, the editorial pointed out that the measure was too blunt to accommodate the countervailing interests in effective law enforcement. The Post editorial noted that “[o]ne might expect that criminal justice legislation that is opposed by the president, the attorney general and the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee would not be blithely slipped into the statute books.” But that was precisely what happened. And when push came to shove, Leahy and Hatch declined to hold up the entire appropriations because of their opposition to the measure.

Gloating over the act’s passage in his final days in office, McDade scorned even the veneer of even-handedness, and spoke of his handiwork in the tones of a caricature of a crusading ACLU lawyer: “The Department of Justice today is engaging in the most immoral activity I can imagine,” McDade pronounced. “They charge any citizen that they can get, and as it was once said, they don’t throw the book at them, they throw the library.” Ironically, if McDade’s concern was the prosecutorial penchant to “overcharge” in the drafting of indictments, a legitimate concern that does indeed warrant scrutiny, his measure does absolutely nothing to address this problem.

But what has the CPA accomplished? To their credit, Senators Leahy and Hatch have tracked the real-world consequences of the McDade Amendment, and urged its repeal. Indeed, even before the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, the two leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee cataloged how the application of the vagaries of state ethics rules, and in particular the rule prohibiting contact with represented parties, have sabotaged one federal investigation after another. For example, Senate Leahy took to the floor of the Senate and described how the McDade Amendment worked in actual practice in an FBI child-murder investigation. Having obtained a reliable tip that an individual, who was in a county jail after conviction on an unrelated charge, was the culprit, the FBI sought to wire one of the suspect’s trusted accomplices. But prosecutors, fearful that this might run afoul of the state’s ethics rules prohibiting contact with represented parties, sought guidance from the State Bar Disciplinary Counsel. The Counsel, interpreting the state ethics rules, concluded that the suspect was still a “represented person” and, therefore, prohibited any direct contact by an agent of the police. Such a prohibition, one should add, is in no way required by the U.S. Constitution, nor any federal regulations, but the effect of the McDade Amendment here was to short-circuit a federal murder investigation.

The September 11th attacks have prompted a reappraisal of the costs of the McDade Amendment. FBI agent Colleen Rowley, the celebrated whistleblower who excoriated FBI headquarters for its refusal to approve a warrant application to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s laptop computer, specifically urged Congress to reconsider the McDade Amendment, precisely because of the hindrance it might pose in terrorism investigations. Indeed, it is relatively easy to imagine how investigations into terrorist cells stretching across states, and involving parties who may have had brushes with the law in the past, might be delayed or even jeopardized by the McDade Amendment. In response, as noted earlier, Senator Leahy included a proposal in the Patriot Act to overhaul the McDade Amendment. But the House steadfastly rejected the Senate’s call for its replacement with a more measured provision. Responsible for creating this monster, and apparently attached to its own handiwork, the House would not consent to its destruction.

2017
01.11

Picture the American Justice System as the game JENGA. The various injustices people experience are the peices. Remove a piece, the game continues. The piece is placed back on top. The game continues…

…and continues until it comes crashing down.

Surviving the injustice(s) permits the game to continue… UNTIL YOU DON’T.

Victims are (1) homeless/destitute, (2) incarcerated, or (3) suicides.

American Injustice has been ignored since 1984.

At the recommendation of the American Bar Association, their unconstitutional Rules of Professional Conduct – which lacked the ‘fraud provisions’ deliberately removed to conceal fraud and prevent resolution – became law through each state Supreme Court.

Included in those rules was an aggressively enforced mandated for Confidentiality of Information (Rule 1.6) – a confidentiality which permits lawyers and law enforcement to IGNORE the loss of rights and the denial of any protection of the law.

Where enacted by the Judiciary and where the only decider of constitutionality is the Judiciary, a HUGE conflict of interest prevents exposure of the problem.

Concealing the fraud and preventing resolution (acting under confidentiality) the members of the various affiliated bar associations interfere, undermine and prevent the judiciary ‘held hostage’ from addressing or correcting the error. The membership of the ABA profits from the futile lawsuits.

Federal law enforcement and lawyers are similarly prevented from action by a Federal law, improperly enacted by the Congress.

The McDade Murtha amendment was an improper delegation of the rule making authority of the US Congress (Legislative Branch) to the state Judiciary (Judicial Branch).

There was no evaluation of the constitutionality of each states Rules of Professional Conduct. Congress neglected to recognize the conflict of interest and confidentiality which prevents the judiciary from addressing any unconstitutional affects of the “Rules for Lawyers”.

EVERY AMERICAN INJUSTICE IS IGNORED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND LAWYERS PURSUANT TO RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY.
Improperly enacted and unconstitutional.
Injustice and the unconstitutional denial of Americans rights caused by deliberate acts of treason (in EVERY state) by the American Bar Association.

President Elect Donald Trump is NOT a lawyer mandated to conceal the cause of the Constitutional Crisis in the US.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

2016
12.23

Hey EarthIsFlat. 

Stop spamming the website.  You’re name suggests you either have a sense of humor, or that you are a stupid dumbass.

Gonna go with Dumbass because if you think the volumes of disinformation and foolishness is ever gonna get posted in comments YOU HAVEN’T NOTICED THAT COMMENTS ON THIS SITE ARE NEVER POSTED. 

 (This is intentional as it prevents the stupidity like that which you are spewing from being distributed on this site.)

BTW… HUGE NEWS NEXT WEEK!
JUSTICE IS COMING.

Oh ma darlin’ there may even be some hope and help for you in the upcoming documents.

2016
12.22

The Foreclosure Crisis, Churches hiding Predators, Kids for Cash, Black Lives Matter, American Injustice Ignored….

When the Judiciary enacts laws pursuant to their authority to direct the administration of the courts, it is conditional. Rules enacted by the Judiciary may not abridge or affect the constitutional rights of litigants.

PROBLEM:

Once the Courts improperly enact an unconstitutional law, There is a conflict of interest which prevents the Courts from reviewing the constitutionality of their law.

The Legislature has no precedent for reviewing constitutionality, NOR does the Governor.

The Legislature COULD suspend any law. (Article I Section 12)

The Governor COULD call to assemble the Legislature to suspend the law. (Article IV Section 12)

The Rules of Civil Procedure, The Rules of Appellate Procedure, etc… have been enacted by the Judiciary. The Legislature was not involved, there was no proper construction of the law, no constitutional review, no input, no vote, no signature by the Governor.

The assumption is that these laws abide by the state Constitutions and the Constitution of the US.

When that assumption is WRONG, the courts suggested they have the authority to promulgate the law provided by the state constitution. Further suggesting that anything they enact is constitutional because they cannot enact an unconstitutional law.

DENIAL?

CLEARLY, THEY HAVE NEGLECTED THE NECESSITY THAT THEIR AUTHORITY ONLY EXISTS WHERE THEIR LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
“… if such rules are consistent with the Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive right of any litigant,…”

There is no provision in the constitution for the review of laws enacted by the Judiciary pursuant to Article V Section 10(c).

The Public Trust is a necessity for the Judicial branch of government. Where the Public Trust is violated, Law Enforcement, the Legislature and the Governor have a responsibility to “support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth” and to “discharge the duties of [their] office with fidelity”. This includes duties which provide for their government and the Public Trust in the Judiciary.

BUT, ….


PROBLEM:

Another improperly enacted and unconstitutional law enacted by the Judiciary affects EVERYTHING.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information. Rule 1.6 is an aggressively enforced mandate of confidentiality and non-disclosure. It is a core part of the Rules of Professional Conduct required of lawyers and legal professionals which is aggressively enforced through disciplinary processes defined by the Judiciary. When enacted, Confidentiality was no longer discretionary, it became mandatory.

Lawyers cannot expose an unconstitutional law where it will adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.

Lawyers are also permitted to conceal the problem through FRAUD IN THE FURTHERANCE and FRAUD TO PREVENT RESOLUTION. The fraud provisions were removed from the Rules Of Professional Conduct by the American Bar Association before being presented to the state Supreme Courts.

When the Legislators seek advice from their lawyers, they may be misinformed and misdirected. That FRAUD IN THE FURTHERANCE / FRAUD TO PREVENT RESOLUTION is held confidential.

When the Governor seeks advice from his General Counsel, the Governor may be misinformed and misdirected. That FRAUD IN THE FURTHERANCE / FRAUD TO PREVENT RESOLUTION is held confidential.

An unconstitutional Confidentiality law mandates that their fraudulent actions be concealed – INCLUDING concealing that there is no process for the review of unconstitutional laws enacted by the judiciary.

The Judiciary is not authorized to promulgate any unconstitutional law.

BUT, WHEN THEY DO ( AND THEY DID )

Lawyers and legal professionals can prevent and obstruct the issue from judicial review.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed in August 2013 and served to all state Attorneys General. The state Attorneys General defaulted. EVERY STATE DEFAULTED. It is reasonable to believe that when fifty-six (56) state Attorneys General have been served with a Constitutional Challenge, and ALL FAIL TO RESPOND BY THE DEADLINE ASSIGNED BY THE COURT, it is a deliberate and intentional and coordinated action. As such Rule 1.6 should have been declared unconstitutional.

But, one attorney filed an unexplained and unexcused late response, this provided the clerks an opportunity to fabricate and misrepresent the facts of the case and prevent the case from going before a judge.

The clerks had also deliberately neglected to certify the constitutional question to each state Supreme Court. Certification simply asks each state Court to indicate if the law is constitutional, or not. The deliberate negligence to certify and obtain the response of each state Court avoided each state Supreme Court from a review of the law in their state; prevented any false statement regarding constitutionality; and avoided any adverse affect to judicial integrity. AVOIDING AND IGNORING THE ISSUE ENTIRELY.

Upon improper dismissal, the Appeal to the Third Circuit raised the procedural negligence in the lower court and addressed the misinformation in the lower court’s dismissal. The Clerks quickly reopened the lower court docket as it as necessary to indicate service to the US Attorney General which had been neglected. The Constitutional Challenge was delivered to the US Attorney in Philadelphia (An attorney permitted to conceal any inaction.)

Clerks (lawyers) in the Third Circuit prevented the appeal from review by the Federal Appeals Court.


While it is the professional responsibility for lawyers to promote and pursue justice, in accordance with the Rule of Law enacted by the Legislature, and the state and federal constitutions, the lawyers have chosen to undermine the constitutional rights of litigants nationwide… AND to hold the judiciary hostage to their fraudulent actions which must be held confidential pursuant to an unconstitutional law.

An unconstitutional law can provide no defense for the deliberate actions which undermine rights guaranteed by the Constitutions. It has been over 30 years that lawyers, legal professionals and law enforcement have concealed injustice and denied constitutional rights. WHY? It has always been wrong to deny any person of their rights. It always will be wrong.

The proper thing to do is for lawyers to recognize the constitutional crisis and remain silent and inactive – actions permitted by the unconstitutional law which must be abided until it is declared unconstitutional.

Allowing the Legislature to suspend the improper law will permit lawyers to join the discussion of the affect on the Constitutional Rights of Americans.

Every American can be subjected to denial of any protection of the law and the denial of their constitutional rights – while explanations for those unjust and corrupt actions are not disclosed, or are fraudulent, or are held completely confidential.

Every American includes former Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane whose actions seeking to address and resolve the matter were met with false allegations of perjury, false prosecution, false statements by witnesses granted immunity MULTIPLE times. Kane was prevented from presenting any defense where every avenue for possible defense was denied by Court Orders which were unexplained. This includes a transcript of the complaint presented to Judge Carpenter, Special Prosecutor Thomas Carluccio, and two former employees of the Office of Attorney General. None of whom testified at the criminal hearing. The transcript was ordered to be destroyed and forgotten.

Justice is coming. It is inevitable.

Until then, the lawyers continue to undermine the state and federal judiciary. The lawyers usurp the Constitutional Rights of EVERY American. The lawyers GET PAID by the very clients they fail to fully represent. They avoid discipline for their actions which must be held confidential. The disciplinary proceedings are also held confidential.

(Not every lawyer is aware of what occurred, their training has deliberately misguided them to believe that Rule 1.6 is Attorney Client Privilege. The unconstitutional injustice served upon their clients is reprehensible while their non-disclosure is mandatory.)

Rule 1.6 is incorporated into most every aspect of the Rules of Professional Conduct by cross reference.

Rule 1.6 is the needle in the haystack of American Injustice.

The American Bar Association has committed a deliberate act of treason in their efforts which undermine the state and federal judiciary. The American Bar Association promoted their Model Rules to each state Supreme Court from 1983 through 2009 starting in the larger more populated jurisdictions. CLEARLY, it is not in their interests to expose their crimes, or how it has profited their membership.

Senator Elizabeth Warren,

Senator Elizabeth Warren, if you want to know why the banks were not prosecuted for the foreclosure crisis, consider that while using fraudulent documents and robo-signed deeds ANY lawyer could foreclose on a persons property while their client identification could be held confidential. With all of the paperwork being handled by the lawyers and clerks, it is entirely possible the banks were not involved… just left holding the blame for something the bank lawyers could also not reveal.

If a bank was prosecuted, the mandate of confidentiality would be excused to permit the defense…
Lucky for the ABA that the prosecutors are lawyers mandated by Rule 1.6 in the state, and in local rules of Federal Court, and McDade-Murtha Amendment.

An improperly enacted and unconstitutional STATE law is preventing justice and denying the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution in EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL COURT… and the lawyers are keeping the secret.

2016
12.19

Authority of the Supreme Court pursuant to ARTICLE V, Section 10(c)

The Rules of Civil Procedure

The General Assembly, by Act of June 21, 1937, P. L. 1982, as amended, 17 P. S. §  61 et seq. (repealed), vested in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania the power to prescribe by general rule the practice and procedure in civil actions for the courts of common pleas. This concept was incorporated into the Constitution of 1968, Article V, Section 10(c) which continued to vest in the Supreme Court:

‘‘. . . the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure, and conduct of all courts . . . if such rules are consistent with Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive right of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of peace, nor suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose. All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions.’’

This Constitutional provision is now implemented by section 1722 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §  1722, relating to the adoption of administrative and procedural rules.

Pursuant to such rule making power the Supreme Court appointed a Civil Procedural Rules Committee to assist the Court in the preparation and revision of the Rules. The Rules of Civil Procedure were recommended by the Committee and adopted by the Court. Specific numbers were assigned to the chapters of the rules as they were promulgated pursuant to a general plan.

Section 323 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §  323, continues the prior law empowering every court ‘‘to make such rules and orders of court as the interest of justice or the business of the court may require.’’ Rule of Civil Procedure 239 sets forth the limitation that local rules may not be inconsistent with Acts of Assembly or general rules of the Supreme Court.
   
By an order of the Supreme Court dated December 31, 1968, all rules then in force governing practice and procedure in courts, including the rules of civil procedure, were continued in force under the Constitution of 1968 until suspended, revoked or modified pursuant to Article V, Section 10(c) of that Constitution.

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT – US CONSTITUTION
“… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;…”

The clause also promises that before depriving a citizen of life, liberty or property, government must follow fair procedures. Thus, it is not always enough for the government just to act in accordance with whatever law there may happen to be.

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT – US CONSTITUTION
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Citizens are entitled to have the government observe or offer fair procedures, whether or not those procedures have been provided for in the law on the basis of which it is acting.

Action denying the process that is “due” would be unconstitutional. 

Whether provided for in law, or not, actions which deny equal protection of the law would be unconstitutional.

CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS
The rule making power of the Supreme Court pursuant to Article V, Section 10(c), provides authority “if such rules are consistent with Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive right of any litigant”.

Where the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure include rules which cause or contribute to a denial of due process and prevent equal protection of the law and fail to offer fair procedures, THOSE RULES ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION OR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

Where those rules abridge and modify the substantive rights of any litigant, the Supreme Court did not, and does not, have authority necessary pursuant to Article V, Section 10(c), to prescribe those rules.

All such laws improperly promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions, and the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

NO CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW… ever.
The rules enacted by the Supreme Court have not undergone any construction or constitutional review prior to being prescribed.

Once prescribed into law, there exists no method by which the rule can be reviewed to determine if it is constitutional, or not.

A clear conflict of interest prevents the Supreme Court from reviewing the constitutionality of any rule which it has improperly prescribed.

FEDERAL REMEDY PREVENTED
The McDade-Murtha Amendment requires federal law enforcement and legal professionals to adhere to the Rules of Professional Conduct within the jurisdiction they are working/investigating. Passage of the amendment was an act of deception and misdirection. The amendment which was opposed by the US Attorney General at the time and several prior Attorneys General. Then Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, attempted to prevent the vote on the matter by walking out.

Local Rules in each Federal District Court require lawyers and legal professionals to abide the state Rules of Professional Conduct.


AND TO MAKE RESOLUTION NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE… An aggressively enforced mandate of confidentiality.

Confidentiality of Information – Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Where the Rules of Professional Conduct (by cross reference to Rule 1.6) require that legal professionals take no action which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary, legal professional are prevented from bringing the Constitutional Challenge to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Additionally, cross references within EVERY rule to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, undermines any ethics, morality or justice. After removing ‘the fraud provisions’ from the American Bar Association Model Rules, the ABA presented The Rules of Professional Conduct which would permit actions by legal professionals which promote and ignore injustice, while undermining, preventing and obstructing any Constitutional Challenge. The mandate includes non-disclosure of actions even where those actions undermine the judiciary, the legal profession, the Rule of Law, the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information undermines ethics, morality and justice.
The Rules of Professional Conduct are promoted as a minimum ethical standard for lawyers and legal professionals. Sadly, after removal of the fraud provisions by the American Bar Association, the minimum is none.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality is the needle in the haystack of American injustice. It undermines the Judiciary, ignores the Rule of Law, nullifies the Legislature, stifles the Presidency and undermines the US Constitution.

The fix is simple.

However, lawyers are prevented from disclosure AND must protect the integrity of the judiciary. Foolishly, the integrity of the judiciary is protected by sacrificing the integrity of the system of justice and ignoring the Constitutions.

Previous efforts by the Supreme Court to address the problems with their improperly enacted and unconstitutional Confidentiality have left a trail of bread crumbs which serve to expose the scope of the problem and the inability to resolve the issue.

PA Governor may call the Legislature to assemble to suspend Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.
(Lawyers prevent the information from the Governor.)
(Lawyers prevent the information from the Legislature.)

Lawyers are permitted to take no action and remain silent.
Lawyers must abide by the Law until it is No Law, an unconstitutional nullity, OR SUSPENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE pursuant to ARTICLE I Section 12 of the PA Constitution.
OR
Lawyers recognizing the unconstitutional affect may take no action and remain silent without fear of being disciplined for violating the unconstitutional law.

Once the Legislature suspends unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, then…
Lawyers and Judges will then be permitted to discuss, address and resolve the problem.

The laws and reforms enacted by the state Legislatures, and US Congress, will then work as intended, designed and constructed.

Making America Great Again.
Justice is Coming.

2016
12.13

Are you aware that suggesting, protesting or accusing the judicial branch of being corrupt can be misinterpreted as attempting to overthrow the government… and can be prosecuted.

There were grand jury movements which gained momentum, but were quashed because they attacked the judiciary.

This is just a small part of the realization of how difficult it is to address THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6

LAWYERS may not expose it.

Each state Supreme Court enacted Rule 1.6 Confidentiality.  There was no consideration of how corruption and injustice would be ignored by the legal profession and the courts as a result of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality.  No thought about how confidentiality could prevent a litigant from their Constitutional rights AND deny them any protection under the law.  AND IT DID.

PROBLEM: As the exclusive deciders of what is or is not Constitutional, the judiciary have a conflict of interest which prevents the law from review.  The Judiciary have made it illegal for the Confidentiality issue to be exposed as unconstitutional – even by the judiciary.

The Judiciary is permitted to enact laws, BUT only if they don’t affect the rights of a litigant.  So, the judiciary didn’t have the authority to enact their Confidentiality law.

IT GOES DEEPER.  IT WAS DELIBERATE.

Where lawyers are permitted to commit fraud in the furtherance to maintain confidentiality EVEN GETTING THE CASE INTO A FEDERAL COURT IS  PROBLEMATIC.  The lawyers and clerks in the federal courts follow the state rules and can neglect or prevent the case from getting to a judge.

That’s obstruction of justice and denial of access to the courts.  But, you can’t get the issue in front of a judge.  The Constitutional Challenge filed in August 2013 and served to EVERY state Attorney General encountered a dismissal EVEN AFTER EVERY STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD DEFAULTED.

The Legislators who have the authority to suspend the bad law ARE MISINFORMED AND MISDIRECTED BY THEIR OWN PERSONAL LAWYERS, or encounter OBSTRUCTIVE EFFORTS BY LAWYERS IN THE LEGISLATURE and the JUDICIARY COMMITTEES CREATE A HUGE HURDLE.  (They are also the ones who have been modifying Rule 1.6 to require confidentiality where it is not already covered by the unconstitutional law.  Bread crumbs pointing to their deliberate injustice, corruption and treason.

A non-lawyer governor could expose the bad law and assemble the state legislature.  BUT, the governor has a team of lawyers which prevent the issue from ever getting to the Governor and actively prevent meetings.

The biggest problem with the unconstitutional Confidentiality law is that IT IS CONFIDENTIAL.

HAS YOUR MATTER ENCOUNTERED RULE 1.6 INJUSTICE?

If you aren’t grasping how it affects people, look at the issues nationwide which are flat out ignored by the courts, or find the point in your case where all explanations stopped, where the litigation went off the rails.  

People likely started saying things like THEY CANT DO THAT! and thinking you misunderstood or were crazy.  And when they witness the chaos first hand, it is frightening.  They can become targets just for providing support.

WHO ARE THE VICTIMS?

I summed it up this way on my web site and it turned out to be the method by which the victims of Rule 1.6 can be identified.

“I am a sane man dealing with an absolutely insane situation. Every person in a position to help has acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter… they each make the situation worse… NO ONE HELPED… NO ONE COULD HELP… until the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6.”

2016
11.27

The massive power of deception and hate disguises a manipulation which has persisted for decades.  

BELIEVERS aren’t blind.  They are prevented from any view of the mountain while overly  impressed with their tunnel going through it.  They fail to recognize or respect those in the other tunnels who do the same.  

Some change tunnels never learning that even with their newfound awareness they continue to neglect the full view.

Be careful.  The mountain doesn’t want to be seen.

%d bloggers like this: