2014
07.25

10565002_557940074331730_1195779402339699402_n

image_pdfimage_print
2014
07.23

Judge-Silhouette-Question-MarkHow do you continue to treat the judiciary with the necessary respect when they are being complete asses?

Each Petition and document filed since May 2011 has indicated the defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

Each Appeal (Carluccio, Page, Weilheimer) has indicated the defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

Each Concise Statement includes the indication that the order is defective and void. AB INITIO.

Each Opinion issued by the judges fails to address the defect, fails to address the void, and then mistates and misrepresents random irrelevant items.

It’s almost laughable when they cite law. When the law they cite is not applicable and they are ignoring the one law that DOES apply. The LAW THAT INDICATES THE JUDGE HAD NO JURISDICTION FOR THE MAY 9th order, and each subsequent order is undone because they are based on a defective and void order. All nullities based on a nullity.

The issue has been properly raised and presented over a hundred times… before three judges. Never contested or refuted. Never addressed by opposing counsel. YET, Ignored by the judiciary.

SIMPLY PUT: If the order was not defective, they would prove that and back it up with relevant statements and be done with it.

But the judges can’t. So they don’t. And Rule 1.6 forces them to stupidity and irrelevance to avoid addressing the lack of jurisdiction.

It should be no big deal. Why wouldn’t they address the issue? It’s not a matter of interpretation. It is a procedure which MUST be followed. But, it wasn’t.

Instead of facing the issue, Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio made such a deliberate malicious mess pushing for my suicide… Her courtroom was lawless fraud, intimidation and judicial terror. Carluccio was attempting to ‘bury’ years of injustice and corruption by the entire Montgomery County Bench.

ANSWER: Follow the law. End the deception. End the lawlessness. End the corruption.

In the long run, there is no possible way for the effective order to ever have jurisdiction. Jurisdiction cannot be created retroactively. There’s no fixing it. IT MUST BE FACED.

THE ONLY ANSWER: Follow the law. End the deception. End the lawlessness. End the corruption.

The judiciary and the lawyers have terrorized my life for over 8 years… all documented on the court record. The excessive volume of injustice and the clear intent is so undeniable and all consuming that it backfired in such a massive way to reveal the injustice was nationwide AND DELIBERATE AND ALL CAUSED, ENABLED, IGNORED AND UN-PROSECUTED BECAUSE OF RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY WHEN IT ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE JUDICIARY.

NEWSFLASH: JUDICIAL CORRUPTION AND INJUSTICE ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY. Rule 1.6 conceals judicial corruption and injustice and is aggressively enforced. By design, it promotes corruption and undermines the courts.

And considering the continuing collateral damage that the Rule 1.6 Confidentiality/Conspiracy requires… It’s about time the judiciary faces their truth.

The American Bar Association has undermined the judiciary in every state. Overthrown the government to the point where everything is broken or breaking. There is no ignoring the mess.

So face it. JUSTICE IS COMING.

Any delay is only going to exacerbate the situation more and more. The civil unrest will escalate further when the People learn that the Courts have failed to take responsibility and that they were informed (“caught”) a year ago. The Rule 1.6 secret is not going back in the box.

In Kids for Cash, Ann Lokuta was Rule 1.6 – Disciplined and removed from the bench for contacting the FBI. Every lawyer in the state kept confidential, even the district attorneys, prosecutors and attorneys general and governors.

A Commission of lawyers deliberately neglected to expose that Rule 1.6 was the silence of “those who knew but failed to speak; those who saw but failed to act.”

The Commission did NOTHING which would prevent a recurrence, or a continuation of the judicial corruption and injustice.

Far more frightening, these lawyers now know how to do it… and how to get away with it.

Ciavarella and Coonahan went to jail ONLY BECAUSE they were inept at money laundering.

The ABA has done well by its membership. Their profession creates an economy and a case whenever it chooses, requiring the use of their membership at $200-500/hour. Even when lawyers are stealing houses through fraudulent foreclosures using fake companies, false and robo-signed deeds, they expect you to hire a lawyer to help you. While Rule 1.6 prevents them from helping because they cannot acknowledge the fraud and misrepresentation.

They even created programs which could occur before going to court where again the lawyers were the ones getting paid.

And everyone fell for it.

image_pdfimage_print
2014
07.23

Tsk tsk tsk… Clone.

Another question that doesn’t get answered… Why does my phone think it is at my brother’s house?

When the cloned phone hits the GPS satellite, the target phone gets updated as if it is there. Something I have known for quite some time.

I mentioned to several people this week that my phone has regularly indicated a few locations where I haven’t been.

One of them is a private investigator’s house. And, I haven’t been to my brother’s house in years.

2014-07-23-014114

image_pdfimage_print
2014
07.22

The injustice began with the issuing of the secret order (undocketed, undistributed to Terance Healy) by Judge Rhonda Daniele in August 2007.

Judge Dickman was not likely aware of the secret order. Judge Dickman’s notes on an Agreed Order indicated her anticipation for vexatious litigation by Angst & Angst. Judge Dickman died in late 2007.

Judge Ott reviewed considerable documentation and evidence and issued a Protection from Abuse order with regard to the technology intruding into computers, phones and networking equipment.

Judge Tilson dismissed The Protection from Abuse order regarding technology intrusions of computers, phones and networking equipment.

Judge DelRicci failed to enforce Sonya Healy’s compliance, or sanction her contempt of ANY AND EVERY court order.

Judge DelRicci incarcerated me for contempt of an order which had not yet been before a judge, or signed by any judge.

Judge Del Ricci participated directly in the conspiracy to conceal the secret order, and prevent the scheduling of custody proceedings.

Judge Del Ricci intervened with the police, county detectives and the District Attorneys Office to prevent Sonya Healy, and 20 others (including the parties children) from being prosecuted for breaking and entering, and burglary in defiance of an Agreed Court Order and misrepresenting to police that the ‘secret order’ authorized her to have access to the house.

Judge DelRicci prevented custody or visitation, delayed custody proceedings, issued ex parte orders without holding proceedings, and then recused himself while threatening me with litigation accusing me of liable and slander on the internet. (He never produced the offending document.)

Judge DelRicci neglected enforcement or excused compliance by Sonya Healy of any discovery order which would reveal her technology intrusions.

Judge Tilson issued several ex parte custody orders without holding or scheduling any proceedings and threatening incarceration should I take any action to prevent my son from leaving the United States alone – even where his orders were contrary to procedure, state and federal law, and the Hague Convention.

Judge Bertin manipulated the pleadings, delayed scheduling of hearings, and issued orders which caused criminal actions to be ‘not cognizable’ once they were no longer a part of the family court pleading from which it was split.

Judge Bertin failed to enforce Sonya Healy’s compliance, or sanction her contempt of ANY AND EVERY court order.

Judge Coonahan refused to act on Emergency Petitions, failed to enforce Sonya Healy’s compliance, or sanction her contempt of ANY AND EVERY court order, or to schedule any proceedings while the case was assigned to her.

Judge Barrett showed such extreme disrespect that his recusal was requested after the first hearing before him. It was granted.

Judge Carluccio took me for a complete fool who would believe everything she said no matter how preposterous.

Judge Carluccio failed to enforce Sonya Healy’s compliance, or sanction her contempt of ANY AND EVERY court order.

Whenever she realized that I was prepared for emergency hearings and had filed hearing statements, she would continue the proceedings; then, repeatedly reschedule in anticipation that I might not appear and the petitions would be dismissed for non-appearance. As a result, I had to be prepared for any and all of 15 petitions which had been outstanding and unheard for over a year.

When I appeared for an uncancelled hearing, based on an Order to Appear, Depuities were provided a false report of a threat. Opposing counsel and parties failed to appear after having indicated their understanding that the hearing was not cancelled in a letter to the court.

Judge Carluccio was corrupt and manipulative from her first action.

Judge Carluccio refused to recuse and was determined to do damage.

As the President of the Montgomery County Bar Association, Judge Carluccio always concealed the deliberate errors and misconduct of lawyers in her court – even where the lawyers actions caused the court to not have proper jurisdiction.

Judge Carluccio prevented the Appeal from delivery to Superior Court of Philadelphia.

Judge Haaz upon realizing that he had no jurisdiction for the hearing, ended the proceeding and instructed Court Administration to schedule it.

Judge Coonhan failed to schedule any proceeding while assigned the case.

Judge Page was assigned the case in December 2012. Though the court lacked jurisdiction while an appeal was pending in the Superior Court, Judge Page ordered the proceeding to occur.

Judge Page rescheduled the proceeding just about every day for a period of a month. An attempt to confuse and prevent the scheduling of witnesses.

Judge Page indicated during the hearing that I had plenty of time to schedule witnesses to appear even though he had only scheduled the proceeding the night before.

Judge Page ignored that he did not have proper jurisdiction to conduct a hearing.

Judge Page ignored the evidence of the defective divorce decree.

Judge Page ignored that there had been no evidence of contempt. Though Judge Carluccio’s orders were defective and void, I followed the orders.

Where orders were issued part on paper and part on the court record/transcript, Judge Page lacked documentation of the judge’s complete order.

Judge Page instead chose to issue an absurd order for over $300,000 in penalties for contempt to a party kept unemployed by years of constant litigation, and made destitute and homeless by judicial corruption and lawlessness.

The Montgomery County Judiciary continued to ignore their complete disregard for the law.

When seeking to appeal Judge Page’s Order, there was not one judge in the courthouse willing to hear the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. There had been multiple IFP’s filed over the years, each was ignored without proceedings.

Judge Wall having failed to issue any decision after two proceedings.

The judiciary was content that they had left me destitute and homeless and had deliberately perpetrated the disposal of everything I owned.

Judge Austin left me standing in the hallway outside her court for hours while she entertained guests in her courtroom, only to send out a member of her staff to indicate she would not conduct the IFP hearing.

At the end of the long day, Judge Page signed the IFP. The Appeal moved forward. Transcripts were ordered.

Once the Concise statement was delivered to his chambers, Judge Page revoked the IFP without any proceeding or explanation, further instructing the Court Reporters to NOT produce the transcripts.

To Appeal THAT corrupt and void order would require a judge to approve a new IFP. A new IFP must be filed for every action. Apparently, the fact that I was destitute and homeless and terrorized by litigation since 2007, was no reason to stop the injustice.

It became very clear that there was no denying that the corruption and injustice of the Montgomery County Judiciary was meant to compel my suicide. Something which I was not capable of delivering.

The County then failed to send the complete court records to the Superior Court. Even the exhibits from the proceeding before Judge Page were NOT included. The Superior Court denied a motion to compel without explanation. The Supreme Court would do the same. Even if they issued a Mandamus Order for the court to provide the paperwork, the lower court could refuse… BECAUSE TO PROVIDE THE COURT RECORD OF THE EXTREME INJUSTICE EXPERIENCED ON THE RECORD WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY.

I sent a short letter to the Judiciary of Montgomery County asking the direct question, “WHAT THE F%&K IS WRONG WITH YOU?” There was no response from any judge to the question.

In July 2013, I discovered the undocumented power (and purpose) of Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information.

Rule 1.6 was rolled out by the American Bar Association and enacted to prevent the prosecution of judges for judicial corruption and injustice. To protect the integrity of the Cook County Courts reeling from the sting of the FBI’s OPERATION GREYLORD, the AMA would undermine the judiciary in every state with the LAW which further MANDATED the compliciteness and participation of EVERY lawyer.

LAWYERS CANNOT FIX THE RULE 1.6 INJUSTICE. RULE 1.6 PREVENTS IT.

Each state Supreme Court aggressively enforces Rule 1.6. The state policy even conceals the entire situation where a lawyer admits to the violation and submits to the discipline – there is no publication, or public record of the lawyers violation of the rules of professional conduct. Where a case has been undermined by unethical and unscrupulous lawyers, all the lawyer need to do is admit it (in private) and they are permitted to continue the injustice… CONFIDENTIALITY.

The lawyers may then proceed further with complete disregard for due process and procedures, and the injustice continues with a judge trying to conceal the deliberate misconduct of the attorneys in the case. For example, Judge Page holding a hearing without jurisdiction while the matter is with the Superior Court. The failure to permit the first Appeal (August 2011)to proceed causes the corruption to continue, and to grow.

Healy v Healy includes more corrupt judges and courthouse personnel than the FBI’s Operation Greylord prosecuted and jailed.

The Courts were all hiding behind Rule 1.6 and preventing evidence and obstructing justice. The courts could ignore every law, procedure, constitution, etc by writing fiction in their Orders and Opinions.

It became necessary to address the loss of constitutionally protected rights. The loss was clearly evident without delving into the full story once the matter had arrived in Superior Court.

After the deadline for an Answer had passed for the Pennsylvania Attorney General and it was clear that the 56 state Attorneys General would default to restore people’s constitutional rights nationwide, a unexplained and unexcused late filing under an improper title was filed by an attoerney electronically without a signature purportedly on behalf of Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

The Eastern District Court follows Rule 1.6 as enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane could not violate the confidentiality of an employee in her office. As her staff are her clients, she is mandated to maintain confidentiality of information. EVEN WHERE HER LAWFUL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ACTION TO DEFAULT HAS BEEN UNDERMINED… and would further undermine the matter for the other 55 Attorneys General who have also defaulted in the matter.

The integrity of the Eastern District Judge was sacrificed as he failed to substantiate his decisions based on fiction and misinformation. Rule 1.6?s MANDATE of confidentiality had undermined it’s own constitutional challenge.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals follows Rule 1.6 as enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

In affirming the dismissal the Third Circuit panel neglected to present any facts which would support their decision. Their integrity was sacrificed pursuant to Rule 1.6 to conceal the injustice caused by Rule 1.6.

The Constitutional Challenge is currently being presented to President Barack Obama and the United States Congress concurrently with submission to the Supreme Court of the United States. A necessity as SCOTUS may not be lawfully permitted to address the corruption which the state judiciaries have caused IN EVERY STATE.

image_pdfimage_print
2014
07.21

Heroes and Villains

10525988_10203718014287721_1732846077595245390_nI posted the following ‘nominations’ to the WBTruth Exposing Corruption site.

They presented their list of Heroes & Villains on the steps of the Luzerne County Courthouse on July 17, 2014.



A few nominations…

Heroes… Todd Krautheim, Terance Healy
( Working to expose an unconstitutional law (improperly enacted in every state) which robs people of their rights, and prevents lawyers, judges and law enforcement from any action to expose it.)

Villains… The Wilkes Barre Law And Library Association
(aka… The Luzerne County Bar Association) The lawyers all know they must maintain silence/confidentiality where it would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. Silent Complicity.

CHALLENGE… Willian Ecenbarger. Heroes do NOT conceal the actions of Villains.
I might raise the question of the investigative journalist who seems to have switched sides. It would seem that William Ecenbarger, as a NON_LAWYER aware of the lawyers MANDATE OF CONFIDENTIALITY pursuant to Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, neglects to ever indicate the LAW which silenced the Luzerne County legal community in the face or extreme corruption. Though he is NOT mandated by law to conceal the impact of Rule 1.6, HE DID.

William Ecenbarger now conducts CLE classes for the Bar Association – The Psychology of Secrets.

I excuse Lourdes Rosado, Juvenile Justice Center, for failing to expose the impact of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality in the SILENCE surrounding corruption. As an attorney, she is mandated BY LAW to maintain the ‘dirty little secret’ of Rule 1.6.

The efforts of the Juvenile Justice Center exposed that the failure of the judiciary to recognize the damage they have caused extends to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It was the PA Supreme Court who enacted Rule 1.6. An act of unconstitutional magnitude which was made irreversible at the time it was enacted. Lawyers cannot reveal the damage caused by the law. Two non-lawyers could. AND, Healy and Krautheim did.

Villain… Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice – The commission failed to see themselves among “those who knew but failed to speak; those who saw but failed to act.” The commission fails to address their silence, while misdirecting blame to include public officials and private citizens who did speak and were ignored; who did act and were dismissed.

THE COMMISSION failed to indicate any impact of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of information.

THE COMMISSIONS MEMBERS
Judge John M. Cleland – - – - A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Judge James A. Gibbons – - – - A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Judge John C. Uhler – - – - A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Judge Dwayne Woodruff – - – - A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Kenneth J. Horoho, Jr, Esquire – - – - A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Jason A. Legg, Esquire – - – - A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Robert L. Listenbee, Jr. Esquire – - – - A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
George Mossee, Esquire – - – - A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Darren M. Breslin, Esquire – - – - A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
Tod C. Allen
Valerie Bender
Ronald P. Williams

WITNESSES WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The president judge of Luzerne County – - – - A judge mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
the former district attorney – - – - A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
the incumbent district attorney- – - – A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
the county public defender – - – - A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
assistant district attorneys – - – - A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
assistant public defenders – - – - A lawyer mandated to follow Rule 1.6.
juvenile probation officials ???
former juvenile defendants ???
parents of juvenile defendants ???
school officials ???
county commissioners ???
officials of the Judicial Conduct Board judges and lawyers – - – - ALL mandated to follow Rule 1.6.

Silence, inaction, inexperience, fear of retaliation. Greed, ambition, carelessness. MAYBE.

BUT, There was no ignorance of the law requiring CONFIDENTIALITY… the Commission’s failure to act was deliberate and deceptive and calculating.

BTW, Rule 1.6 has a far broader effect than Attorney-Client Privilege. The mandate of confidentiality extends beyond a lawyers death.

Rule 1.6 mandates an obligation to maintain confidentiality where information
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary, or
- would reveal the misconduct of the lawyers office, or
- would expose individual liability of the lawyer, or
- would negatively impact their client.

Government lawyers are unsure of WHO their client even is…
- Public
- Government as a whole
- Branch of government in which employed
- Particular agency or department
- Responsible officers who make decisions with an agency or department.

Rule 1.6 concealed the single point of failure… itself.

THE COMMISSION CONCEALED THAT BIT OF INFORMATION.
- As a result, they took no true step towards preventing another scandal.
- They failed to protect the people.
- They failed to protect the judiciary from further corruption.

Far more frightening, these lawyers now know how to do it… and how to get away with it.

Ciavarella and Coonahan went to jail ONLY BECAUSE they were inept at money laundering.

image_pdfimage_print
2014
07.19

The Weilheimer Opinion

Judge Gail Weilheimer has finally written her long delayed Opinion in Healy v Miller.

Thank You to Judge Weilheimer for demonstrating the Rule 1.6 impact so cleanly.

In the judge’s seven page opinion, Judge Weilheimer presents the techniques used by judges nationwide in the delivery of injustice and denial of facts, misdirected rule of law, and blindness to constitutional rights.

DO THESE JUDGES THINK THEY ARE FOOLING ANYONE?
THIS ‘GAME’ BEING PLAYED IS AT THE EXPENSE OF MY LIFE, MY FAMILY, MY LIBERTY.
CLEARLY, The judges DO NOT CARE about you, your family, the law, their integrity, your dignity, their lack of self-respect, your life, your liberty, their abuse of power, your civil rights, your human rights.

Rule 1.6 mandates concealing their corruption and injustice… and THAT IS WHAT THEY DO.

In their arrogance, they fail to address their fault and their responsibility for causing a nationwide constitutional crisis in the United States, while preventing any resolution to the sedition by the American Bar Association which has undermined the authority of every court in the country.



The initial complaint (Healy v Miller) was to have been filed in Montgomery Township in August 2013.

This filing was prevented by the Administrator for that court when she interrupted the proceeding, took the papers directly from Judge Andrea Duffy’s hands, and returned them to me indicating I should leave. As the judge had never before seen behavior like this from an Administrator, I requested the opportunity to explain. This is how a person is treated when they have no rights and no protection of the law.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was included as part of the documents submitted to the court. Judge Duffy had just experienced the affect of Rule 1.6. I informed her that as an American she cannot imagine being without her constitutional rights, and that was why she was unable to recognize and identify and explain the actions of her administrator.

What Judge Duffy had witnessed was a denial of access to the courts, and a prevention of any recourse for grievances. By procedure and Pennsylvania law, the Administrator could have forwarded the matter to the Common Pleas Court in Norristown. Instead, she interrupted a hearing, caused needless drama, involved the police. prevented other district court office personnel from action, and attempted to intimidate and threaten a litigant. Judge Duffy watched the judicial process being undermined in her own courtroom. The Administrator following instructions from Norristown to prevent or end any proceeding in the District Court.

The only way for a judge to maintain their integrity when Rule 1.6 is ‘in play’ is to do nothing. This has been demonstrated by Judge Haaz, and by Judge Boylan in Bucks County.

The complaint was filed October 3, 2013 in the Common Pleas Court.

[FIVE MONTHS LATER]

The hearing took place on March 5, 2014 with Judge Weilheimer ruling immediately at the end of the hearing.

The Appeal was filed on March 6, 2014.

Concise Statement was ordered and served upon the judge on March 27, 2014.

[THREE MONTHS LATER]

A Motion to Compel the Opinion was filed in June 2014, and ignored.

The Montgomery County Prothonotary had once again not sent the case file and court record to the Superior Court.

On July 1, 2014, The Superior Court of Pennsylvania sent a letter requesting the Opinion and case files from Montgomery County.

On July 14, 2014, The Motion to Strike A Defective and Void Order was filed with the Superior Court and served on the Miller’s and their attorney.

On July 18, 2014, Judge Weilheimer issued her Opinion.

Let’s count the ways in which Judge Weilheimer has twisted her words to conceal the truth. The truly offensive part is that the courts deliberate neglect shows carelessness and disregard for the litigants, the law, and the facts.

The court has been provided another opportunity to address the lack of jurisdiction which the court has IGNORED since June 2011. Over 75 times, the court has IGNORED the defective and void order issued without jurisdiction. Clearly, a litigant cannot cause the judicairy to be just and honest once a case has been corrupted pursuant to Rule 1.6.

NOTE TO COURT: The Plaintiff is very aware of what has occurred and the malicious intent of Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio. The responsibility to inform the court of the defective order so that the Court could take action to address the defect was met and presented repeatedly. While the court neglected its responsibility and perpetrated additional injustice, the litigant was denied the protection of the law, rights and privileges secured by the Constitution of the United States, and mistreated with tremendous disrespect while his life, liberty and property were being unlawfully destroyed.

QUESTION:
WHY HAS NO ONE PRESENTED ANY INFORMATION WHICH DEMONSTRATES THE ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION NECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO ISSUE A DIVORCE DECREE?

ANSWER:
THE COURT LACKED JURISDICTION. THE ORDER IS VOID AB INITIO.

PROBLEM:
WHERE JURISDICTION DID NOT EXIST, THERE IS NO ABILITY TO ASSERT JURISDICTION RETROACTIVELY.

The actions of Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio were not judicial, and are not excused by judicial immunity. The refusal to address the malicious abuse of power under color of law initiated by Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio further executed and denied review by county personnel is well documented.

Those actions demonstrate a conspiracy within the court involving extrinsic and intrinsic fraud which also affects the immunity of the prior judges who have acted improperly in this matter.


The injustice began with the issuing of the secret order (undocketed, undistributed to Terance Healy) by Judge Rhonda Daniele in August 2007.

Judge Dickman was not likely aware of the secret order. Judge Dickman’s notes on an Agreed Order indicated her anticipation for vexatious litigation by Angst & Angst. Judge Dickman died in late 2007.

Judge Ott reviewed considerable documentation and evidence and issued a Protection from Abuse order with regard to the technology intruding into computers, phones and networking equipment.

Judge Tilson dismissed The Protection from Abuse order regarding technology intrusions of computers, phones and networking equipment.

Judge DelRicci failed to enforce Sonya Healy’s compliance, or sanction her contempt of ANY AND EVERY court order.

Judge DelRicci incarcerated me for contempt of an order which had not yet been before a judge, or signed by any judge.

Judge Del Ricci participated directly in the conspiracy to conceal the secret order, and prevent the scheduling of custody proceedings.

Judge Del Ricci intervened with the police, county detectives and the District Attorneys Office to prevent Sonya Healy, and 20 others (including the parties children) from being prosecuted for breaking and entering, and burglary in defiance of an Agreed Court Order and misrepresenting to police that the ‘secret order’ authorized her to have access to the house.

Judge DelRicci prevented custody or visitation, delayed custody proceedings, issued ex parte orders without holding proceedings, and then recused himself while threatening me with litigation accusing me of liable and slander on the internet. (He never produced the offending document.)

Judge DelRicci neglected enforcement or excused compliance by Sonya Healy of any discovery order which would reveal her technology intrusions.

Judge Tilson issued several ex parte custody orders without holding or scheduling any proceedings and threatening incarceration should I take any action to prevent my son from leaving the United States alone – even where his orders were contrary to procedure, state and federal law, and the Hague Convention.

Judge Bertin manipulated the pleadings, delayed scheduling of hearings, and issued orders which caused criminal actions to be ‘not cognizable’ once they were no longer a part of the family court pleading from which it was split.

Judge Bertin failed to enforce Sonya Healy’s compliance, or sanction her contempt of ANY AND EVERY court order.

Judge Coonahan refused to act on Emergency Petitions, failed to enforce Sonya Healy’s compliance, or sanction her contempt of ANY AND EVERY court order, or to schedule any proceedings while the case was assigned to her.

Judge Barrett showed such extreme disrespect that his recusal was requested after the first hearing before him. It was granted.

Judge Carluccio took me for a complete fool who would believe everything she said no matter how preposterous.

Judge Carluccio failed to enforce Sonya Healy’s compliance, or sanction her contempt of ANY AND EVERY court order.

Whenever she realized that I was prepared for emergency hearings and had filed hearing statements, she would continue the proceedings; then, repeatedly reschedule in anticipation that I might not appear and the petitions would be dismissed for non-appearance. As a result, I had to be prepared for any and all of 15 petitions which had been outstanding and unheard for over a year.

When I appeared for an uncancelled hearing, based on an Order to Appear, Depuities were provided a false report of a threat. Opposing counsel and parties failed to appear after having indicated their understanding that the hearing was not cancelled in a letter to the court.

Judge Carluccio was corrupt and manipulative from her first action.

Judge Carluccio refused to recuse and was determined to do damage.

As the President of the Montgomery County Bar Association, Judge Carluccio always concealed the deliberate errors and misconduct of lawyers in her court – even where the lawyers actions caused the court to not have proper jurisdiction.

Judge Carluccio prevented the Appeal from delivery to Superior Court of Philadelphia.

Judge Haaz upon realizing that he had no jurisdiction for the hearing, ended the proceeding and instructed Court Administration to schedule it.

Judge Coonhan failed to schedule any proceeding while assigned the case.

Judge Page was assigned the case in December 2012. Though the court lacked jurisdiction while an appeal was pending in the Superior Court, Judge Page ordered the proceeding to occur.

Judge Page rescheduled the proceeding just about every day for a period of a month. An attempt to confuse and prevent the scheduling of witnesses.

Judge Page indicated during the hearing that I had plenty of time to schedule witnesses to appear even though he had only scheduled the proceeding the night before.

Judge Page ignored that he did not have proper jurisdiction to conduct a hearing.

Judge Page ignored the evidence of the defective divorce decree.

Judge Page ignored that there had been no evidence of contempt. Though Judge Carluccio’s orders were defective and void, I followed the orders.

Where orders were issued part on paper and part on the court record/transcript, Judge Page lacked documentation of the judge’s complete order.

Judge Page instead chose to issue an absurd order for over $300,000 in penalties for contempt to a party kept unemployed by years of constant litigation, and made destitute and homeless by judicial corruption and lawlessness.

The Montgomery County Judiciary continued to ignore their complete disregard for the law.

When seeking to appeal Judge Page’s Order, there was not one judge in the courthouse willing to hear the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. There had been multiple IFP’s filed over the years, each was ignored without proceedings.

Judge Wall having failed to issue any decision after two proceedings.

The judiciary was content that they had left me destitute and homeless and had deliberately perpetrated the disposal of everything I owned.

Judge Austin left me standing in the hallway outside her court for hours while she entertained guests in her courtroom, only to send out a member of her staff to indicate she would not conduct the IFP hearing.

At the end of the long day, Judge Page signed the IFP. The Appeal moved forward. Transcripts were ordered.

Once the Concise statement was delivered to his chambers, Judge Page revoked the IFP without any proceeding or explanation, further instructing the Court Reporters to NOT produce the transcripts.

To Appeal THAT corrupt and void order would require a judge to approve a new IFP. A new IFP must be filed for every action. Apparently, the fact that I was destitute and homeless and terrorized by litigation since 2007, was no reason to stop the injustice.

It became very clear that there was no denying that the corruption and injustice of the Montgomery County Judiciary was meant to compel my suicide. Something which I was not capable of delivering.

The County then failed to send the complete court records to the Superior Court. Even the exhibits from the proceeding before Judge Page were NOT included. The Superior Court denied a motion to compel without explanation. The Supreme Court would do the same. Even if they issued a Mandamus Order for the court to provide the paperwork, the lower court could refuse… BECAUSE TO PROVIDE THE COURT RECORD OF THE EXTREME INJUSTICE EXPERIENCED ON THE RECORD WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY.

I sent a short letter to the Judiciary of Montgomery County asking the direct question, “WHAT THE F%&K IS WRONG WITH YOU?” There was no response from any judge to the question.

In July 2013, I discovered the undocumented power (and purpose) of Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information.

Rule 1.6 was rolled out by the American Bar Association and enacted to prevent the prosecution of judges for judicial corruption and injustice. To protect the integrity of the Cook County Courts reeling from the sting of the FBI’s OPERATION GREYLORD, the AMA would undermine the judiciary in every state with the LAW which further MANDATED the compliciteness and participation of EVERY lawyer.

LAWYERS CANNOT FIX THE RULE 1.6 INJUSTICE. RULE 1.6 PREVENTS IT.

Each state Supreme Court aggressively enforces Rule 1.6. The state policy even conceals the entire situation where a lawyer admits to the violation and submits to the discipline – there is no publication, or public record of the lawyers violation of the rules of professional conduct. Where a case has been undermined by unethical and unscrupulous lawyers, all the lawyer need to do is admit it (in private) and they are permitted to continue the injustice… CONFIDENTIALITY.

The lawyers may then proceed further with complete disregard for due process and procedures, and the injustice continues with a judge trying to conceal the deliberate misconduct of the attorneys in the case. For example, Judge Page holding a hearing without jurisdiction while the matter is with the Superior Court. The failure to permit the first Appeal (August 2011)to proceed causes the corruption to continue, and to grow.

Healy v Healy includes more corrupt judges and courthouse personnel than the FBI’s Operation Greylord prosecuted and jailed.

The Courts were all hiding behind Rule 1.6 and preventing evidence and obstructing justice. The courts could ignore every law, procedure, constitution, etc by writing fiction in their Orders and Opinions.

It became necessary to address the loss of constitutionally protected rights. The loss was clearly evident without delving into the full story once the matter had arrived in Superior Court.

After the deadline for an Answer had passed for the Pennsylvania Attorney General and it was clear that the 56 state Attorneys General would default to restore people’s constitutional rights nationwide, a unexplained and unexcused late filing under an improper title was filed by an attoerney electronically without a signature purportedly on behalf of Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

The Eastern District Court follows Rule 1.6 as enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane could not violate the confidentiality of an employee in her office. As her staff are her clients, she is mandated to maintain confidentiality of information. EVEN WHERE HER LAWFUL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ACTION TO DEFAULT HAS BEEN UNDERMINED… and would further undermine the matter for the other 55 Attorneys General who have also defaulted in the matter.

The integrity of the Eastern District Judge was sacrificed as he failed to substantiate his decisions based on fiction and misinformation. Rule 1.6′s MANDATE of confidentiality had undermined it’s own constitutional challenge.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals follows Rule 1.6 as enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

In affirming the dismissal the Third Circuit panel neglected to present any facts which would support their decision. Their integrity was sacrificed pursuant to Rule 1.6 to conceal the injustice caused by Rule 1.6.

The Constitutional Challenge is currently being presented to President Barack Obama and the United States Congress concurrently with submission to the Supreme Court of the United States. A necessity as SCOTUS may not be lawfully permitted to address the corruption which the state judiciaries have caused IN EVERY STATE.


If you find the experience in the above box exhausting to read, you must understand that the above is only the biggest of the injustices delivered by each judge. The indiginities suffered while they annihilated my life, liberty and any happiness have terrorized every minute of every hour of every day since 2007 without any break.

This web site documents much of the injustice of the experience, BUT it is by no means a complete listing.

In all sincerity, even typing the summary above tears at my spirit and causes me to relive the most horrific years of my life while still not knowing when the courts will address their own corruption.

The Bottom line is Judge Weilheimer completely neglects to address the lack of jurisdiction for the Court to issue the Order of May 9, 2011.

Judge Weilheimer completely neglects to address the uncontested and unrefuted testimony in her court which demonstrated the lack of jurisdiction.

Judge Weilheimer completely neglects to address the lack of jurisdiction while ignoring the rule of law, precedents and case law which exist in state and federal courts.

The clear demonstration of her lack of integrity, the recently elected and sworn to office in January 2014, Judge Weilheimer presents that after less than 2 months serving on the Montgomery County bench she would deny a litigant justice in spite of overwhelming evidence and facts already on the court record to conceal the corruption of the Montgomery County judiciary.

Shameful. The only possible redemption would be for her to come out publicly in support of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6. The challenge was filed to restore the integrity of the judiciary. For Gail Weilheimer, there may be hope. By her own choice, Rule 1.6 stole her integrity.

Would she have the courage to regain some self-respect by preserving protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States.

For Rhonda Daniele and Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio, their malice and terroristic injustice designed to cause my suicide show they lack any inclination towards redemption.

The rest in varying degrees are in a similar situation. Judge Page crafted the proceeding in his court to deliver an injustice which could put me in jail to pay off over $300,000 in contempt charges. No amount of time in his twisted church will lessen the terror his injustice has caused to me, and to others.

JUSTICE IS COMING. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in that it denies litigants of their rights under the Constitution of the United States. It diminishes the victim to being destitute, homeless and forced to suffer continuing injustices.

image_pdfimage_print
2014
07.17

Pictures at a Justice Rally assembled today by Congressional Candidate Andy Ostrowski.

Speakers included civil rights leader Jesse Epps, Todd Krautheim, Terance Healy, Diane Gochin, Gabriele Nicole Allen, John Kistler, Betsy Summers and Andy Ostrowski and others… JUSTICE IS COMING.

Speakers included civil rights leader Jesse Epps, Todd Krautheim, Terance Healy, Diane Gochin, Gabriele Nicole Allen, John Kistler.  Betsy Summers and Andy Ostrowski and others 2014-07-17 12.16.18

Speakers included civil rights leader Jesse Epps, Todd Krautheim, Terance Healy, Diane Gochin, Gabriele Nicole Allen, John Kistler.  Betsy Summers and Andy Ostrowski and others 2014-07-17 12.11.42

Speakers included civil rights leader Jesse Epps, Todd Krautheim, Terance Healy, Diane Gochin, Gabriele Nicole Allen, John Kistler.  Betsy Summers and Andy Ostrowski and others 2014-07-17 10.14.45

Speakers included civil rights leader Jesse Epps, Todd Krautheim, Terance Healy, Diane Gochin, Gabriele Nicole Allen, John Kistler.  Betsy Summers and Andy Ostrowski and others 2014-07-17 12.16.18 (1)

Speakers included civil rights leader Jesse Epps, Todd Krautheim, Terance Healy, Diane Gochin, Gabriele Nicole Allen, John Kistler.  Betsy Summers and Andy Ostrowski and others 2014-07-17 12.23.09 (1)

Speakers included civil rights leader Jesse Epps, Todd Krautheim, Terance Healy, Diane Gochin, Gabriele Nicole Allen, John Kistler.  Betsy Summers and Andy Ostrowski and others 2014-07-17 12.28.42

Speakers included civil rights leader Jesse Epps, Todd Krautheim, Terance Healy, Diane Gochin, Gabriele Nicole Allen, John Kistler, Betsy Summers and Andy Ostrowski and others 2014-07-17 12.31.22

Speakers included civil rights leader Jesse Epps, Todd Krautheim, Terance Healy, Diane Gochin, Gabriele Nicole Allen, John Kistler, Betsy Summers and Andy Ostrowski and others 2014-07-17 13.18.31

Speakers included civil rights leader Jesse Epps, Todd Krautheim, Terance Healy, Diane Gochin, Gabriele Nicole Allen, John Kistler, Betsy Summers and Andy Ostrowski and others 2014-07-17 12.41.55

Speakers included civil rights leader Jesse Epps, Todd Krautheim, Terance Healy, Diane Gochin, Gabriele Nicole Allen, John Kistler, Betsy Summers and Andy Ostrowski and others 2014-07-17 10.23.29

Speakers included civil rights leader Jesse Epps, Todd Krautheim, Terance Healy, Diane Gochin, Gabriele Nicole Allen, John Kistler, Betsy Summers and Andy Ostrowski and others 2014-07-17 10.23.23

We the People of the United States,
in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defense,
promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.

image_pdfimage_print
2014
07.15

The irresponsibility of the Per Curiam Order is used when the courts seek to prevent the exposure of their corruption.

It requires more paperwork. Which they will further Per Curiam as there is no judge around who wished to sign an obviously corrupt order without any review of the matter.

It requires more paperwork. Ask about the Rule of Law, expect it to be DENIED PER CURIAM.

It requires more paperwork. Ask about the fact that the Motion was UNCONTESTED, expect it to be DENIED PER CURIAM.

It requires more paperwork. Their review was not discretionary, but mandatory. It was in the petition, but they likely never read it.

It requires more paperwork. Ask about an interlocutory appeal of that decision, expect it to be DENIED PER CURIAM.

AND it is almost an exact duplicate of a Motion to Strike in another case… where there can be no contest as no contrary information was presented during the hearing.

All the while, you provide reams of paper, a destitute person, homeless, below poverty level for years, begging from people for support and help, and the COURT WILL IGNORE PER CURIAM.

YOU WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO SURVIVE THIS LONG.
YOU WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO PERSEVERE.
YOU WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO FIND THE SOURCE OF THEIR CORRUPTION.
YOU WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO MEET THEIR DEADLINES.
You WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW THE LAW, RULES,etc WHICH ONLY APPLY TO YOUR DETRIMENT.
YOU LEFT THEM NOTHING BY WHICH YOU CAN BE FURTHER DENIED YOUR RIGHTS…
…SO THEY HAVE DENIED YOUR RIGHTS BASED ON NOTHING.

There is a reason they require you to exhaust any effort for resolution within the state before you may file in federal court. Exhaustion is another method – their coercion towards your suicide.

And the Court is too ashamed to even sign it, or date it, or explain what they can’t…
… because Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandates they say nothing as they ignore the Constitution, the law, the procedures, your civil rights, and your human rights without mercy.

And the one Rule that the Courts all follow… Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.
2014-07-15 17.05.48(BTW, it was not filed even on the date indicated. I was there. The ‘mistakes’ are endless.)

Every decision since the Constitutional Challenge was filed in August 2013 has been a Per Curiam order, unsigned and undated. No signatures. No dated. Per Curiam. Indecisions. Terror.

Corruption and Confidentiality for the purpose of denying Life, Liberty, and Justice.

Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio, Judge & President of the Bar Association & former US Attorneys Office employee, was NOT acting within any law which permitted her to issue the order. If she was lawful, they would indicate the law and be done. They don’t.

Instead, since May 2011, I am terrorized by a deliberate and intentionally defective and void order which cannot be addressed in any court because the malice it has caused attackes opn a daily basis and has tainted every county agency, every level of law enforcement, while the world watches every level of the courts corrupted and demonstrating their silence mandated by Rule 1.6… while the terror continues.

image_pdfimage_print
2014
07.15

Rule 1.6 is a state law, enacted by EVERY state judiciary, which collaterally causes a denial of constitutional rights, the rule of law, and protection of the law. All under the guise of lawyer confidentiality. The lawyers keep silent vigil on the corruption and injustice not exposing the massive injustice caused nationwide by

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

The state disciplinary board’s aggressive enforcement of Rule 1.6 (which is kept confidential) keeps lawyers silent while purporting to protect an imagined judicial integrity. The rhetoric of the American Bar Association misdirects identification of the problem which they authored and recommended to every state judiciary.

One Rule. Made Law. Each State. Every State.
Undermining Justice. Usurping Authority.
(1984 – 2009)
Lawyers mandated to silence… in Congress, the White House, in Government.
Cash for Kids. Foreclosures through fraud. Injustice.
In 2013, non-Lawyers finally found it and filed a Constitutional Challenge.

The state supreme court has a conflict of interest because they enacted it, so we took it to federal court.

The federal district court improperly dismissed (and neglected to mention they were required to follow the PA version of Rule 1.6). #13-4614

The third circuit court affirmed and denied en banc review (while also neglecting to mention they were required to follow the PA version of Rule 1.6). #13-4591
________________________________________

We hereby present

the Supreme Court of the United States,

the United States Congress, and

the President of the United States

a Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct

An unconstitutional law in every state which causes inescapable injustice and excuses and ignores judicial misconduct and corruption.

Rule 1.6 requires that Rule 1.6 be kept confidential.

Rule 1.6 requires the courts to conceal their corruption and injustice caused by Rule 1.6 – the same unconstitutional law being challenged.

Rule 1.6 is exposed; yet, the problem law still permits fraud, corruption and injustice to conceal itself.

Rule 1.6, an invalid and void unconstitutional law, is relentless.

PREEMPTION

Befitting a constitutional law, doctrine or statute, federal preemption continues to draw the interest and resources of the highest court in the land.

The U.S. Supreme Court accepts petitions for certiori and decides preemption cases.

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

The Supremacy Clause provides that the Constitution, and the laws and treaties stemming from it, are the supreme law of the land.

U.S. CONSTITUTION. Article VI, clause 2.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The Supreme Court has held that when there is a conflict between a state and federal law, the state law is invalidated because the federal law is supreme.

Even a state regulation designed to protect the state’s vital interest must yield because
“under the Supremacy Clause, from which our preemption doctrine is derived, ‘any state law, however clearly within a State’s acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.’”

The Supreme Court defined preemption to “be either express or implied, and is compelled whether Congress’ command is explicitly stated in the statute’s language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose.”

PREEMPTION JURISPRUDENCE

The Constitution itself has already clearly made and announced the fundamental judgment regarding the relation of federal and state power: so long as the federal government has the constitutional power to enact the law, then the federal law is granted supremacy over conflicting state actions.

There are numerous instances of the Supreme Court, and lower courts, stating that the process of determining appropriate preemption is an inquiry into congressional intent; however, the intent of the Constitution is clearly to preempt every state law which would abridge, diminish, subvert or deny rights and privileges which were secured for the People.

But the roots of the doctrine are most clearly seen in Marbury v. Madison, where Chief Justice Marshall stated: “The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW

The legitimacy of construction by an unelected entity in a republican or democratic system becomes an issue whenever the construction is controversial, as it frequently is.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

Conceding, in 1934, the limited competence of legislative bodies to establish a comprehensive system of court procedure, and acknowledging the inherent power of courts to regulate the conduct of their business, Congress authorized the Supreme Court to prescribe rules for the lower federal courts not inconsistent with the Constitution and statutes.

Their operation being restricted, in conformity with the proviso attached to the congressional authorization, to matters of pleading and practice, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure thus judicially promulgated neither affect the substantive rights of litigants nor alter the jurisdiction of federal courts and the venue of actions therein and, thus circumscribed, have been upheld as valid.

Under the Rules Enabling Act, procedural rules may not modify “any substantive right” but laws in conflict with the rules are “of no further force or effect.”

While Challenging Rule 1.6 of the Rules Of Professional Conduct, the Federal Court was obligated under Rule 1.6 to dismiss the matter but neglected to indicate the reason. Rule 1.6 mandates they conceal that Rule 1.6 is the reason. Instead, like a child caught by surprise, they just made stuff up…

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND

The Judiciary may make rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
Federal Courts may make rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
Federal Courts may make local rules, unless they violate substantive rights.

States may enact laws, unless they violate substantive rights.
State Judiciary may enact rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
Local state courts may make local rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
The Rules of Professional Conduct have been enacted into law, unless they violate substantive rights.

The Federal Court Local Rules for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania adopt the Rules of Professional Conduct enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania which includes Rule 1.6 which violates substantive rights provided in the Constitution of the United States.

Where substantive rights are violated, directly or collaterally, the law is repugnant to the Constitution and a nullity.

No matter how deeply the mandate of Rule 1.6 is buried and concealed, THE LAW MAY NOT VIOLATE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.

The judiciary have buried an unconstitutional law so deep in the law books that they never expected any non-lawyer to find it, and survive to prove it while being denied their constitutional rights and the protection of the law.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 83(a) allows for Local Rules under 28 USC § 2072 and 2074.

28 U.S.C. § 2072(b)
“Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.”

28 U.S. Code § 2072 – Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe
(a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals.
(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.
(c) Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section 1291 of this title.

28 U.S. Code § 2074 – Rules of procedure and evidence; submission to Congress; effective date
(a) The Supreme Court shall transmit to the Congress not later than May 1 of the year in which a rule prescribed under section 2072 is to become effective a copy of the proposed rule. Such rule shall take effect no earlier than December 1 of the year in which such rule is so transmitted unless otherwise provided by law. The Supreme Court may fix the extent such rule shall apply to proceedings then pending, except that the Supreme Court shall not require the application of such rule to further proceedings then pending to the extent that, in the opinion of the court in which such proceedings are pending, the application of such rule in such proceedings would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former rule applies.
(b) Any such rule creating, abolishing, or modifying an evidentiary privilege shall have no force or effect unless approved by Act of Congress.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Local Rule 83.6(IV)(b)(para 2)
“The Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by this court are the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania…”

THE RULE-MAKING POWER AND POWERS OVER PROCESS

Among the incidental powers of courts is that of making all necessary rules governing their process and practice and for the orderly conduct of their business. However, this power too is derived from the statutes and cannot go beyond them.

LIMITATIONS TO THE RULE MAKING POWER.

The principal function of court rules is that of regulating the practice of courts as regards forms, the operation and effect of process, and the mode and time of proceedings. However, rules are sometimes employed to state in convenient form principles of substantive law previously established by statutes or decisions.

But no such rule “can enlarge or restrict jurisdiction. Nor can a rule abrogate or modify the substantive law.”

This rule is applicable equally to courts of law, equity, and admiralty, to rules prescribed by the Supreme Court for the guidance of lower courts, and to rules “which lower courts make for their own guidance under authority conferred.”

As incident to the judicial power, courts of the United States possess inherent authority to supervise the conduct of their officers, parties, witnesses, counsel, and jurors by self-preserving rules for the protection of the rights of litigants and the orderly administration of justice.

The courts of the United States possess inherent equitable powers over their process to prevent abuse, oppression, and injustice, and to protect their jurisdiction and officers in the protection of property in the custody of law.

Such powers are said to be essential to and inherent in the organization of courts of justice.

The courts of the United States also possess inherent power to amend their records, correct the errors of the clerk or other court officers, and to rectify defects or omissions in their records even after the lapse of a term, subject, however, to the qualification that the power to amend records conveys no power to create a record or re-create one of which no evidence exists.

JURISDICTION – CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY

Congress’s authority is limited by provisions of the Constitution such as the Due Process Clause, so that a limitation on jurisdiction that denied a litigant access to any remedy might be unconstitutional.

Congress is also free to legislate away prudential restraints and confer standing to
the extent permitted by Article III.

“Congress may grant an express right of action to persons who otherwise would be barred by prudential standing rules. Of course, Art. III’s requirement remains: the plaintiff still must allege a distinct and palpable injury to himself, even if it is an injury shared by a large class of other possible litigants.”
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975). That is, the actual or threatened injury required may exist solely by virtue of “statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing, even though no injury would exist without the statute.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617 n. 3 (1973); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 493 n.2 (1974). Examples include United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669 (1973); Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (1972); Gladstone Realtors v. Village ofBellwood, 441 U.S. 91 (1979). See also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 8 n.4, 11–12 (1976). For a good example of the congressionally created interest and the injury to it, see Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 373–75 (1982) (Fair Housing Act created right to truthful information on availability of housing; black tester’s right injured through false information, but white tester not injured because he received truthful information). It is clear, however, that the Court will impose separation-of-powers restraints on the power of Congress to create interests to which injury would give standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 571–78 (1992). Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Lujan, reiterated the separation-of-powers objection to congressional conferral of standing in FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 29, 36 (1998) (alleged infringement of President’s “take care” obligation), but this time in dissent; the Court did not advert to this objection in finding that Congress had provided for standing based on denial of information to which the plaintiffs, as voters, were entitled.

NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE – Scope and Operation

Clause 18.
The Congress shall have Power * * * To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Necessary and Proper Clause, sometimes called the “coefficient” or “elastic” clause, is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress. Chief Justice Marshall’s classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland 1818 set the standard in words that reverberate to this day. “Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end.

JURISDICTION – SUPREME COURT

Implicit in the argument of Marbury v. Madison is the thought that the Court is obligated
to take and decide cases meeting jurisdictional standards.

“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404, (1821).

DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

But one who challenges a statute or possible administrative action need demonstrate only a realistic danger of sustaining an injury to his rights as a result of the statute’s operation and enforcement and need not await the consummation of the threatened injury in order to obtain preventive relief, such as exposing himself to actual arrest or prosecution. When one alleges an intention to engage in conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest but proscribed by statute and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he may bring an action for declaratory or injunctive relief.

Similarly, the reasonable certainty of the occurrence of the perceived threat to a constitutional interest is sufficient to afford a basis for bringing a challenge, provided the court has sufficient facts before it to enable it to intelligently adjudicate the issues.

JURISDICTION – EXECUTIVE ORDER

The Constitution was clearly intended to preempt state law.

Where state constitutions may not delegate statutory authority which exceeds the limits of authority and infringes upon the substantial rights protected by the Constitution of the United States law, Executive departments and agencies shall construe, in regulations and otherwise, a Federal statute to preempt State law only when the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other firm and palpable evidence compelling the conclusion that the Congress intended preemption of State law, or when the exercise of State authority directly conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute….

Respectfully,

We petition the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Congress and the President of the United States to take immediate action to repeal the rule, legislate a constitutional amendment or issue an executive order which indicates that Rule 1.6 which causes a collateral loss of constitutional rights and protection of the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and a nullity.

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

image_pdfimage_print
2014
07.13

Rule 1.6 is a state law, enacted by EVERY state judiciary, which collaterally causes a denial of constitutional rights, the rule of law, and protection of the law. All under the guise of lawyer confidentiality. THE LAWYERS KEEP SILENT VIGIL ON THE CORRUPTION AND INJUSTICE. They know better… but fear exposing the massive injustice caused by Rule 1.6.

The state disciplinary board’s aggressive enforcement of Rule 1.6 (which is kept confidential) keeps lawyers silent while purporting to protect an imagined judicial integrity. The rhetoric of the American Bar Association misdirects identification of the problem which they authored and recommended.

One Rule. Made Law. Each State. Every State.
Undermining Justice. Usurping Authority.
(1984 – 2009)
Lawyers mandated to silence… in Congress, the White House, in Government.
Cash for Kids. Foreclosures through fraud. Injustice.
non-Lawyers finally found it and filed a Constitutional Challenge.

The state supreme court has a conflict of interest because they enacted it, so we took it to federal court.
The district court improperly dismissed (and neglected to mention they were required to follow the PA version of Rule 1.6).
The third circuit court affirmed and denied en banc review (while also neglecting to mention they were required to follow the PA version of Rule 1.6).

Rule 1.6 requires that Rule 1.6 be kept confidential.

Rule 1.6 requires the courts to conceal their corruption and injustice caused by Rule 1.6 – the very unconstitutional law being challenged.

Even where you know the problem law (Rule 1.6), the problem law was permitting fraud, corruption and injustice to conceal itself.

Rule 1.6, an invalid and void unconstitutional law, is relentless.

But, Rule 1.6 is exposed and IT’S DAYS ARE NUMBERED.

I promised Sandy Fonzo that I would provide the Cash for Kids families with closure by exposing how it happened and by making sure it was prevented in the future.

Every. Person. Matters.

JUSTICE IS COMING.


Befitting a constitutional law, doctrine or statute, federal preemption continues to draw the interest and resources of the highest court in the land.

The U.S. Supreme Court accepts petitions for certiori and decides preemption cases.

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

The Supremacy Clause provides that the Constitution, and the laws and treaties stemming from it, are the supreme law of the land.

U.S. CONSTITUTION. Article VI, clause 2.
Article VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The Supreme Court has held that when there is a conflict between a state and federal law, the state law is invalidated because the federal law is supreme.

Even a state regulation designed to protect the state’s vital interest must yield because
“under the Supremacy Clause, from which our preemption doctrine is derived, ‘any state law, however clearly within a State’s acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.’”

The Supreme Court defined preemption to “be either express or implied, and is compelled whether Congress’ command is explicitly stated in the statute’s language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose.”

Preemption Jurisprudence

The Constitution itself has already clearly made and announced the fundamental judgment
regarding the relation of federal and state power: so long as the federal government has the constitutional power to enact the law, then the federal law is granted supremacy over conflicting state actions.

There are numerous instances of the Supreme Court, and lower courts, stating that the process of determining appropriate preemption is an inquiry into congressional intent; however,the intent of the Constitution is clearly to preempt every state law which would abridge, diminish, subvert or deny rights and privileges which were secured for the People.

But the roots of the doctrine are most clearly seen in Marbury v. Madison, where
Chief Justice Marshall stated: “The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW

The legitimacy of construction by an unelected entity in a republican or democratic system becomes an issue whenever the construction is controversial, as it frequently is.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

Conceding, in 1934, the limited competence of legislative bodies to establish a comprehensive system of court procedure, and acknowledging the inherent power of courts to regulate the conduct of their business, Congress authorized the Supreme Court to prescribe rules for the lower federal courts not inconsistent with the Constitution and statutes.

Their operation being restricted, in conformity with the proviso attached to the congressional authorization, to matters of pleading and practice, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure thus judicially promulgated neither affect the substantive rights of litigants nor alter the jurisdiction of federal courts and the venue of actions therein and,thus circumscribed, have been upheld as valid.

Under the Rules Enabling Act, procedural rules may not modify “any substantive right” but laws in conflict with the rules are “of no further force or effect.”

While Challenging Rule 1.6 of the Rules Of Professional Conduct, the Federal Court was obligated under Rule 1.6 to dismiss the matter but neglected to indicate the reason. Rule 1.6 mandates they conceal that Rule 1.6 is the reason. Instead, like a child caught by surprise, they just made stuff up…

To recap…
The Constitution is Supreme law.
Judiciary may make rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
Federal Courts may make rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
Federal Courts may make local rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
States may enact laws, unless they violate substantive rights.
State Judiciary may enact rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
Local state courts may make local rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
The Rules of Professional Conduct have been enacted into law, unless they violate substantive rights.
(Even if they do so collaterally to non-lawyers who are not mandated by them.)

No matter how deeply they bury the mandate of Rule 1.6… THEY MAY NOT VIOLATE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.
The Courts know this. The lawyers know this. So, why are they violating your rights?

They hide behind their Rule 1.6 Confidentiality and deny your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, … jail your children, steal your house, or destroy your life. They know what they are doing is ultimately unlawful. The judiciary have buried an unconstitutional law so deep in the law books that they never expected any non-lawyer to find it, and survive to prove it.

FRCP Rule 83(a) allows for Local Rules under 28 USC 2072 and 2075
28 U.S.C. § 2072(b) (2006) (“Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.”).
28 U.S. Code § 2072 – Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe
(a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals.

(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.

(c) Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section 1291 of this title.

28 U.S. Code § 2074 – Rules of procedure and evidence; submission to Congress; effective date
(a) The Supreme Court shall transmit to the Congress not later than May 1 of the year in which a rule prescribed under section 2072 is to become effective a copy of the proposed rule. Such rule shall take effect no earlier than December 1 of the year in which such rule is so transmitted unless otherwise provided by law. The Supreme Court may fix the extent such rule shall apply to proceedings then pending, except that the Supreme Court shall not require the application of such rule to further proceedings then pending to the extent that, in the opinion of the court in which such proceedings are pending, the application of such rule in such proceedings would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former rule applies.
(b) Any such rule creating, abolishing, or modifying an evidentiary privilege shall have no force or effect unless approved by Act of Congress.
Local Rule 83.6(IV)(b)(para 2)The Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by this court are the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania…

The Rule-Making Power and Powers Over Process

Among the incidental powers of courts is that of making all necessary rules governing their process and practice and for the orderly conduct of their business. However, this power too is derived from the statutes and cannot go beyond them.

Limitations to The Rule Making Power.

The principal function of court rules is that of regulating the practice of courts as regards forms, the operation and effect of process, and the mode and time of proceedings. However, rules are sometimes employed to state in convenient form principles of substantive law previously established by statutes or decisions.

But no such rule “can enlarge or restrict jurisdiction. Nor can a rule abrogate or modify the substantive law.”

This rule is applicable equally to courts of law, equity, and admiralty, to rules prescribed by the Supreme Court for the guidance of lower courts, and to rules “which lower courts make for their own guidance under authority conferred.”

As incident to the judicial power, courts of the United States possess inherent authority to supervise the conduct of their officers, parties, witnesses, counsel, and jurors by self-preserving rules for the protection of the rights of litigants and the orderly administration of justice.

The courts of the United States possess inherent equitable powers over their process to prevent abuse, oppression, and injustice, and to protect their jurisdiction and officers in the protection of property in the custody of law. 332

Such powers are said to be essential to and inherent in the organization of courts of justice.

The courts of the United States also possess inherent power to amend their records, correct the errors of the clerk or other court officers, and to rectify defects or omissions in their records even after the lapse of a term, subject, however, to the qualification that the power to amend records conveys no power to create a record or re-create one of which no evidence exists.

JURISDICTION – Congressional Authority

Congress’s authority is limited by provisions of the Constitution such as the Due Process Clause, so that a limitation on jurisdiction that denied a litigant access to any remedy might
be unconstitutional.

Congress is also free to legislate away prudential restraints and confer standing to
the extent permitted by Article III.

438 “Congress may grant an express right of action to persons who otherwise
would be barred by prudential standing rules. Of course, Art. III’s requirement remains: the plaintiff still must allege a distinct and palpable injury to himself, even if it is an injury shared by a large class of other possible litigants.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975). That is, the actual or threatened injury required may exist solely by virtue of “statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing, even though no injury would exist without the statute.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617 n. 3 (1973); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 493 n.2 (1974). Examples include United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669 (1973); Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (1972); Gladstone Realtors v. Village ofBellwood, 441 U.S. 91 (1979). See also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 8 n.4, 11–12 (1976). For a good example of the congressionally created interest and the injury to it, see Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 373–75 (1982) (Fair Housing Act created right to truthful information on availability of housing; black tester’s right injured through false information, but white tester not injured because he received truthful information). It is clear, however, that the Court will impose separation-of-powers restraints on the power of Congress to create interests to which injury would give standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 571–78 (1992). Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Lujan, reiterated the separation-of-powers objection to congressional conferral of standing in FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 29, 36 (1998) (alleged infringement of President’s “take care” obligation), but this time in dissent; the Court did not advert to this objection in finding that Congress had provided for standing based on denial of information to which the plaintiffs, as voters, were entitled.

Clause 18. The Congress shall have Power * * * To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE – Scope and Operation

The Necessary and Proper Clause, sometimes called the “coefficient” or “elastic” clause, is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress. Chief Justice Marshall’s classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland 1818 set the standard in words that reverberate to this day. “Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end.

JURISDICTION – Supreme Court

Implicit in the argument of Marbury v. Madison is the thought that the Court is obligated
to take and decide cases meeting jurisdictional standards.

“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404, (1821).

DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

But one who challenges a statute or possible administrative action need demonstrate only a realistic danger of sustaining an injury to his rights as a result of the statute’s operation and enforcement and need not await the consummation of the threatened injury in order to obtain preventive relief, such as exposing himself to actual arrest or prosecution. When one alleges an intention to engage in conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest but proscribed by statute and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he may bring an action for declaratory or injunctive relief.

Similarly, the reasonable certainty of the occurrence of the perceived threat to a constitutional interest is sufficient to afford a basis for bringing a challenge, provided the court has sufficient facts before it to enable it to intelligently adjudicate the issues. 549

EXECUTIVE ORDER

The Constitution was clearly intended to preempt state law.

Where state constitutions may not delegate statutory authority which exceeds the limits of authority and infringes upon the substantial rights protected by the Constitution of the UNited Stateslaw, Executive departments and agencies shall construe, in regulations and otherwise, a Federal statute to preempt State law only when the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other firm and palpable evidence compelling the conclusion that the Congress intended preemption of State law, or when the exercise of State authority directly conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute….

image_pdfimage_print