2014
12.17

Interest in this letter?

There seems to be an increased interest in this letter from around the web.

Letter to District Attorney Risa Ferman

The DA ignored it completely. A clear demonstration of no protection of the law.

The judges neglected and failed to enforce my wife to comply with ANY court order. Usually where compliance would reveal her private telephone, the private investigator, the surveillance software company, provide medical benefits, permit me to see my children.

The alternative was aggressive enforcement of EVERY court order, where I proved the fraud of Angst & Angst each time. They would lie about statements on court orders and then attempt to enforce their fiction.

Their intrusive technology was detected and reported and recorded… BUT there was no way to end the terror. It still continues to affect my devices and those of my friends.

There were indications that the page had been hacked and was not being displayed. Hopefully I have corrected the issue.

The May 2009 letter had a wide distribution. I never imagined I would still be battling these idiots for the remainder of my life.

cc:
CNN – NEWDESK, One CNN Center, Atlanta, GA 30303
ABC News, 7 West 66th Street, New York, NY 10023
NBC News, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10112
CBS Television, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019

WPVI-TV/DT – NEWSDESK, 4100 City Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19131
NBC-10 News Line, 10 Monument Rd, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
CBS 3 – NEWSDESK, 1555 Hamilton Street, Philadelphia, PA 19130
FOX 29 – NEWSDESK, 330 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106
CW Philly 57-WPSG-TV – NEWSDESK, 1555 Hamilton St, Philadelphia, PA 19130
KYW Newsradio 1060: News Department, 400 Market St, Philadelphia, PA 19106

The Inquirer – NEWSDESK, 400 N. Broad St., Philadelphia, PA 19130
Daily News – NEWS DESK, 400 N. Broad St., Philadelphia, PA 19130
Intelligencer, 333 N Broad St, Doylestown, PA 18901
Reporter, 307 Derstine Ave, Lansdale, PA 19446
The Times Herald, 410 Markley St, Norristown, PA 19401

Governor Edward G. Rendell
225 Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

Tom Corbett
Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General
16th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120

Hon. Kate Harper
1515 Dekalb Pike Suite 106
Blue Bell, PA 19422

Hon. Rick Taylor
701 Horsham Road
Suite 101
Horsham, PA 19044

Stewart J. Greenleaf
Senate District 12
711 York Road
Willow Grove, PA 19090

Allyson Y. Schwartz
U.S. Representative
706 West Avenue
Jenkintown, PA 19046

Robert P. Casey, Jr.
393 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Arlen Specter
711 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

image_pdfimage_print
2014
12.17

DRAFT

The Impossibility of Resolution can be demonstrated. Those who conspired to deny and prevent justice can be held legally responsible for criminal actions, denial of constitutional rights, their negligence in applying the Rule of Law, and obstruction of justice. The IMMUNITIES – Absolute, Qualified, Judicial, Prosecutorial, Witness, Legislative – do not prevent criminal and civil actions against those involved.


This document will attempt to address the general aspects affecting everyone involved. It will be as short as it has to be.

My hope is to provide an outline which will permit deliberate and immediate attention and corrective actions by the people and the organizations involved. I do not anticipate a detailed listing of criminal statues with assignment to the individuals and officials involved. The scope of this document will likely overwhelm any reader.

I know the rationale for the corruption, perversion and denial of justice. I know why they are continuing with the intentional and deliberate negligence and fraud.

I have acted because of necessity in good faith within procedures and law towards a resolution. Survivors of this type of injustice fall into three categories 1) Homeless/Destitute, 2) Incarcerated, 3) Suicide. Those responsible don’t care. THEY HAVE DONE THIS TO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE – they know their constitutional rights were denied and ignored without explanation and in contradiction to the applicable law.

I have never acted with malice or aggression towards anyone. I have never attempted to solicit or coerce any action by anyone which would subject them to negative affects due to a perception of having helped me improperly. When help was requested, I was ignored. I begged. I begged everyone.

My documents and personal presentation has always been respectful.

I have been subjected to tremendous disrespect, discourtesy, misinformation, disinformation, deliberate misdirection and misuse of government resources. The actions and efforts involved in the conspiracy to conceal an act of judicial misconduct/injustice prevented it from being addressed/resolved, while spawning unending and ever-expanding activities which attack and destroy every aspect of my life.

Where actions against me were unlawful, and violated my civil and constitutional rights, I make no excuses and do not excuse those who tore my life apart. I did nothing to deserve this. Why are they preventing any exit?

The description in the header of the web site summarizes with precision the experience, the current situation and the action necessary for resolution. It was first posted in 2008. It has only been edited ONCE. In July 2013,recognizing that EVERY failure of legal professionals to act or respond could be attributed to and concealed by one state law – – Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct

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.


Insert Healy v Healy Injustice and Denial of Rights and the Law here.


Healy v Healy Superior Court Fraud here


Attorney General Kathleen Kane
– Rule 521 Constitutional issue
– Secret Court Orders which prevent AG Kane from disclosing investigating or acting


Montgomery County Grand Jury Investigation
Special Prosecutor Carluccio
Is this Grand Jury called to conceal evidence? Emails?

Having Spec Prosecutor Carluccio would prevent him from having to disclose the efforts of the grand jury to suppress evidence which could be used against his wife, Judge Carluccio, who used emails to cancel multiple hearings, who has prevented the appeal of her defective and void order, who has deliberately neglected to address her defective and void order.
– the defective and void order was referred to as an UNAPPEALABLE ORDER
– It was appealable, BUT she blocked it for over a year, the superior court neglects to address the lack of jurisdiction to issue the order, the violation of the law, and the loss of judicial immunity for herself and the prior judges who conspired to deny justice
– Judge Carluccio’s retaliatory and void court orders caused irreparable damage to property and showed an abuse of power under color of law with intent to cause emotional distress

– Healy v Healy has been before 20 judges from the Montgomery County Judiciary
– each sacrifices their integrity to conceal the lack of integrity of the prior judges
– immunity is not available to the judges where there orders lacked jurisdiction and the entire matter can be demonstrated to have been a farce of epic cruel proportions.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane prevented from disclosing information


Superior Court Central Legal Staff
Intercept and Fraud to deny appeal
County, State and Federal prosecution for violating PA Law and Constitutional Rights


Healy v Miller Injustice and Denial of Rights and the Law here.
Attorney Liability – failed to provide any real basis in law for dismissal ignoring lack of jurisdiction.


Healy v Miller Superior Court Fraud here


Attorney General Kathleen Kane
– Rule 521 Constitutional issue
– Secret Court Orders which prevent AG Kane from disclosing investigating or acting


Superior Court Central Legal Staff
Intercept and Fraud to deny appeal
County, State and Federal prosecution for violating PA Law and Constitutional Rights


.

PROBLEM:
A law designed to ignore judicial corruption and injustice which includes an aggressively enforced MANDATE of silence for all lawyers while ignoring, denying and preventing the constitutional rights of a litigant has been enacted by the state supreme court in every state without proper construction, without constitutional review, without involvement of any state legislature and without the signature of any governor.

Where the law affects the substantive rights of a litigant, the state supreme courts were without proper authority to enact the law pursuant to the state constitutions. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is repugnant to the US Constitution, and is a nullity.

For more information: An Overview of the Challenge to Rule 1.6

The problem is national. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information has been enacted in every state… (There are some slight modifications in some states. Contrary to the profound objection of the commission chairman, Robert Kutak, The American Bar Association deliberately removed the ‘fraud provisions’ from Rule 1.6 before presenting the Model Rules to the states.)


Having Rule 1.6 suspended, removed or declared unconstitutional will restore constitutional rights and equal protection of the law.

Judges, lawyers and legal professionals are not permitted to disclose information which will adversely affect the integrity of the court pursuant to Rule 1.6.

The following public officials are prevented by Rule 1.6 from exposing unconstitutional Rule 1.6 injustice:
State Supreme Court Justices
State Attorneys General
Commonwealth Court Judges
County District Attorneys
Superior Court Judges
Every judge and lawyer in every state

Lawyers in the state senates and legislatures
State Governors who are lawyers
US Senators who are lawyers
US Representatives who are lawyers
They are also permitted/required to act pursuant to Rule 1.6 to prevent unconstitutional Rule 1.6 injustice from being exposed. Their actions may not be disclosed, evwen when they are in the furtherance of the injustice.

The non-lawyer Governors seek advice from their lawyer or the state attorney general – who are not permitted to expose the issue or take any action.

The non-lawyer US Senators seek advice from their lawyers – who are not permitted to expose the issue or take any action.

The non-lawyer US Representative seek advice from their lawyers – who are not permitted to expose the issue or take any action.

Police will not take a complaint of judicial corruption.

County Detectives report to the District Attorneys who are not permitted to expose the issue or take any action.

RULE 1.6 HAS BUILT IN SELF-DEFENSE AND PRESERVATION NON-DISCLOSURE
– preventing disclosure
– preventing any effort to remove the law
– permitting fraud in the effort to maintain confidentiality (with that fraud kept confidential)

The County Sheriff is usually a non-lawyer with authority to enforce every law. After Rule 1.6 was enacted in each state, the sheriffs were informed of a greatly diminished role in law enforcement by the state attorney general, the judiciary and their lawyers. Many states have gone as far as eliminating the position of sheriff. The county sheriff takes no action to address the injustice.

FEDERAL AUTHORITIES – DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Marketed as an ethical fix for DOJ prosecutors, the McDade-Murtha Amendment was passed requiring DOJ and all federal government lawyers to follow the ethics rules which are in effect in the location where they are working.

The US Attorney General advised and campaigned against enacting the McDade-Murtha Amendment. Their campaign was somewhat half-hearted though… because Rule 1.6 already prevented them from telling the Congress exactly why it would be “devastatingly bad”.

In congressional hearings, there was no testimony that Rule 1.6 made fraud legal when concealing prior fraud, and prevented disclosure or action to rectify the fraud. The state supreme courts had enacted ethics laws which lacked morality, required illegal actions to conceal and prevent exposure of fraud, and mandated non-disclosure/confidentiality of their participation in the fraud.

With the McDade-Murtha Amendment, the Federal Government – Department of Justice – all US Attorneys – and all government attorneys are not permitted to expose the issue, or take any action to expose the issue, or take any action to address the injustice and/or the related denial of constitutionally protected rights in any state.

TAKING THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

image_pdfimage_print
2014
12.16

Rest in Peace, brother…

They provoked you to the brink and blamed you for breaking.

My efforts to regain my constitutional rights and the protection of the law continue… for myself and other victims of judicial injustice.

My condolences to your family.

stonedead


WHY DOES TERANCE HEALY CARE ABOUT THE BRADLEY STONE STORY?

It’s simple… because they tried to do the same thing to me.
…because Bradley Stone lost his voice in a media that never asks WHY DID HE DO THAT?
…because he will be dismissed an an angry divorce dad.
…because there was no alternatives to the abusive treatment.
…because the judges do not give a damn about you.
…because the courthouse people don’t care.
…because an unwarranted level of disrespect and disdain exists for litigants
…because they are so threatened by what they have witnessed happening to nice trusting people
…because someone from the county (MCES) likely visited Bradley Stone ‘to check on him’ without knowing WHY they were checking on him… or who told them to do it.
…because no one deserves to be pushed to the point of suicide

The courthouse staff worries about what a person might do to them if they ever really find out everything being done to them… There’s all kinds of secret orders, search warrants, wiretaps, etc… Too many secrets, false allegations, covert investigations, private investigators, DUI set-ups. They exist to secretly destroy a person… and the judges and lawyers watch and hide behind ‘confidentiality’… and call you paranoid. It’s not paranoia when it is happening.
DON’T ROLL YOUR EYES JUST YET… I”VE GOT RECEIPTS – PROOF – EVIDENCE.

Only in the Family Courts can someone who has committed no crime lose everything.

Divorce does NOT create the kind of response Bradley demonstrated.
INJUSTICE DOES.

When you have no protection of the law, ANYONE can hurt you and face no repercussions.
When you have no constitutional rights, ANYONE can say anything in a court room AND YOU LOSE.
When you beg for help, NO ONE HELPS. NO ONE. ANYWHERE.

It’s not about gender, race, political parties or any of the other ways which are used to divide people.

It’s about JUSTICE.

Race comes into it QUICKLY because when it comes to understanding INJUSTICE white people are completely clueless and the idea of injustice is incomprehensible. Whites who think they know still cannot imagine the experience. They read my web site and say “They can’t do that.” They know nothing of injustice.

White people do not understand injustice… they think the justice system works. They roll their eyes and figure you did something to deserve it. They will not believe you until they witness it… and even then they are in disbelief of what they have seen and heard. You cannot convince a white person otherwise… the concept is completely foreign to them.

Black people UNDERSTAND. They live with injustice as a part of their daily lives. They do NOT roll their eyes. They believe what you are saying. Every word. They look you in the eye with a sense of understanding and sadness that the illusion is gone for you. In their minds, they are thinking “THIS WHITE GUY JUST FOUND OUT WHAT WE HAVE KNOWN ALL ALONG.”


Stone v Stone had been before several judges of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.
Judge Barrett, Judge Rhonda Daniele, Judge Bertin, Judge Tolliver, Judge Tilson

Montgomery County Docket – Stone v Stone


1) No more lives torn apart.
2) Wars would never start.
3) Time would heal all hearts.
4) Everyone would have a friend.
5) Right would always win.
6) Love would never end.

This is my only lifelong wish. This is my grown-up Christmas list.

#StopFamilyCourtSuicide

image_pdfimage_print
2014
12.15

A FAMILY COURT FACE LIFT
An Article by the Honorable Kelly C. Wall, with contributions and edits from Sarinia M. Feinman, Esq.
Published in SIDEBAR Summer 2014 by the Montgomery Bar Association, Montgomery County Pennsylvania.


This article defies logic in most of the aspects presented. The failure to see the full perspective of every party involved is clear. It seems that the writers are SO IMPRESSED WITH THEMSELVES AND THEIR CAREERS that they have completely ignored the reason they are involved in the first place.

How does someone who sits on the Family Court Bench lose sight of the necessity and the people standing before them? And how do they introduce changes which fail to correct or address any of the issues presented. Promptly abandoning the statements presented in her Inquirer Judicial Candidate Questionaire in 2009.

The Judicial Branch does NOT have authority to write (or re-write) law. Is the Legislature aware of these actions?

Prepare for one convoluted clueless ego trip.

Prior to going on the family bench, I practiced family law for several years. I remember showing up at the judges’ courtroom for short list conferences; there were so many lawyers present in the Courtroom that it felt like a social hour. My fellow lawyers would sit and catch up on each other’s lives as we waited for our turn in the judges’ chambers. That was the perception I had when I was assigned to the Family Bench in January of 2010.smoke-mirrors-effusion

Boy was I shocked!


Shocked? Judge Wall had no knowledge or awareness about the working of the Family Court. Short List conferences are wasted days for the litigants and the lawyers.

Unrepresented litigants are the last to be called. They wait the entire day observing ‘the dance.’

Lawyer & Lawyer go to the Judge’s Chambers. Their unwelcome clients sit and wait. There is no record of the lawyers conference with the judge. Their clients have no idea what was discussed. Just an outcome, which is often an indication that the requested hearing will be scheduled.

This is NOT the “transparent and open to the public” fable from Judge Wall’s Election Questionnaire.

The first few months I kept questioning my staff about the whereabouts of the attorneys of record
for the conferences. I quickly learned that the days of litigants having two attorneys were gone and we were lucky if there were one or two cases on the list with even one attorney!


This took MONTHS to figure out? BTW, if it took MONTHS, it was not ‘quickly learned’.

The ‘luck’ has another name which is best explained by Canon 1.
“A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”

The ‘luck’ indicates a lack of independence, integrity, and impartiality which improper or at least appears to be improper. The ‘luck’ contradicts Canon 1’s duty of ‘access to justice for all’ that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.

The dockets were littered with the names of attorneys who, long ago, were fired, replaced or simply not being paid. I soon discovered that the Family Court system was overwhelmed with self-represented parties. This problem was so pervasive that in 2013 a new rule was passed requiring Pro Se litigants to enter their appearances in support and custody cases if there was no active attorney.


Blame it on the litigants? Paying their lawyers to sit in a room for half a day at $300/hour doing nothing – or socializing. Perhaps that explains why the litigant fired, replaced or did not pay their attorney. $300/hour to socialize. Seriously?

Filing an appearance is one page. Name. Address. Phone Number. Signature. This filing would not overwhelm a second grade student.

Blame the unrepresented litigants? Require more from the unrepresented litigants than from the lawyers. Falsely suggest that you are requiring it for their benefit.

A ‘pervasive’ litter problem caused by the overwhelming volume of self-represented parties is best addressed by Canon 2.
“A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.”

“Luck’ is an absence of objectivity and open-mindedness, and a clear bias and prejudice which undermines and fails to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have matters heard fairly and impartially.

In the Questionnaire, Judge Wall indicated her “care and compassion will ensure that I treat all litigants equally” – a clear contradiction to the ‘luck’ of having EVEN ONE lawyer in the courtrooms.

I also learned that there was a plethora of repetitious filings; the Pro Se parties would often file several petitions at one time containing the same averments but different titles, or they would file petitions for modification within weeks or months of agreed orders or comprehensive orders entered after
protracted hearings. The cases were burdened with economic issues, drug and alcohol abuse, and/or mental health problems. With no attorneys available for guidance or counsel, the judges were forced to wear several hats: judge, attorney, therapist and parent. We were seeing people at their lowest point with
no legal assistance and no place to turn but to the Court system. The end result was a family court system burdened with climbing inventories, escalating emergency petitions, long delays in scheduling, and a drain on the Court and Court Administration’s time and resources.


A PLETHORA OF REPETITIOUS FILINGS. AT THE SAME TIME. SAYING THE SAME THING. This is a FALSEHOOD. The unrepresented don’t have the time for that. NOBODY HAS TIME FOR THAT.

The cases burdened with other issues, abuses and problems… LIKE ALL CASES.

This is Family Court where the litigants are adults seeking an informed resolution to the issue before the court.

The tremendous disdain for unrepresented litigants is again indicated where absent an “attorney for guidance or counsel” the judge is forced to be judge, attorney, therapist and parent.

The statement lacks any logical connection to any reality. Perhaps Judge Wall has had a stroke.

In 2013, President Judge William J. Furber, Jr. asked me to step in as Administrative Judge of Family Court. I was both flattered that he believed I was capable of taking on that role with only three years under my belt in the third largest County in Pennsylvania, but I was also scared – very scared! It was a big undertaking and I never do things half way. I agreed to take on the challenge but only after Judge Furber assured me he would support my changes and commit to recognizing the importance of the Family Bench. I accepted the challenge and then the fun started!


Only a fool would promise to support changes prior to analysis and review. Another self-serving paragraph where the vocabulary contradicts the statements. Capable? Scared – Seriously? BIG UNDERTAKING? Challenge? Support? Commit?

These sentences are constructed without logic or purpose.

I met with a diverse group of family attorneys and together we came up with an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the Family Court, from the Bar’s perspective. Michael R. Kehs and
Cheryl Leslie from Court Administration were extremely supportive and helpful in adding to the Court’s perspective. As result of those meetings, a big picture plan emerged to make our Family Court
more responsive to the needs of the litigants. Now, I just needed to figure out how to get there!


Who has Judge Wall Completely Ignored? No participation by the unrepresented Pro Se litigants. The handwriting is on the wall. The big plan to address the needs of the litigants.

Some of the changes were easy: We initiated fees for petitions to modify, provided more stringent requirements for in forma pauperis status, and encourage our judges to enter more interim orders.


How do these changes address the NEEDS of the litigants? THEY DON’T!!

Fees for Petitions
– Additional costs for the litigants.
– No added value to litigant.
– No added benefit for litigant.

Stringent In Forma Pauperis Requirements
– More effort required by the litigants
– More stringent requirements PLACED UPON THE DESTITUTE without any benefit for the litigant
[In Healy v Healy…]
[Judge Wall has failed to address an IFP petition filed on December 7, 2010]
[Judge Wall has failed to address an IFP petition filed on December 14, 2010]
[Judge Carluccio has failed to address an IFP petition filed on August 15, 2011]
[Judge Carluccio has failed to address an IFP petition filed on September 19, 2011]
[My contribution to THE PLETHORA of repetitious filings.]
[Judge Page revoked an IFP without explanation to prevent an Appeal to Superior Court]
[To have that revocation appealed, it would be necessary to FIRST obtain an IFP. Seriously.]

Interim Orders
– More interim orders.
– No justification or explanation for this.
– I suggest caution where ex parte orders are concealed and prevented from any proceeding.

Thanks to Judge Del Ricci, my colleagues on the Civil Bench cheerfully adopted some family cases in 2013 and were immensely helpful in putting a dent in our huge inventories. Those small changes were very positive and have laid the framework for the bigger change that are in motion at this time.


It’s peculiar because Judge DelRicci and Judge Carluccio already took credit for clearing much of the court backlog in an event recorded on ITUNES and published in several periodicals and papers.

With the assistance of Sarinia M. Feinman, Chair of the Family Law Section, and various volunteers from
the Section’s sub-committees, we have made great strides. I wanted to take this opportunity to share the new rules that have been passed or are forthcoming and introduce the new programs that will
streamline Family Court procedures and bring aid to the Pro Se litigants.


LAWYERS MAKING WORK FOR LAWYERS. The only profession which can spontaneously create an economy for their workers. Injustice generates more revenue than justice.

Finally, I want to recognize the people who are willingly lending their assistance and expertise to changing the face of the Family Court.


“bring aid to the Pro Se litigants”
WHAT? WHERE? WHEN? HOW?

A Bar Association lawyer, with input from other lawyers under her direction…. WHAT GREAT STRIDES?

There is no logic to any statements.
There is no logic to any action.
There is only an imaginary benefit to the litigant.
What has been accomplished? assisted? changed? for all the gratitude?

The only benefit is EXTRA fees.
The suggestion that using a lawyer to obtain an interim order from a judge can circumvent the current procedure and law.
HOW IS UNDERMINING THE CASE OF A PRO SE LITIGANT BENEFICIAL?

Where is that benefit for the Pro Se Litigant? It was the alleged motivation and purpose of the proposed changes.



EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION & DIVORCE
Moving Equitable Distribution online
– Much to my surprise, I discovered that the equitable distribution (ED) scheduling system was not automated and the filing system was comprised of 5 x 7 cards! There was no way to track cases once a Grounds Order was issued moving the matters to equitable distribution, and there were open cases from the late 1990s! An intern painstakingly created a spreadsheet identifying cases where Grounds Orders were filed before 2012, which were then Continued on next pagedesignated for the ED Special Master program as described below. Cheryl Leslie is in the process of working with our IT department to incorporate the scheduling of ED cases into the existing family scheduling system. The new ED system will allow the Equitable Distribution Masters’ office to issue scheduling orders and Court Administration will be able to track the cases and keep them moving on a timelier basis from the date of the Grounds Order through the entry of the final Divorce Decree.

Equitable Distribution Special Master’s Program
– Once we identified the 220 plus oldest cases with no current activity, we designated them for the ED Special Master’s program. We enlisted the aid of the Honorable Arthur R. Tilson, who agreed to sit as a special master in equitable distribution to hear these cases and enter recommendations.

Within a few months, through the combined efforts of Cheryl Leslie, Judge Tilson and Margaret Carter, 1 administrative assistant to the senior judges, we were able to reduce the inventory of the oldest cases by nearly 200! The program will continue indefinitely as we try to bring the inventory up to date to prepare for the automation of the equitable distribution scheduling system, the new local equitable distribution rule, and the new Court procedures to effectuate the new rule.

Equitable Distribution Rule Change
– After working with the Family Law Section Chairs, Christian V. Badali in 2013 and Sarinia M. Feinman in 2014 for over a year, as well as the ED Sub-Committee of the Family Law Section, President Judge Furber and I signed NEW Local Rule 1920.73(c), which was certified by the Prothonotary, Mark Levy, on May 20, 2014. This Rule was to become effective 30 days after it was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin
on June 7, 2014. Thus, the new Rule became effective as of Monday, July 7, 2014, but the new ED Fee ($400.00) that accompanies the Rule will not become effective until Monday, August 4, 2014, as the Prothonotary needed more time to get all of the computer programming and forms in place.

The new Local Rule includes a slightly modified Form for the Praecipe to Transmit the Record, and completely new Form for a Motion for Entry of Grounds Order and Appointment of Equitable Distribution Master. In an effort to avoid the extreme backup in the ED process, in order to obtain a Grounds Order and proceed to an ED Master, beginning on August 4th, you will have to pay the $400.00 fee to get to the Master. Further, as part of the new Rule, you will not be able to get scheduled before an ED Master until you certify that your discovery is completed and you are ready to have a meaningful conference and/or hearing with the Master to work towards settlement of the case. The hope is that this will force parties to come prepared to the first conference before the Master with an informed knowledge of the assets and liabilities that comprise the marital estate, so that the parties can discuss settlement or be able to schedule a timely hearing. Moreover,the new Rule should reduce the number of Pro Se filers who are simply seeking to divide up personal property where there are no other marital assets. In summary, the new Rule will ensure that only those cases that really need the Masters’ attention will have to be scheduled, thereby resulting in less delay and a reduced inventory for the ED Masters.

Date of Separation Issues
– Another change that has been enacted is the elimination of Special Masters being assigned to deal with date of separation issues that arise in divorce cases. It came to the Court’s attention, via the Chair of the Family Law Section, Sarinia M. Feinman, that there was no clear path of what was to occur procedurally once a full hearing was held before a Special Master regarding date of separation and Exceptions were filed to the Special Master’s Recommendation. There were no clear rules outlining whether this would be a De Novo Hearing or Oral Argument before the assigned Judge.

I discovered that Pro Se parties and/or cases with counsel were having full “on the record” hearings before the Special Master only to be potentially obliged to have another full hearing before the assigned Judge. This not only seemed like a waste of time and money for the clients, but also for the Special
Masters and Judges. Therefore, since there are no state or local rules designating special masters for date of separation issues, moving forward, if a date of separation issue arises, the assigned Judge will hear that issue from the outset, and Special Masters will no longer be utilized for this purpose, so as to promote efficiency for everyone and limit the delay.

If you would like to hear more about the new ED process that went into effect as of July 7th, please attend the Family Law Section Meeting and luncheon on Wednesday, August 6, 2014 at noon for a Town Hall Meeting, where there will also be an opportunity for feedback and questions from practitioners.

Special thanks to Cheryl Leslie, Erin Carter, our Equitable Distribution Masters, Gordon M. Mair and Bruce L. Goldenberg, and the Family Law Section’s Equitable Distribution Sub-Committee for their hard work, assistance and cooperation in updating our Equitable Distribution System.

MOTIONS COURT
– Overwhelmingly, the biggest request I received from the family lawyers was to create a Family Court
Motions Court. One of the greatest challenges we face is crafting procedures for a dedicated Motions
Court while maintaining the integrity of our “One Judge – One Family” policy which ensures that one
judge is assigned to a family throughout the case. The advantage to our “One Judge – One Family” system
is that we have a unique perspective of our individual families and can enter comprehensive orders rather
than having litigants appear before a different judge every time they enter the Courthouse.

Presently, family judges conduct short list conferences which are scheduled four to six weeks after a petition is filed. Parties can file emergency petitions seeking a quicker disposition of matters; however, judges are often inundated with petitions that do not rise to the level of an emergency and they have to weed out the real emergencies from the cases that can wait for a short list date.

A dedicated Motions Court would allow judges to hear certain matters on their cases much more quickly and efficiently. The benefits to a motions court system are threefold; parties can resolve problems quickly as a matter could be scheduled within days, orders will be issued that same day from the bench, and judges will reduce their short list matters which will allow more timely listings for protracted cases.

Although the details of the Motions Court are still being worked out with a local rule anticipated to go into effect in early 2015, you can expect that the matters handled in Motions Court will be those that are appropriate for decisions to be made from the bench and those matters that take no more than 10 minutes to argue on both sides. As of now, my Motions Court dates for the remainder of this year will be as follows: July 30; August 27; September 10 & 24; October 15 & 20; November 12 & 26; and December 10 & 22. Commencing in January of 2015, my Motions Court will generally be scheduled on the second and
fourth Wednesdays of the month. The Honorable Gail A. Weilheimer will also be participating in the Motions Court, and she will be providing her Motions Court dates in the near future. Some of the other Family Court Judges have expressed an interest in the new Motions Court rule, so that they may also participate in this program for their cases.

Special thanks to Cheryl Leslie, Joel B. Bernbaum, chair of the Family Law Section Motions Court sub-committee, as well as the other members of the sub-committee for their hard work, assistance and cooperation in assisting to get the Family Motions Court underway.

FRIEND OF THE COURT
– Presiding over Protection from Abuse (“PFA”) cases is one of the more challenging opportunities the family judge faces. There are well over forty cases per week and the litigants are angry, scared or emotionally drained. We are extremely fortunate to have the presence of Carol Horvitz and the volunteers from the Women’s Center who lend assistance and guidance to the Court. However, it quickly became apparent to me that a majority of the cases involved deteriorating familial relationships rather than
domestic abuse. The volunteers are wonderful at working with the parties to encourage settlements; however they are limited to what kind of advice they can give as they are not attorneys. I have observed numerous lost opportunities to direct Pro Se litigants toward the Lawyer Referral Service for consultations or to Domestic Relations or Court Administration to file family petitions.

I originally teamed up with Joo Park and Harry Byrne, co-chairs of the Pro Bono Committee, to discuss putting together a group of volunteers to represent Pro Se litigants in PFA Court. Our project got a big boost when Sharron L. Rex, a former Custody Conciliator in Montgomery County, offered to help launch a PFA volunteer program. The MBA has also expressed an interest in teaming up with the Temple University
Beasley School of Law to enact a third-year student volunteer program for PFA Court.

Additionally, we are in the process of observing similar programs in both Allegheny and Bucks Counties and have received insightful input from Legal Aid representatives and the Women’s Center. With the help of a talented group of people, we are currently in the process of developing a “Friend of the Court” program, whereby both plaintiffs and defendants may receive free representation in our weekly PFA Court by licensed attorneys or students working under the guidance of a licensed attorney. The goal is to provide training to the volunteers in exchange for CLE credits who will, in turn, donate their time
and efforts to representing both plaintiffs and defendants and lend guidance to steer Pro Se litigants away from PFA Court and toward the services they need to resolve their domestic disputes. Although there are many factors yet to be determined such as funding, office space, and administration, we are very
excited about this program and hope to see a working model in the late fall.

SUPPORT
– Gary Kline, Director of the Montgomery County Domestic Relations Office (“DRO”), has been recognized by the Commonwealth on an annual basis for the record amount of past due support collected by his office. To ensure thatthe trend continues, we have been collaborating on ways to decrease the number of contempt hearings that the judges have to hear on a weekly basis and put pressure on the defendants to force them to pay up. Every Friday morning, the DRO officers wheel over large boxes filled to the brim with the files representing the obligors who failed to pay their monthly support orders. Defendants often have multiple cases with large arrears and many are repeat offenders.

In a project aimed at reducing delinquent child support among the most egregious payers, DRO has selected specific cases and assigned them to Judge Barrett and me. The goal for the officer in DRO is to have the case removed from the general Friday contempt list by obtaining an initial payment on the support obligation. The defendants are contacted after being scheduled and told this is their last chance to comply before seeing a judge. If a payment is obtained, the case is removed from the list and scheduled for the next court list before the assigned judge. The case is then monitored for the next several months’ payments and the cycle continues until such time as the payments are received for four to six months consecutively, or the defendant obtains employment and a wage attachment is issued. If a hearing is necessary, the assigned judge has the option of finding the defendant in contempt and ordering incarceration or placing them in the monthly monitoring program. The key for the program to be a success is the rapid access directly to the court in front of the assigned judge, who is familiar with the party and the history of nonpayment.

Another benefit is that the program will reduce the Friday lists and eliminate multiple judges making decisions on the same group of delinquent obligors. Although the program is still in its infancy, to date, more than 70% of the cases identified have made regular payments.

In addition to the new support monitoring program, our new Sheriff, Russell Bono, has committed the resources of his office to the ongoing collection of outstanding child support.

The Sheriff has turned up the pressure on support delinquents by conducting routine roundups which are covered by the media and have resulted in the collection of thousands of dollars in a short period. Moreover, Gary Kline was happy to report that Montgomery County has the lowest number of DRO bench warrants it has ever recorded, and has over 100 less than the closest similarly sized county in the region.

Gary Kline reported 267 outstanding warrants at this time (which includes defendants who reside outside of the state) as compared to 800 a few years ago. Way to go Gary Kline and Sheriff Bono!

SUMMARY
-There are still so many things to do! We will continue to assess programs and staff duties to improve Family Court Services. We will continue to identify any problems as they arise and strive to find solutions for those problems, so as to promote efficiency and expediency in the Court system.

Many thanks to Court Administrator Michael R. Kehs and President Judge William J. Furber, Jr. who kept his promise and supported the new changes, and a special thanks to Sarinia M. Feinman, of the law firm of Vetrano & Vetrano, for her incredible contributions, support, and hard work.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the Honorable Rhonda Lee Daniele for her many years of service as Administrative Judge of Family Court. I have gained new found respect for her and wish to thank her for all of her hard work.


This article is pure disinformation and misdirection.
image_pdfimage_print
2014
12.10

“I believe the American people have a right – indeed, a responsibility – to know what was done in their name; how these practices did or did not serve our interests; and how they comported with our most important values.

0“I commend Chairman Feinstein and her staff for their diligence in seeking a truthful accounting of policies I hope we will never resort to again. I thank them for persevering against persistent opposition from many members of the intelligence community, from officials in two administrations, and from some of our colleagues.

“The truth is sometimes a hard pill to swallow. It sometimes causes us difficulties at home and abroad. It is sometimes used by our enemies in attempts to hurt us. But the American people are entitled to it, nonetheless.

“They must know when the values that define our nation are intentionally disregarded by our security policies, even those policies that are conducted in secret. They must be able to make informed judgments about whether those policies and the personnel who supported them were justified in compromising our values; whether they served a greater good; or whether, as I believe, they stained our national honor, did much harm and little practical good.

“What were the policies? What was their purpose? Did they achieve it? Did they make us safer? Less safe? Or did they make no difference? What did they gain us? What did they cost us? The American people need the answers to these questions. Yes, some things must be kept from public disclosure to protect clandestine operations, sources and methods, but not the answers to these questions.

“By providing them, the Committee has empowered the American people to come to their own decisions about whether we should have employed such practices in the past and whether we should consider permitting them in the future. This report strengthens self-government and, ultimately, I believe, America’s security and stature in the world. I thank the Committee for that valuable public service.

“I have long believed some of these practices amounted to torture, as a reasonable person would define it, especially, but not only the practice of waterboarding, which is a mock execution and an exquisite form of torture. Its use was shameful and unnecessary; and, contrary to assertions made by some of its defenders and as the Committee’s report makes clear, it produced little useful intelligence to help us track down the perpetrators of 9/11 or prevent new attacks and atrocities.

“I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering. Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights, which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not only joined, but for the most part authored.

“I know, too, that bad things happen in war. I know in war good people can feel obliged for good reasons to do things they would normally object to and recoil from.

“I understand the reasons that governed the decision to resort to these interrogation methods, and I know that those who approved them and those who used them were dedicated to securing justice for the victims of terrorist attacks and to protecting Americans from further harm. I know their responsibilities were grave and urgent, and the strain of their duty was onerous.

“I respect their dedication and appreciate their dilemma. But I dispute wholeheartedly that it was right for them to use these methods, which this report makes clear were neither in the best interests of justice nor our security nor the ideals we have sacrificed so much blood and treasure to defend.

“The knowledge of torture’s dubious efficacy and my moral objections to the abuse of prisoners motivated my sponsorship of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which prohibits ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ of captured combatants, whether they wear a nation’s uniform or not, and which passed the Senate by a vote of 90-9.

“Subsequently, I successfully offered amendments to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which, among other things, prevented the attempt to weaken Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and broadened definitions in the War Crimes Act to make the future use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ punishable as war crimes.

“There was considerable misinformation disseminated then about what was and wasn’t achieved using these methods in an effort to discourage support for the legislation. There was a good amount of misinformation used in 2011 to credit the use of these methods with the death of Osama bin Laden. And there is, I fear, misinformation being used today to prevent the release of this report, disputing its findings and warning about the security consequences of their public disclosure.

“Will the report’s release cause outrage that leads to violence in some parts of the Muslim world? Yes, I suppose that’s possible, perhaps likely. Sadly, violence needs little incentive in some quarters of the world today. But that doesn’t mean we will be telling the world something it will be shocked to learn. The entire world already knows that we water-boarded prisoners. It knows we subjected prisoners to various other types of degrading treatment. It knows we used black sites, secret prisons. Those practices haven’t been a secret for a decade.

“Terrorists might use the report’s re-identification of the practices as an excuse to attack Americans, but they hardly need an excuse for that. That has been their life’s calling for a while now.

“What might come as a surprise, not just to our enemies, but to many Americans, is how little these practices did to aid our efforts to bring 9/11 culprits to justice and to find and prevent terrorist attacks today and tomorrow. That could be a real surprise, since it contradicts the many assurances provided by intelligence officials on the record and in private that enhanced interrogation techniques were indispensable in the war against terrorism. And I suspect the objection of those same officials to the release of this report is really focused on that disclosure – torture’s ineffectiveness – because we gave up much in the expectation that torture would make us safer. Too much.

“Obviously, we need intelligence to defeat our enemies, but we need reliable intelligence. Torture produces more misleading information than actionable intelligence. And what the advocates of harsh and cruel interrogation methods have never established is that we couldn’t have gathered as good or more reliable intelligence from using humane methods.

“The most important lead we got in the search for bin Laden came from using conventional interrogation methods. I think it is an insult to the many intelligence officers who have acquired good intelligence without hurting or degrading prisoners to assert we can’t win this war without such methods. Yes, we can and we will.

“But in the end, torture’s failure to serve its intended purpose isn’t the main reason to oppose its use. I have often said, and will always maintain, that this question isn’t about our enemies; it’s about us. It’s about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. It’s about how we represent ourselves to the world.

“We have made our way in this often dangerous and cruel world, not by just strictly pursuing our geopolitical interests, but by exemplifying our political values, and influencing other nations to embrace them. When we fight to defend our security we fight also for an idea, not for a tribe or a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion or for a king, but for an idea that all men are endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights. How much safer the world would be if all nations believed the same. How much more dangerous it can become when we forget it ourselves even momentarily.

“Our enemies act without conscience. We must not. This executive summary of the Committee’s report makes clear that acting without conscience isn’t necessary, it isn’t even helpful, in winning this strange and long war we’re fighting. We should be grateful to have that truth affirmed.

“Now, let us reassert the contrary proposition: that is it essential to our success in this war that we ask those who fight it for us to remember at all times that they are defending a sacred ideal of how nations should be governed and conduct their relations with others – even our enemies.

“Those of us who give them this duty are obliged by history, by our nation’s highest ideals and the many terrible sacrifices made to protect them, by our respect for human dignity to make clear we need not risk our national honor to prevail in this or any war. We need only remember in the worst of times, through the chaos and terror of war, when facing cruelty, suffering and loss, that we are always Americans, and different, stronger, and better than those who would destroy us.

“Thank you.”

John McCain December 9, 2014

image_pdfimage_print
2014
12.01

DISINFORMATION TACTICS #21.

Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body.

Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion.

Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled.

For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators.

Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.



The Norristown Grand Jury could be acting to subvert and conceal evidence in Healy v Healy.

By silencing Kathleen Kane and preventing an investigation by the Attorney General.

By using Judge Carolyn Carluccio’s husband as the Special Prosecutor who guides the Grand Jury.

The Grand Jury supervised by Judge Carpenter who was behind the perjury trap sprung on a victim of intrusive illegal surveillance tools available to the county which provided access to computers and permitted evidence to ‘change’.

Where a Court order issued preventing Attorney General Kathleen Kane from speaking about the case.

Where a Mystery document was sent to the Superior Court. The Court responded. Yet, the document and response has not been provided or made available to the litigants.

Could this be ONE of the Secret Court Orders issued to silence Kathleen Kane?

Counting back the days from the story of her attorneys filing an Appeal in the matter aligns the secret order with the timeline of the Superior Court Response.

There is the issue of impropriety and bias in the Superior Court, where the documents being sent from the court lack signatures and go on to violate MOST IF NOT ALL of the Judicial Canons.

There is the as yet unspoken issue of the Superior Court not recusing when their direct involvment in the harrassment actions in Healy v Healy was realized.

If the Superior Court of Philadelphia had recused their would be an explanation necessary which could reveal fraud to conceal prior fraud in the matter.

It seems that The Superior Court handles Wire Taps… so if Montgomery County was seeking to tap my phones they would have had to have it authorized by the Superior Court.

As I was not engaged in illegal activity, the surveillance actions can clearly be exposed as designed to harrass, threaten, intimidate and terrorize. While trying to set me up to commit a crime.

The Superior Court in Philadelphia should have recused, BUT couldn’t where it would reveal truth… and liabilities.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality and Mandate of Non-disclosure has caused the entire course of justice to become UNDONE, subverted, perverted and twisted to the point where the court exist ONLY to terrorize the litigant/Defendant/Appellant.

The drive to mislead, misinform and misdirect which is demonstrated in EVERY responsive action suggests that those behind the denial of my constitutional rights while concealed by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality would sooner commit further crimes, than to resolve any issue.

Rule 1.6 affects the actions of EVERY LEGAL PROFESSIONAL – so that explains their lack of facts and law to support any of their actions, or interceptions, while preventing the judiciary from hearing the matter – or maybe even knowing about it.

BUT, AS LEGAL PROFESSIONALS THEY KNOW THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS BEING IGNORED… and Judges and Lawyers are supposed to take action when they see things like that happen. What are they waiting for?

I’m going to try to break Kathleen Kane out of the cone of silence the courts have placed around her.

There’s still a few loopholes in Rule 1.6

image_pdfimage_print
2014
11.25

FERGUSON – Another Rule 1.6 injustice which cannot be resolved or addressed?

Missouri’s version of Rule 1.6 DOES NOT CONTAIN THE FRAUD PROVISIONS.

What that means is that legal professionals/lawyers MUST commit fraud to conceal prior fraud, and that FRAUD MUST CONTINUE where there is no lawful method permitted to rectify the fraud.

It sounds crazy, BUT the American Bar Association made FRAUD ‘LEGAL’ in their Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

When each state supreme court enacted the Model Rules into LAW, the FRAUD BECAME MANDATORY with all legal professionals required to maintain confidentiality even if it causes the fraud to continue or worsen, EVEN WHILE PREVENTING ANY ACTION TO RECTIFY THE FRAUD.

The lawyers called the Model Rules their ‘ethical standard’ BUT fraud is a crime.

Fraud is illegal. Fraud is immoral. FRAUD IS UNETHICAL TOO.

So how did this happen? Why has it not been corrected? The same LAW prevents any legal professional from exposing the corruption and the unconstitutionality of Rule 1.6.

One person is to blame for the continuing injustice in the US.

Randall Henzes, a lawyer employed by the Office of the Pennsylvania Attorney General.

After EVERY state attorney general had defaulted on the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6, Henzes filed a late Document on behalf of the PA Attorney General. His actions have prevented the entire United States from justice.

There could have been justice in Ferguson. Randall Henzes prevented it. Rule 1.6 is so POWERFUL that Attorney General Kathleen Kane has been silenced – permitting injustice to continue.


“I knew that I was walking into public corruption. Which again is why I ran.
But I will tell you this. Even I am shocked at the level of public corruption.
I am shocked at how deep it goes.
I am shocked at how powerful it is.
I have never seen anything like this.”
– Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General

Rule 1.6 prevents any legal professionals and law enforcement from action to address Henzes sabotage of the federal case.

ferguson-riotsYes… it is very unconstitutional. It prevents JUSTICE.

For an overview of the problem CLICK HERE.

#Ferguson #Rule1point6

http://work2bdone.com/live/2014/11/overview-of-the-challenge-to-rule-1-6/

image_pdfimage_print
2014
11.24

A law enacted by the state supreme court in every state without proper construction, without constitutional review, without involvement of any state legislature and without the signature of any governor designed to ignore judicial corruption and injustice which includes an aggressively enforced MANDATE of silence for all lawyers while ignoring, denying and preventing the constitutional rights of litigants.


THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6

Rule 1.6 affects civil, criminal, family, federal district and federal appeals courts making it impossible to address the loss of constitutional rights when committed by a judge.

The Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandates confidentiality of client information where the information
– would affect the integrity of the judiciary
– would reveal the misconduct of their own office,
– would expose individual liability,
– would adversly affect their client.

The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, The Attorney General’s office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers and the Public. All Clients.



This is why Cash for Kids was ignored by the Attorney General, the Luzerne County District Attorney, every lawyer in Luzerne county, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Judicial Conduct Board.

This is why the ‘Sandusky Report’ released in 2014 failed to indicate any improper conduct. The Report also failed to include a disclaimer that Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandated the silence of the Attorney General regarding information about the Office of the Attorney General, the Governor, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, etc…

This is why millions of foreclosures were ignored by the Attorneys General nationwide with no prosecutions while millions of people lost their homes based on fraudulent and robo-signed deeds and other documents.



Rule 1.6 has undermined law enforcement and the judicial branch in the states and federally.



Rule 1.6 is a core part of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Most, if not all, rules point back to Rule 1.6 by cross-reference.

The ABA presented their Model Rules to each state supreme court for promulgation into law. As trade rules confidentiality was discretionary. As LAW, the confidentiality became an aggressively enforced mandate which denied people of constitutional rights and prevented anyone in law from acting on behalf of the victims against it’s unconstitutional effect.

The victims having no protection of the law become 1) destitute/homeless 2) incarcerated or 3) suicidal.

RULE 1.6 CAUSES AN INESCAPABLE LOSS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
WHICH UNDERMINES THE STATE AND FEDERAL JUDICIARY.

Happy Holidays.
Since 2007 Rule 1.6 injustice and terror has caused me to be destitute, alone and isolated on every holiday.

Families cannot handle the stress which is placed upon the victim who cannot escape the constant litigation – a judicial farce where justice is NOT POSSIBLE when concealing injustice and fraud is MANDATED BY LAW..

Friends witness the injustices and are attacked for supporting the victim in any way.

When your children are manipulated into participation in actions against you, it puts a massive level of humiliation and shame on them which prevents any chance of reconciliation.

Rule 1.6 was designed to destroy people. Rule 1.6 is evil made lawful.

image_pdfimage_print
2014
11.22

Today, I received an envelope from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Office of the Prothonotary.

Inside a letter with a PDF signature of Charles E. O’Connor, Jr., Deputy Prothonotary.

AND

A Per Curiam Order relating to the MOTION FOR THE APPLICABLE RULE OF LAW filed on November 14, 2014.

The Per Curiam Order is NOT signed by any judge.

The Per Curiam Order includes a journal number.

The Per Curiam Order is captioned differently than any prior documents.

The Per Curiam Order is Titled ‘ORDER OF COURT’ instead of “ORDER”.

The Per Curiam Order is dated 21st November 2014.

The Motion had been filed on 14th November 2014.

The Motion for the Rule of Law was DENIED.

The decision did not permit 14 days for an answer from Appellee.

Even though the Appellant’s Motion was DENIED, the document elaborates
– by chastizing the Appellant with accusations of filing a frivolous motion
– by speculating about the Appellant’s dissatisfaction
– by indicating that there is no rule which limits the number of copies which can be time-stamped
– by fabricating a false motive for the Appellant filing the motion
– by fabricating a false ultimate motive for the Appellant filing the motion
– by accusing the Appellant of filing frivolous appeals and motions
– by threatening to financially sanction the Appellant

Appellant’s Motion was filed with the court to address a false statement by the Prothonotary clerk, and a refusal to act which could best be described as arbitrary, unnecessarily discourteous and disrespectful.

When the clerk refused the request to time stamp additional copies on November 7, 2014, there was no further discussion or question from Appellant.

An Appellant is without recourse to address spontaneous misinformation by a clerk at the Prothonotary even where it affects paperwork filed in the course of the litigation/appeal.

The filed response, attributed to the Court and unsigned, demonstrates a level of disdain and contempt for litigants, while intimidating and threatening adverse future decisions.

* THESE VIOLATIONS OF THE JUDICIAL CANONS ARE CLEARLY NOT THE ACTIONS OF A JUDGE *

The Motion did not speculate on any real or imagined motivation for the clerk’s discourtesy, disrespect and false statement.

The Motion did not seek to diminish, attack, threaten or intimidate the clerk.



So who is writing these documents? … pretending to be a judge? … committing fraud? … threatening a litigant?

Could it be the same PEOPLE who failed to send notices about the scheduling of the Panel?

Could it be the same PEOPLE who have neglected and avoided every opportunity to address the defective and void order EVEN THOUGH THE PROCEDURAL ERROR (AKA DEFECTIVE AND VOID) IS DOCUMENTED IN EVERY FILING BY THE APPELLANT and has been presented in every hearing with exhibits and documentation all supported by the court record.

The lawyers at Angst & Angst never presented any evidence at the hearing in support of jurisdiction.

Judge Carluccio failed to provide any information in support of jurisdiction in her opinion.

Judge Page failed to provide any information in support of jurisdiction in his opinion..

The lawyers at Zarwin, Baum, Devito, Kaplan, Schaer & Toddy, P.C. never presented any evidence at the hearing in support of jurisdiction.

Judge Weilheimer failed to provide any information in support of jurisdiction in her opinion.

image_pdfimage_print
2014
11.22

Rule 1.6 trumps everything, ethics, morality, law, common sense, constitutional rights. The mandate for non-disclosure controls ALL LEGAL PROFESSIONALS while preventing justice and undermining the authority of the courts and government officials.

In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ONLY the Legislature has authority to suspend a law. While Rule 1.6 was improperly enacted by the state Supreme Court and is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is not permitted to expose or undo their actions pursuant to Rule 1.6.

cnn-logoIn this interview with CNN, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane can ONLY be not-talking about Rule 1.6.

Are you investigating this right now?

We are not investigating. I cannot investigate.

I am being stopped from performing my duties as Attorney General.

My office is being stopped from certain investigations.

And we are being stopped even from telling why.

So I am hearing you say that your hands are tied. Why are your hands tied?

My hands are tied and this will be frustrating for you because it is just as frustrating for me.

My hands are ties because there are court orders which don’t allow us to say certain things which I believe the public needs to know.

As the state’s top prosecutor, you are saying that there is a court order that’s keeping you from investigating a case that you think and the Chief Justice on the state Supreme court thinks might be illegal.

That is correct.

Do you feel that the system is being abused to protect certain people?

I knew that I was walking into public corruption. Which again is why I ran.

But I will tell you this. Even I am shocked at the level of public corruption.

I am shocked at how deep it goes.

I am shocked at how powerful it is.

I have never seen anything like this. It’s breathtaking.

It has been described by the people familiar with what is happening as shameful.




Rule 1.6 conceals corruption, like Cash for Kids and the Nationwide Foreclosure Crisis, fale imprisonment, and judicial corruption and injustice.

Rule 1.6 affects every level of state and federal courts, undermining the independence of the judiciary where they are mandated to conceal corruption and injustice.

Rule 1.6 has undermined the judiciary and usurped their authority. The judiciary is held hostage by bar associations which are positioned to interfere between the people and the judiciary intefering with the administration of the courts, obstructing justice, and numerous other federal crimes and constitutional offenses.

It’s been concealing injustice in the US since 1984.

image_pdfimage_print