2013
08.31


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Terance Healy )
Todd M. Krautheim )
in the name of THE UNITED STATES Civil Action No. 13-4614
(
v. (
(
KATHLEEN KANE (
Pennsylvania Attorney General; (
and (
The Attorneys General of the United States (

COMPLAINT – CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

TERANCE HEALY and TODD M. KRAUTHEIM in the name of THE UNITED STATES file this pleading against KATHLEEN KANE, Pennsylvania Attorney General and the ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES challenging the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Plaintiffs seek to restore the constitutional rights of Pro Se litigants while restoring the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession and deliver to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.

Plaintiffs additionally offer that they are in the extremely unique position to be acting lawfully with proper standing while having a valid causes for relief in the proper forum for the rule to be addressed.

1. PARTIES

PLAINTIFFS Terance Healy
871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976

Todd M. Krautheim
207 Woodspring Circle
Doylestown, PA 18901

in the name of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEFENDANTS
KATHLEEN KANE
Pennsylvania Attorney General
1600 Strawberry Square, Harrisburg, PA 17120

LUTHER STRANGE
Alabama Attorney General
501 Washington Ave. P.O. Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36130-0152

MICHAEL GERAGHTY
Alaska Attorney General
P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, AK 99811-0300

American Samoa Attorney General
American Samoa Gov’t, Exec. Ofc. Bldg,
Utulei, Territory of American Samoa, Pago Pago, AS 96799

TOM HORNE
Arizona Attorney General
1275 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ 85007

DUSTIN MCDANIEL
Arkansas Attorney General
323 Center St., Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201-2610

KAMALA HARRIS
California Attorney General
1300 I St., Ste. 1740, Sacramento, CA 95814

JOHN SUTHERS
Colorado Attorney General
Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor, Denver, CO 80203

GEORGE JEPSEN
Connecticut Attorney General
55 Elm St., Hartford, CT 06106

JOSEPH R. “BEAU” BIDEN, III
Delaware Attorney General
Carvel State Office Bldg., 820 N. French St., Wilmington, DE 19801

IRVIN NATHAN
District of Columbia Attorney General
441 4th Street, NW, Suite 1100S, Washington, DC 20001

PAM BONDI
Florida Attorney General
The Capitol, PL 01, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

SAM OLENS
Georgia Attorney General
40 Capitol Square, SW, Atlanta, GA 30334-1300

LENNY RAPADAS
Guam Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General,
ITC Building, 590 S. Marine Corps Dr, Ste. 706, Tamuning, Guam 96913

DAVID LOUIE
Hawaii Attorney General
425 Queen St., Honolulu, HI 96813

LAWRENCE WASDEN
Idaho Attorney General
Statehouse, Boise, ID 83720-1000

LISA MADIGAN
Illinois Attorney General
James R. Thompson Ctr., 100 W. Randolph St., Chicago, IL 60601

GREG ZOELLER
Indiana Attorney General
Indiana Government Center South
302 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204

TOM MILLER
Iowa Attorney General
Hoover State Office Bldg., 1305 E. Walnut, Des Moines, IA 50319

DEREK SCHMIDT
Kansas Attorney General
120 S.W. 10th Ave., 2nd Fl., Topeka, KS 66612-1597

JACK CONWAY
Kentucky Attorney General
700 Capitol Avenue, Capitol Building, Suite 118, Frankfort, KY 40601

JAMES D. “BUDDY” CALDWELL
Louisiana Attorney General
P.O. Box 94095, Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4095

JANET T. MILLS
Maine Attorney General
State House Station 6, Augusta, ME 04333

DOUGLAS F. GANSLER
Maryland Attorney General
200 St. Paul Place, Baltimore, MD 21202-2202

MARTHA COAKLEY
Massachusetts Attorney General
1 Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108-1698

BILL SCHUETTE
Michigan Attorney General
P.O.Box 30212, 525 W. Ottawa St., Lansing, MI 48909-0212

LORI SWANSON
Minnesota Attorney General
State Capitol, Ste. 102, St. Paul, MN 55155

JIM HOOD
Mississippi Attorney General
Department of Justice, P.O. Box 220, Jackson, MS 39205

CHRIS KOSTER
Missouri Attorney General
Supreme Ct. Bldg., 207 W. High St., Jefferson City, MO 65101

TIM FOX
Montana Attorney General
Justice Bldg., 215 N. Sanders, Helena, MT 59620-1401

JON BRUNING
Nebraska Attorney General
State Capitol, P.O.Box 98920, Lincoln, NE 68509-8920

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
Nevada Attorney General
Old Supreme Ct. Bldg., 100 N. Carson St., Carson City, NV 89701

JOSEPH A. FOSTER
New Hampshire Attorney General
33 Capitol St., Concord, NH 03301

JOHN JAY HOFFMAN
New Jersey Attorney General
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex,
25 Market Street P.O. Box 080 Trenton, NJ 08625

GARY KING
New Mexico Attorney General
P.O. Drawer 1508, Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508

ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN
New York Attorney General
Dept. of Law – The Capitol, 2nd fl., Albany, NY 12224

ROY COOPER
North Carolina Attorney General
Dept. of Justice, P.O.Box 629, Raleigh, NC 27602-0629

WAYNE STENEHJEM
North Dakota Attorney General
State Capitol, 600 E. Boulevard Ave., Bismarck, ND 58505-0040

JOEY PATRICK SAN NICOLAS
Northern Mariana Islands Attorney General
Administration Building, P.O. Box 10007, Saipan MP 96950-8907

MIKE DEWINE
Ohio Attorney General
State Office Tower, 30 E. Broad St., Columbus, OH 43266-0410

SCOTT PRUITT
Oklahoma Attorney General
313 NE 21st Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73105

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM
Oregon Attorney General
Justice Bldg., 1162 Court St., NE, Salem, OR 97301

LUIS SÁNCHEZ BETANCES
Puerto Rico Attorney General
PO Box 902192, San Juan, PR 00902-0192

PETER KILMARTIN
Rhode Island Attorney General
150 S. Main St., Providence, RI 02903

ALAN WILSON
South Carolina Attorney General
Rembert C. Dennis Office Bldg., P.O.Box 11549, Columbia, SC 29211-1549

MARTY J. JACKLEY
South Dakota Attorney General
1302 East Highway 14, Suite 1, Pierre, SD 57501-8501

ROBERT E. COOPER, JR.
Tennessee Attorney General
425 5th Avenue North, Nashville, TN 37243

GREG ABBOTT
Texas Attorney General
Capitol Station, P.O.Box 12548, Austin, TX 78711-2548

JOHN SWALLOW
Utah Attorney General
State Capitol, Rm. 236, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0810

WILLIAM H. SORRELL
Vermont Attorney General
109 State St., Montpelier, VT 05609-1001

VINCENT FRAZER
Virgin Islands Attorney General
Dept. of Justice, G.E.R.S. Complex
488-50C Kronprinsdens Gade, St. Thomas, VI 00802

KEN CUCCINELLI
Virginia Attorney General
900 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219

BOB FERGUSON
Washington Attorney General
1125 Washington St. SE, PO Box 40100, Olympia, WA 98504-0100

PATRICK MORRISEY
West Virginia Attorney General
State Capitol, 1900 Kanawha Blvd. , E., Charleston, WV 25305

J.B. VAN HOLLEN
Wisconsin Attorney General
Wisconsin Department of Justice,
State Capitol, Room 114 East P. O. Box 7857, Madison, WI 53707-7857

PETER K. MICHAEL
Wyoming Attorney General
State Capitol Bldg., Cheyenne, WY 82002

2. JURISDICTION
– The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 USC § 1331, 1343, and 1345, this being an action:
– authorized by law to challenge the constitutionality of State law;
– to redress the deprivation under State law, statute ordinance regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States which provides for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;
– seeking relief providing for the protection of civil rights,
– brought on behalf of the United States.

3. VENUE
– The Venue is properly placed in The United States District Court of The Eastern District of Pennsylvania for civil action;
– where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred;
– where plaintiffs are residents of the judicial district;
– where defendant is an officer of the state acting in official capacity or under color of legal authority.

4. SERVICE
– This Complaint – Constitutional Challenge is served on the state attorneys general as a state statute is questioned—either by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.

5. STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct as the rule causes the complete denial of constitutionally protected rights while subverting justice and corrupting the judiciary.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Plaintiffs are NOT petitioning this Honorable Court regarding their legal matters currently before the State court.

The actual information about their cases is provided to demonstrate the necessity of this challenge.

For the purposes of this filing, any discussion/presentation of this information may be considered hypothetical as this court does not have jurisdiction in the State matter.

Do NOT be distracted. Do NOT be dismissive. Do NOT underestimate the Plaintiff.

The Pro Se Plaintiffs are fully aware of the CONSTITUTIONAL case being presented, and the necessity for it to be addressed in this forum at this time. We pray this Honorable Court will permit the factual situation where constitutionally protected rights have been usurped and undermined be presented.

To demonstrate the unconstitutional aspect, the Plaintiff presents their cases:
– Terance Healy A divorce action commenced in Family Court
– Todd M. Krautheim A foreclosure action commenced in Civil Court

CASE OF PLAINTIFF, TERANCE HEALY

6. HEALY v. HEALY is a divorce action which has been in the courts since May 2007.

7. The matter has involved 18 judges from the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas with over 400 docket entries.

8. An Appeal filed in August 2011 was ignored, neglected by the Prothonotary and not forwarded to the Superior Court.

9. An Appeal filed in May 2013 is currently before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

10. The lower court has commenced a series of obstructive acts to prevent the Appeal
a. acting without jurisdiction,
b. abuse of power – deliberate issuance of void orders,
c. abuse of power – intimidation to prevent court reporters from producing transcripts for the Appeal,
d. conspiracy – prothonotary has failed to forward all documents and necessary exhibits to the Superior Court.

11. When Rule 1.6 is applied to the above injustices, they are lawful and a required necessity as they protect the integrity and reputation of the judiciary.

12. From the perspective of the Pro Se litigant constitutionally protect rights have been usurped.

13. A Motion to Compel the Production of Documents is pending with the Superior Court.

14. The Rules of Appellate Procedure require the complete court record to be transmitted to the Superior Court.

15. The complete court record is a necessity for proper review of the Appeal by the Superior Court.

16. Rule 1.6 lawfully excuses the failure to transmit the court record, even when Ordered by the Superior Court.

17. Rule 1.6 lawfully excuses the Superior Court from compelling the production of the court record.

18. Rule 1.6 lawfully excuses the lower court failure to follow an order compelling production of the court record.

19. Rule 1.6 lawfully undermines the production of the complete court record, and further nullifies the authority of the Superior Court.

20. Rule 1.6 lawfully obstructs the production of the court record.

21. Rule 1.6 lawfully nullifies the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

22. The Pro Se litigant has no recourse with the Superior Court.

23. The Pro Se litigant has no recourse through the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

( NOTE: This is the point where the litigation in this matter is currently. )

SUPREME COURT MANDAMUS PETITION

24. The Pro Se litigant could prepare and deliver a Mandamus Petition to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to compel the production of the court record.

25. Rule 1.6 lawfully excuses the failure to transmit the court record when ordered by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

26. Rule 1.6 lawfully excuses the Supreme Court from enforcing a Mandamus Order compelling the production of the court record.

27. Rule 1.6 lawfully prevents the Supreme Court from issuing a Mandamus Order.

28. Rule 1.6 lawfully undermines any action by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

29. Rule 1.6 lawfully and effectively nullified
Pennsylvania Law,
The Rules of Appellate Procedure,
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania,
and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

JUDICIAL REACTION

30. Rule 1.6 lawfully undermines the judiciary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

31. Rule 1.6 lawfully destroys the integrity and reputation of the judges.

32. The judiciary is clearly placed into a moral and ethical situation where saving the integrity and reputation of the judiciary is more important to society than justice for a Pro Se litigant.

33. Rule 1.6 provides the law to support their decisions which they cannot in good conscience defend or explain.

34. The Pro Se litigant feels victimized because the Pro Se litigant has been victimized without reason or explanation. .

35. The judge has likely failed to recognize that the Pro Se litigant before his court has lost ALL of their legal rights.

36. The judges actions further prevent recognition of the loss of the Pro Se litigants rights.

JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD

37. Rule 1.6 lawfully prevents the investigation, action, or response by the Judicial Conduct Board to any complaint by a Pro Se Litigant.

38. Complaints with the Judicial Conduct Board when undeniable, documented misconduct was discovered were not addressed.

39. Rule 1.6 permits complaints to be dismissed without explanation.

DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

40. Rule 1.6 lawfully prevents the investigation, action, or response by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania.

41. Complaints with the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania when undeniable, documented misconduct was discovered were not addressed.

42. Rule 1.6 permits complaints to be dismissed without explanation.

THE LAW OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

43. Rule 1.6 indirectly denies a Pro Se litigant of the protection of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and further prevents any recourse to address the loss of civil rights.

( It became necessary for me to find out exactly where I lost my legal rights )

UP TO THIS POINT IN THIS DOCUMENT I HAVE USED THE PHRASE “RULE 1.6”.

I HAVE DONE SO WITH NECESSITY, A PRO SE LITIGANT REALIZES EVERY WORD IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO BE IGNORED.

RULE 1.6 REFERS TO
“CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION”

THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

MY REVIEW OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

44. I reviewed the CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and the effect of the rule for my own understanding.

45. Reducing the code to the most basic statements returned four reasonable phrases which were logical, ethical and reasonable.

Lawyers are required and responsible to report all misconduct; (The Code)
unless it affected the integrity of the judicial system; (Rule 1.6 )
unless it was self-incriminating; (Rule 1.6 )
unless it adversely affected the client. (Rule 1.6 )

46. Each phrase could support it’s logical, ethical and reasonable existence.

47. The first phrase actually started on very high ground, but the combined effect was empty as there are no other kinds of misconduct..

MY REVIEW OF MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

48. I reviewed my experience and the lawfulness of everyone’s actions and came up with the practical simplified rule as it applied to my case.

Lawyers will take no action which reveals the misconduct of lawyers and judges.
Judges will take no action which reveals the misconduct of lawyers and judges.

49. The Code of Professional Conduct supported my two sentence review, when applied the excuse for the action, or in-action, always pointed to Rule 1.6.

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE LEGISLATURE

50. Rule 1.6 legally prohibits correction as any effort to correct it would not be lawful.

51. The State Legislature is similarly unable to act to suspend the rule, modify the rule, or adjust the rule.

52. Rule 1.6 lawfully and effectively undermined The Pennsylvania State Legislature.

53. The Rule has a built in “self defense” mechanism which prevents lawful actions to fix the law.

54. Anyone who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct is lawfully prevented from lawfully taking any action to address this problem.

55. As soon as the law was enacted it was untouchable

THE PROBLEM IS MINE TO FIX

56. Rule 1.6 was my problem. It needed to be fixed.

57. Upon realization that the legislature could not lawfully take action to address Rule 1.6, the Plaintiffs decided to go to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:
to demonstrate the problem,
to show the necessity of the solution,
to seek out and meet the author,
to request an immediate change.

58. Anyone who could take any action would recognize that their efforts were going to expose misconduct, and as such, they could not lawfully make the change.

59. In order to be lawful, Plaintiff’s efforts were going to require precision.

HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

60. Defendant, Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General, refused to meet with the Plaintiffs.

61. Plaintiffs proceeded to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania.

62. Paul J. Killion, Chief Disciplinary Counsel was not in the office and unavailable to schedule a meeting.

63. The Plaintiffs left the message of their experience and the necessary resolution in hopes of finding the proper person with whom they could meet.

64. Plaintiff’s proceeded to the RULES department seeking and receiving guidance on how to properly format a document requesting a change to a rule.

65. Plaintiff’s were informed that Rule 1.6 was not part of that office’s responsibility.

66. Plaintiff’s proceeded to the Judicial Conduct Board.

67. Robert A. Graci, Chief Counsel, was not in the office and unavailable to schedule a meeting.

68. The Plaintiffs left the message of their experience and the necessary resolution in hopes of finding the proper person with whom they could meet.

THE OVERALL AFFECT OF RULE 1.6

69. Rule 1.6 is obstructing justice, denying justice, preventing access to the courts, denying civil rights, denying constitutional rights and constitutionally protected liberties.

70. Rule 1.6 protects the integrity of the judiciary by sacrificing the integrity of the judiciary.

71. Rule 1.6 protects the reputation of the legal profession by sacrificing the reputation of lawyers.

72. Rule 1.6 has lawfully provided the opportunity to deny the rights of Pro Se litigants.

73. EVERY Pro Se litigant IS NOT SUBJECTED to the loss of civil and constitutional rights.

74. RULE 1.6 DOES NOT MANDATE the denial of the rights of Pro Se litigants.

75. RULE 1.6 allows, endorses, and conceals the denial of the rights of “SELECTED” Pro Se litigants.

CRITERIA FOR LOSS OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS

76. ALL citizens of the United States are AT RISK of being affected by this failure in the legal system.

77. ALL litigants in state courts are AT RISK of being affected by this failure in the legal system.

78. The loss of rights is not evident until the litigant attempts to assert their ‘lost’ rights, at which point the loss is absolute, undeniable, and impossible to address with anyone within the judiciary, or at any level of government, as the judicial and legislative branches are legally prevented from acting to correct Rule 1.6.

79. Certain ordinary criteria must be met to cause the potential for loss.
1. There must be a judicial error, or misconduct, of any degree.
2. One litigant files to proceed Pro Se while the other is represented.

80. It is not important which event occurs first, or at what point in the legal matter one party moves to proceed Pro Se..

81. Once the criteria are met, the Pro Se litigant is as the extreme disadvantage as every failure by the represented party is excused; every opportunity to address it is ignored, denied or prevented.

82. All rules, laws, procedures, orders and due process can be ignored leaving the Pro Se litigant with no recourse.

83. The Code of Professional Conduct (Rule 1.6) can be invoked to protect the failures of the lawyers and the judiciary effortlessly, but the extreme force undermines the Constitutionally protected rights of the Pro Se victim.

84. This risk for loss of rights is ONLY experienced by a Pro Se litigant.

85. It is incomprehensible that a citizen of the United States who has committed no crime can lose everything.

86. The potential ability of a lawyer INTENTIONALLY committing or causing an act of misconduct which triggers the loss of constitutionally protect rights when facing a Pro Se litigant creates a situation which would demand strict actions regarding any misconduct.

87. An attorney facing a Pro Se opponent does not require full knowledge of how this situation occurs to trigger an act of misconduct and undermine their adversary’s case.

88. An attorney who committed repeated acts of misconduct would clearly be demonstrating their knowledge of the power of the action, and the failure to realize the redundancy of their repeated misconducts being unnecessary.

89. Plaintiff, Terance Healy, offers the series of acts of extreme and deliberate attorney misconduct on the court record, in the court docket, available in the transcripts of hearings in the matter during hearings in February 2013 which were held improperly during the pendancy of an ignored appeal to seek enforcement of a void order issued during the pendancy of that ignored appeal, where that void order was based on a prior void order, which was further based on a void order for equitable distribution which was based on a void and defective divorce decree.

90. The subsequent Order issued in that matter being Appeal to the Superior Court and described on the docket as:
“In an action to enforce an order where the court lacked jurisdiction, the court failed to address the lack of jurisdiction to deny, obstruct and conceal prior jurisdiction issues and failures during the pendancy of an Appeal.”

91. As the misconduct used to trigger the loss of rights for Plaintiff Terance Healy (Pro Se Defendant /Appellant) created a loss of jurisdiction, the Defendant was without rights but not without recourse until the appeals court became affected by the case.

92. When the authority of the Appeals court was impacted, Plaintiff Terance Healy would have standing and a cause for relief to present his case to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania where a Petition for Mandamus action could lawfully be ordered and lawfully be ignored.

ACTING LAWFULLY, WITH PROPER STANDING, WITH VALID CAUSE FOR RELIEF

93. Plaintiff, Terance Healy, hereby asserts and presents the as evidence of proper standing the aforementioned true and factual circumstances and actions before

The Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Norristown, Pennsylvania
Docket #2007-12477

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Docket # 1330 EDA 2013

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Docket # (Filing Concurrent with this Constitutional Challenge)

94. Plaintiff, Terance Healy, asserts and presents as a proper cause for relief the aforementioned true and factual circumstances and actions to

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

CASE OF PLAINTIFF, TODD M. KRAUTHEIM

95. BANK OF AMERICA, National Association v. TODD M. KRAUTHEIM is a foreclosure action which has been in the courts since January 2011.

96. The matter has involved 4 judges from the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas with over 100 docket entries.

97. A Judgment entered in May 2011 was unknown to the Defendant until November 2012.

98. After a hearing where documented acts of misconduct were presented, the Court recognized the standard had been met for a “petition to strike” and ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment be stricken.

99. The failure of service to the defendant was excused by the court. This is evident and admitted and documented on the record by the attorneys for the plaintiff.

100. An act of fraud relating to the transfer of the mortgage for the property created the misconduct necessary under Rule 1.6 to undermine the Pro Se defendant in the matter.

101. Efforts to expose, address or resolve the matter have been hindered as any effort to resolve will expose the fraudulent title transfer.

102. Plaintiffs subsequent submission of another fraudulent title continue this hindrance of preventing resolution and providing them the opportunity to assert Rule 1.6
– in their defense, or
– in the defense of their client, or
– in the defense of the judge who signed the initial judgement.

103. In this matter, any effort to proceed to a resolution is prevented as the assertion of Rule 1.6 prevents any discussion of the misconduct, or any action which addresses the misconduct.

104. The matter could eventually escalate to a higher court where the same Rule 1.6 would prevent any discussion of the misconduct, or any action which addressed the misconduct.

ACTING LAWFULLY, WITH PROPER STANDING, WITH A VALID CAUSE FOR RELEIF

105. Plaintiff, Todd M. Krautheim, hereby asserts and presents as evidence of proper standing the aforementioned true and factual circumstances and actions before

The Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Doylestown, Pennsylvania
Docket # 2011-00193

106. Plaintiff, Todd M. Krautheim, asserts and presents as a proper cause for releif the aforementioned true and factual circumstances and actions to

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

A GREAT RESPONSIBILITY

107. Plaintiffs have filed this Constitutional Challenge to Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General, and the Attorneys General of the United States of America as Rule 1.6 appears to have been made law in each state and territory.

108. Attorneys General in States where Rule 1.6 has not been enacted into law, are ON NOTICE of this Constitutional Challenge and the impact the Rule can have on the citizens they are sworn to protect.

109. The exact title “Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information” appears in the laws of States, other than Pennsylvania, indicating the potential for inadvertent loss of civil rights exists for the people of those States.

110. Additionally, Plaintiffs recognize the existing and potential worldwide scope of this rule of law, and as citizens uniquely positioned to act lawfully on behalf of the people of the world, assert their lawful proper standing, with cause for relief upon the International Court of Justice to take lawful action to restore the rights or people everywhere.

DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS

111. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information causes an denial of the constitutionally protected right to petition the Government for redress of grievances. (First Amendment)

112. Rule 1.6 causes a denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law. (Fifth Amendment)

113. Rule 1.6 causes a denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law by a State. (Fourteenth Amendment)

114. The US Constitution is the absolute supreme law of the land.

115. Federal laws are also the supreme law of the land if they do not violate the Constitution.

116. Treaties cannot violate the US Constitution. If they do, they are not valid treaties.

117. State legislatures and State courts are bound by the US Constitution, federal laws and federal treaties.

118. State constitutions cannot violate the US Constitution.

119. State laws cannot conflict or overrule federal laws.

120. Rule 1.6 denies a Pro Se litigant of an opportunity to petition the government for redress of grievances; denies a Pro Se litigant of life, liberty and/or property without due process of law; causes a denial of constitutionally protected rights by the State and as such is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

OBSTACLES TO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

121. Plaintiffs assert and allege that any obstacles to the presentation, acceptance and consideration of this Complaint – Constitutional Challenge are unconstitutional
-based on the Plaintiffs constitutionally protected right to petition the Government for redress of grievances;
-based on the Plaintiffs constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law;
-based on the Plaintiffs constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law by a State.

122. Plaintiffs assert and allege that any defense by the Defendants against this Complaint – Constitutional Challenge, unless directed at
– the Plaintiff’s lawful position to file this claim;
– the Plaintiff’s demonstrating a valid cause for relief;
– the Plaintiff’s petitioning in the proper forum for this matter to be addressed
is an action which is unconstitutional in that it causes
– a denial of a constitutionally protected right to petition the Government for redress of grievances;
– a denial of life, liberty or property without due process of law;
– a denial of life liberty or property without due process of law by a State.

123. Plaintiffs are under no obligations under the challenged Rule 1.6 as they are not bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct placing them in the unique position of being lawfully able to present this matter to the Honorable Court..

124. Defendant, Kathleen Kane, and the Attorneys General, are bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 and as such are limited in the actions which they are permitted to take in defense of this challenge as any action could or would be a violation of Rule 1.6. – the constitutionality of which is in question.

Plaintiffs, Terance Healy and Todd M. Krautheim, on behalf of
Mark McBride, Helene Finno, Darren Moyer, Karen Baxter Randall, Michael LaBbate
and the People of the United States of America hereby present for the consideration and review to this Honorable Court their Complaint – Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

/Terance Healy/ /Todd M. Krautheim/
c/o 871 Mustang Road 207 Woodspring Circle
Warrington, PA 18976 Doylestown, PA 18901
(215) 262-0938 (215) 489-9790
2013
08.30

The Letter sent to US Government Officials

I am reaching out to inform you of the Complaint / Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on August 8, 2013.

Rule 1.6 causes a complete loss of constitutionally protected rights for litigants when there has been any misconduct by lawyers or judges in the matter.

The Plaintiffs look forward to working with the Attorneys General to address the challenge as our goals are not in opposition and the task before us is great.

The Plaintiffs view the Defendant Attorneys General not as adversaries, but fellow patriots, who can see and respect a sincere interest in returning the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the judicial system, delivering to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to manage the law, and restore the rights of all citizens in the state.

As such, Plaintiffs are reaching out to inform the Senate of their action and their intent. Where the legislature has lost the opportunity to take lawful action, the plaintiffs are returning the ability to act on behalf of the citizens they represent.

The official documents have been served on the Attorneys General. A copy is attached for your review.

Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

Time for Integrity. Time for Respect. Time for Justice.
www.work2bdone.com/live

Sent to US Senators
Sent to PA Senate
Sent to AL Senate
Sent to AK Senate
Sent to AZ Senate
Sent to AR Senate
Sent to Co Senate
Sent to De Senate
Sent to HI Senate
Sent to IL Senate
Sent to IA Senate
Sent to KS Senate
Sent to LA Senate
Sent to ME Senate
Sent to MD Senate
Sent to MA Senate
Sent to MN Senate
Sent to MO Senate
Sent to MT Senate
Sent to NV Senate
Sent to NH Senate
Sent to NM Senate
Sent to NY Senate
Sent to NC Senate
Sent to ND Senate
Sent to OK Senate
Sent to OR Senate
Sent to RI Senate
Sent to TN Senate
Sent to UT Senate
Sent to VT Senate
Sent to VA Senate
Sent to WA Senate
Sent to WV Senate
Sent to WI Senate
Sent to WY Senate
2013
08.28

The LIE of not having jurisdiction is intended to make people go away. Judges act without jurisdiction. ALOT. When they do, there is no way to address their lack of jurisdiction, because Rule 1.6 prevents exposure of the ‘misconduct’ of the judge, or the lawyer who perverted the legal proceedings. Eighteen judges of the Montgomery County Judiciary sacrificed their integrity for the fraud committed by one of their own. Their abuse of power under color of law is astounding and can only be described as terror.

Rule 1.6 prevents anyone from helping… BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO EXPOSE THE ‘MISCONDUCTS’.

They then tell you they do not have jurisdiction. THIS IS A LIE. They are not allowed to tell you there has been a misconduct which prevents justice in your matter. So, they pretend you are completely ignorant about jurisdiction.

JurisdictionThe lack of jurisdiction is a LIE.

The Attorney General in each state is the highest law enforcement officer in the state. They have jurisdiction to combat crimes, corruption, and every level of wrongdoing and injustice.

BUT, as lawyers the Attorneys General are MANDATED to ignore anything which exposes misconduct of lawyers and the judiciary.

RULE 1.6 trumps jurisdiction.
RULE 1.6 trumps all other law.
RULE 1.6 trumps justice.
RULE 1.6 trumps ethics and morality.
RULE 1.6 ignores the Constitution of the United States.
RULE 1.6 targets its victims with complete loss of protection of the law, absolute injustice, denial of any course of action to escape, and prevents anyone from doing anything to help. The victims of injustice have all been denied the true explanation for why they became disenfranchised.

Attorney General Tom Corbett had jurisdiction.
Attorney General Linda Kelly had jurisdiction.
Attorney General Kathleen Kane has jurisdiction to prosecute corrupt judges, but she lacks the lawful ability to act. Rule 1.6 made it impossible for them to fully accomplish their responsibilities as Attorney General.

Think of any scandal where a judge was prosecuted. Ask yourself who prosecuted the matter? Federal prosecutors. The State did not act. Now consider that the State Attorneys General have been compelled by Rule 1.6 to ignore the crimes of the judiciary and the membership of the bar.

What Attorneys General do not have is the legal ability to address corruption in the legal system, or make any change which would provide that lawful ability.

It might seem they are too ashamed to tell you, EXCEPT THAT THEY CANNOT LAWFULLY TELL YOU because RULE 1.6 prevents them from telling you the truth.

That Rule 1.6 results in the complete loss of constitutional rights to the victims of unaddressable misconduct. It further prevents any lawyer or judge taking any action to correct the MASSIVE FAILURE in this law.

The only way to make the change is for someone with no legal background to come along, to have been terrorized for years by injustice, to find and recognize the failure in the LAW, and to address the law in the only way possible and lawful.

Fix it yourself… so that’s what was done.

It is necessary that he learn, study, review research and then serve the resolution back to those who were made lawfully incapable of taking any action to help him.

The only way out is through a victim. I am that victim. I have survived their terror. Through it all, i was able to persevere. And I have served the resolution which permits the return to justice to the Attorneys General of the entire United States.

I have filed in Federal Court a Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Civil Action 13-4614.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

So when Robert Mulle, Chief Deputy Attorney General – Legal Review Section writes on August 20, 2013 that
“Mr. Healy has contacted this office in the past and has explained his situation. Mr Healy has been advised on many occasions that this office does not have jurisdiction to intervene on his behalf and that is still the position of this office.”

ROBERT MULLE IS TELLING A LIE.

The Office does have jurisdiction. He is just not lawfully permitted to tell the truth, or to take any action. Robert Mulle is shamed and humiliated into a lie in order to continue unconstitutional injustice and terror of a victim who begged for help.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 will return integrity to the judicial system and to the Attorney Generals as well. Robert Mulle can live with his past lies and shame.

2013
08.28

I have a dream… to escape the nightmare of injustice MANDATED by Rule 1.6

“The strictest law sometimes becomes the severest injustice.” Benjamin Franklin

“Injustice is censured because the censures are afraid of suffering, and not from any fear which they have of doing injustice.” Plato

1184874_10151537473290667_1454462699_n

“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.” Clarence Darrow

2013
08.28

MLK“Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws.

An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal.

By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

2013
08.27

Kathleen Kane speaks about her responsibilities as Attorney General.

In light of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Code of Professional Conduct where as Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane is the lead Defendant, the information and position she presents is very relevant.

facestate

Kathleen Kane on Face the State. August 18, 2013.
http://local21news.com/news/features/face-the-state/stories/face-state-attorney-general-kathleen-kane-31.shtml

2013
08.16

facebook-logo Join the Discussion on Facebook…

Facebook Group – The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6

Untitled

Time for Integrity. Time for Respect. Time for Justice.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ChallengeRule1.6/

EVERY LIFE MATTERS.

2013
08.14

mob3We will begin collecting data at this web site shortly. BUT, we’re not going to be taking a judge bashing, whining victims type of approach.
Those sites are out there. They serve a purpose, but they fail to resolve any issue.

Even that guy who’s been driving around the USA filming the victims has failed to see that you can’t resolve a problem when all you do is point at it.


Realize that those responsible for the problem are acting lawfully. Recognize that.
Realize that those ignoring the complaints are acting lawfully. Understand that.
It’s important to recognize that all of the unfairness, and the injustice, and the failure of anyone to respond to the misconduct was entirely lawful.

The law is the law.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL indicates that law is/was a nullity. IMHO, Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional – NOT a law. Finding the hidden needle which was holding up a haystack of injustice was no easy task. Many have pointed at the moral and ethical faults of Rule 1.6. Not many of those people were outside of the legal profession and victimized by their RULES and able to do something about it.

Judicial immunity rules are lawful and applicable and necessary. Just as their injustice was lawful – the resolution is lawful. A Lawful Responsible approach is required.

The data will be used to demonstrate the necessity of this Challenge for all People.

2013
08.14

Saw it years ago… I must have been unable to see the solution to the problem because they were so effective at my destruction. So determined for my demise. The cancer of injustice grew beyond any comprehension of reason.

Knowing what I know now… The judges in Montgomery County were acting as terrorists to annihilate a target who was a potential threat. And I had no idea that on August 1, 2013, I would learn the scope of their organized efforts. Far more than a simple conspiracy, far more than a few judges deciding to protect one of their own… The size of the organization behind every injustice in America would blow my mind.

The deliberate actions against their victims who were routinely brutalized and left destitute, homeless and alone…
They cleverly arranged it so that the only one who could lawfully make a change was an individual who they intentionally targeted and victimized.

The chance of survival, and finding and proposing a resolution, and surviving the further injustices to hinder any progress.

They arranged it so that they could not lawfully resolve the problem once enacted. ONLY a pro se litigant who survived would be the only one who could see the necessity, see the problem, find the Constitutional aspect, have proper standing, have a cause for relief, be able to demonstrate the loss of rights, and USE THEIR OWN RULE 1.6 AGAINST THEM. LAWFULLY!

Rule 1.6 sets it so that lawyers can not lawfully act to expose misconduct; any effort to respond to the Challenge which leads to exposing misconduct would be a violation of Rule 1.6. I’m curious how the Defendants may approach this tangled logic. Damned if they do. Damned if they don’t. Either way they potentially violate the rule and face disciplinary action for doing so. Publicly speaking about misconduct, and not paying your association dues are 2 ways of getting disciplined. Any misconduct concealed by Rule 1.6 is entirely ignored.

Forge documents and steal a House. THAT’s OK.
Don’t pay your association fees. SUSPENSION!
Subvert the integrity of 18 members of the judiciary. THAT’s OK.
Forget to go to “lawyer update” classes. SUSPENSION!

Reading what I wrote 2 years ago, you might think I had it all figured out. The constant chaos never allows their target to think outside their case, outside their life, outside the box.

Their injustice was intentional. Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio said I intimidated her. Her victim intimidated her. I told Judge Carolyn Carluccio, that she must have been intimidated by the truth. Perhaps she foresaw the Constitutional issue. Clearly she knew to obstruct and prevent letting any Appeal out of Norristown, out of the County. Her instructions from the ‘main office’ was to destroy me.

That was 2 years ago… Why did the Bar Association advise their local president to destroy the one man who would stand up for the Constitutional rights of all Americans.

I’d like to think that instruction was the last corrupt action concealed lawfully by Rule 1.6. It only takes one act of misconduct lawfully concealed by Rule 1.6 to deny an unknowing target of their constitutional rights.

In the Family court someone who has committed no crime can lose everything.
Rule 1.6 makes that possible. Read the Challenge.
In the Criminal court someone who has committed no crime can be incarcerated.
Rule 1.6 makes that possible. Read the Challenge.
In the Civil court one act of misconduct can result in an innocent person losing their home.
Rule 1.6 makes that possible. Read the Challenge.

Rule 1.6 is the basis for over 80 deliberate pages of Rules of Professional Conduct. Every issue winds its way back to Rule 1.6, at which point each act of malicious misconduct and fraud can be lawfully ignored. Read the Challenge.

240px-South_end_of_Lake_Monomonac,_Winchendon_MAIn June 2011, Thomas Ball lit himself on fire at the courthouse in Keene, New Hampshire. I often recall that while he was en route to Keene, I was alone out on Monomonack a few miles away thinking I could end my suffering then and there. I just couldn’t do it.

Time for Integrity. Time for Respect. Time for Justice.
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Time for Integrity. Time for Respect. Time for Justice.

EVERY LIFE MATTERS.

2013
08.13

Service to the Attorneys General

Civil Action #13-4614
Summons in a Civil Action
Notice of Procedure to Consent to Reference of Civil Action or Proceeding to Magistrate Judge
Mailed from Doylestown, PA 18901

USPS Report 1    Report 2    Report 3    Report 4    Report 5    Report 6


#0019

KATHLEEN KANE
Pennsylvania Attorney General
1600 Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120

#0026

LUTHER STRANGE
Alabama Attorney General
501 Washington Ave. P.O. Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36130-0152

#0033

MICHAEL GERAGHTY
Alaska Attorney General
P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, AK 99811-0300

#0040

AFOA LEULUMOEGA LUTU
American Samoa Attorney General
American Samoa Gov’t, Exec. Ofc. Bldg Utulei, Territory of American Samoa Pago Pago, AS 96799

#0057

TOM HORNE
Arizona Attorney General
1275 W. Washington St. Phoenix, AZ 85007

#0064

DUSTIN MCDANIEL
Arkansas Attorney General
323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610

#0071

KAMALA HARRIS
California Attorney General
1300 I St., Ste. 1740 Sacramento, CA 95814

#0088

JOHN SUTHERS
Colorado Attorney General
Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center 1300 Broadway, 10th Floor Denver, CO 80203

#0095

GEORGE JEPSEN
Connecticut Attorney General
55 Elm St. Hartford, CT 06106

#0101

JOSEPH R. “BEAU” BIDEN, III
Delaware Attorney General
Carvel State Office Bldg. 820 N. French St. Wilmington, DE 19801

#0118

IRVIN NATHAN
District of Columbia Attorney General
441 4th Street, NW Suite 1100S Washington, DC 20001

#0125

PAM BONDI
Florida Attorney General
The Capitol PL 01 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

#0132

SAM OLENS
Georgia Attorney General
40 Capitol Square, SW Atlanta, GA 30334-1300

#0149

LENNY RAPADAS
Guam Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General ITC Building 590 S. Marine Corps Dr., Ste 706 Tamuning, Guam 96913

#0156

DAVID LOUIE
Hawaii Attorney General
425 Queen St. Honolulu, HI 96813

#0163

LAWRENCE WASDEN
Idaho Attorney General
Statehouse Boise, ID 83720-1000

#0170

LISA MADIGAN
Illinois Attorney General
James R. Thompson Ctr. 100 W. Randolph St. Chicago, IL 60601

#0187

GREG ZOELLER
Indiana Attorney General
Indiana Government Center South 302 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204

#0194

TOM MILLER
Iowa Attorney General
Hoover State Office Bldg. 1305 E. Walnut Des Moines, IA 50319

#0200

DEREK SCHMIDT
Kansas Attorney General
120 S.W. 10th Ave., 2nd Fl. Topeka, KS 66612-1597

#0217

JACK CONWAY
Kentucky Attorney General
700 Capitol Avenue Capitol Building, Suite 118 Frankfort, KY 40601

#0224

JAMES D. “BUDDY” CALDWELL
Louisiana Attorney General
P.O. Box 94095 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4095

#0231

JANET T. MILLS
Maine Attorney General
State House Station 6 Augusta, ME 04333

#0248

DOUGLAS F. GANSLER
Maryland Attorney General
200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202-2202

#0255

MARTHA COAKLEY
Massachusetts Attorney General
1 Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698

#0262

BILL SCHUETTE
Michigan Attorney General
P.O.Box 30212 525 W. Ottawa St. Lansing, MI 48909-0212

#0279

LORI SWANSON
Minnesota Attorney General
State Capitol Ste. 102 St. Paul, MN 55155

#0286

JIM HOOD
Mississippi Attorney General
Department of Justice P.O. Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205

#0293

CHRIS KOSTER
Missouri Attorney General
Supreme Ct. Bldg. 207 W. High St. Jefferson City, MO 65101

#0309

TIM FOX
Montana Attorney General
Justice Bldg 215 N. Sanders Helena, MT 59620-1401

#0316

JON BRUNING
Nebraska Attorney General
State Capitol P.O.Box 98920 Lincoln, NE 68509-8920

#0323

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
Nevada Attorney General
Old Supreme Ct. Bldg. 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, NV 89701

#0330

JOSEPH A. FOSTER
New Hampshire Attorney General
33 Capitol St. Concord, NH 03301

#0347

JOHN JAY HOFFMAN
New Jersey Attorney General
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street P.O. Box 080 Trenton, NJ 08625

#0354

GARY KING
New Mexico Attorney General
P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508

#0361

ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN
New York Attorney General
Dept. of Law The Capitol, 2nd fl. Albany, NY 12224

#0378

ROY COOPER
North Carolina Attorney General
Dept. of Justice P.O.Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629

#0385

WAYNE STENEHJEM
North Dakota Attorney General
State Capitol 600 E. Boulevard Ave. Bismarck, ND 58505-0040

#0392

JOEY PATRICK SAN NICOLAS
Northern Mariana Islands Attorney General
Administration Building P.O. Box 10007 Saipan MP 96950-8907

#0408

MIKE DEWINE
Ohio Attorney General
State Office Tower 30 E. Broad St. Columbus, OH 43266-0410

#0415

SCOTT PRUITT
Oklahoma Attorney General
313 NE 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105

#0422

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM
Oregon Attorney General
Justice Bldg. 1162 Court St., NE Salem, OR 97301

#0439

LUIS SÁNCHEZ BETANCES
Puerto Rico Attorney General
PO Box 902192 , San Juan, PR 00902-0192

#0446

PETER KILMARTIN
Rhode Island Attorney General
150 S. Main St. Providence, RI 02903

#0453

ALAN WILSON
South Carolina Attorney General
Rembert C. Dennis Office Bldg. P.O.Box 11549 Columbia, SC 29211-1549

#0460

MARTY J. JACKLEY
South Dakota Attorney General
1302 East Highway 14 Suite 1 Pierre, SD 57501-8501

#0477

ROBERT E. COOPER, JR.
Tennessee Attorney General
425 5th Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243

#0484

GREG ABBOTT
Texas Attorney General
Capitol Station P.O.Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711-2548

#0491

JOHN SWALLOW
Utah Attorney General
State Capitol, Rm. 236 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0810

#0507

WILLIAM H. SORRELL
Vermont Attorney General
109 State St. Montpelier, VT 05609-1001

#0514

VINCENT FRAZER
Virgin Islands Attorney General
Dept. of Justice, G.E.R.S. Complex 488-50C Kronprinsdens Gade St. Thomas, VI 00802

#0521

KEN CUCCINELLI
Virginia Attorney General
900 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219

#0538

BOB FERGUSON
Washington Attorney General
1125 Washington St. SE PO Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504-0100

#0545

PATRICK MORRISEY
West Virginia Attorney General
State Capitol 1900 Kanawha Blvd. Charleston, WV 25305

#0552

J.B. VAN HOLLEN
Wisconsin Attorney General
Wisconsin Department of Justice State Capitol, Room 114 East P. O. Box 7857 Madison, WI 53707-7857

#0569

PETER K. MICHAEL
Wyoming Attorney General
State Capitol Bldg. Cheyenne, WY 82002


This Icon indicates Service is complete. Certified Receipt Confirmed. Return Receipt Received.Mailed

%d bloggers like this: