2013
10.30

The following Governors have received the package which describes the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 and the affect it has on law enforcement in their state.

They are NOT lawyers obligated to follow Rule 1.6. As such, they are not involved in the conspiracy to prevent this issue from being presented. Additionally, these Governors have the power to lawfully address the situation and take immediate action in their state.

NonLawyerGov
Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama
Governor Lolo Letalu Matalasi Moliga
Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona
Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado
Governor Jack Markell of Delaware
Governor Eddie Baza Calvo of Guam
Governor Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii
Governor C.L. Butch Otter of Idaho
Governor Terry Branstad of Iowa
Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana
Governor Paul LePage of Maine
Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland
Governor Mark Dayton of Minnesota
Governor Phil Bryant of Mississippi
Governor Dave Heineman of Nebraska
Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina
Governor Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota
Governor Eloy Inos of Northern Mariana Islands
Governor John Kasich of Ohio
Governor Mary Fallin of Oklahoma
Governor John Kitzhaber of Oregon
Governor Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island
Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina
Governor Bill Haslam of Tennessee
Governor Rick Perry of Texas
Governor Gary Herbert of Utah
Governor Peter Shumlin of Vermont
Governor John deJongh, Jr of the US Virgin Islands
Governor Earl Ray Tomblin of West Virginia
Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin

The following Governors are lawyers OBLIGATED under Rule 1.6 to ignore the Constitutional Rights of citizens while ignoring judicial corruption, crimes and misconduct, and the failure to prosecute crimes of the judiciary and of the legal professionals who might implicate the judiciary.

Governor Sean Parnell of Alaska (Puget Sound School of Law)
Governor Mike Beebe of Arkansas (University of Arkansas)
Governor Jerry Brown of California (Yale)
Governor Dan Malloy of Connecticut (Boston College)
Governor Rick Scott of Florida (Southern Methodist University)
Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia (Walter F. George School of Law)
Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois (Northwestern University)
Governor Mike Pence of Indiana (Indiana University)
Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas (University of Kansas)
Governor Steven L. Beshear of Kentucky (University of Kentucky)
Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts (Harvard)
Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan (University of Michigan)
Governor Jeremiah W. Nixon of Missouri (University of Missouri)
Governor Steve Bullock of Montana (Columbia University)
Governor Bruce Sandoval of Nevada ( )
Governor Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire (Northeastern School of Law)
Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey (Seton Hall University)
Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico ( )
Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York (Albany Law School)
Governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania (St Mary’s University School of Law)
Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla of Puerto Rico (Interamerican University)
Governor Denis Daugaard of South Dakota (Northwestern University)
Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia (Regent University)
Governor Jay Inslee of Washington (Willamette University)
Governor Matt Mead of Wyoming (University of Wyoming)

Having a lawyer for a governor places a state under the control of the American Bar Association’s Rule 1.6 with all branches of the state government – executive, legislative and judiciary – under the mandate of Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information.
It makes the unconstitutionality of the rule IMPOSSIBLE to lawfully address.
It makes judicial crimes and corruption ILLEGAL to lawfully address. BUT ONLY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO DO IT AND HAVE TAKEN AN OATH TO THAT EFFECT.
It may even get them disbarred if they download it here…    or here…    or here.

November 1, 2013: ALL GOVERNORS HAVE RECEIVED THE PACKAGE. Non-lawyers and lawyers alike.

2013
10.30

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information
of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

1. Overview
2. Affect
3. Challenge Filed in Federal Court #13-4614
4. Scope
5. Response to their ‘Motion to Dismiss’
6. Memorandum Supporting Response
7. Quotes

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

Challenge13-4614

kafka

This package has been delivered personally to television, newspaper, radio, and magazines. NOT ONE MEDIA OUTLET HAS CARRIED THE STORY. Their lawyers have instructed them to prevent exposure and to have no contact which could suggest involvement. The sedition and treason involved in overthrowing every state government is powerful enough to cover up their crimes. Only the Federal Court and one other individual can possibly intervene. Most likely they have misinformed that individual to think otherwise.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

2013
10.29

Attorney General Martha Coakley is currently in a race for Governor of Massachusetts. Does Massachusetts really want a Governor who ‘lawfully’ denied people of their constitutional rights? CCI10302013_0000

I was surprised to see her response to a federal court filing asking her if it was her intent to default – which would quietly have restored the rights of the citizens of Massachusetts.

“It appears you are seeking clarification as to why Attorney General Martha Coakley has not filed a response to your federal complaint. Among other reasons, a clear reason is that she is not required to respond, per order of the Hon. Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr., filed September 16, 2013.”

The Response from Martha Coakley was due 9/5/2013.
The Extension in time was requested on 9/6/2013 – by Kathleen Kane of PA.
Yes, Judge O’Neill did grant THAT extension request on 9/16/2013.
But, why did Martha know that would happen? or that it was even in the works? A clear reason would be she has incredible hindsight because the non-answer doesn’t quite fit.

If she had read the filing, ‘AMONG OTHER REASONS’ may have explained her reason for missing the deadline for response.
OR, ‘AMONG OTHER REASONS’ explained her reason for failing to reply and NOT asking the court for an extension.
OR, ‘AMONG OTHER REASONS’ includes her reason for not assigning herself or another attorney to handle the case and receive notifications.
OR, ‘AMONG OTHER REASONS’ her reason for not responding while waiting for the judge to grant the extension.
OR, ‘AMONG OTHER REASONS’ means she has no idea how to get out of being exposed as a party to the mandatory corruption and injustice which Rule 1.6 ‘lawfully’ causes at the expense of individual citizens constitutionally protected rights, among other things like family, occupation, liberty, freedon, credibility, … LIFE.
The-First-Rule-is-fight-club-8474492-600-759
Instead Martha Coakley simply ignored the Challenge and failed to address anything about it. Among other reasons – a MOST LIKELY REASON is that Martha Coakley is an attorney who under Rule 1.6 cannot lawfully address her failure to respond any issue surrounding Rule 1.6.

Yes, Rule 1.6 may be akin to the first 2 rules of ‘Fight Club’. BUT, RULE 1.6 IS NOT STRONGER THAN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Thomas Ball lit himself on fire in nearby New Hampshire in 2011 because he mysteriously lost his rights and NO ONE DID ANYTHING TO HELP.

Rule 1.6… Among other reasons.

Click Here for PDF Versions of the Challenge and Response Docs.

2013
10.22

Attorney General Kathleen Kane has issued a press release regarding a call for her impeachment.

Don’t let them use rhetoric to attempt to impeach you, Kathleen. Show some power. Flex some law. Unleash some Third Grade Civics on their pathetic attacks. Get lawful. Get Constitutional!

“”I have been, and always will be, committed to protecting, obeying and defending the Constitution of the United States and of Pennsylvania. I will continue to be the independent watchdog over state government to provide checks and balances on the power of those who seek to fulfill their own agenda. Public corruption and waste will not be tolerated. And I will act as the Commonwealth’s attorney, pursuant to the rules of Professional Responsibility.”
Why issue a powerful statement couched and nullified in the contrary RULES OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY??? Every time Kathleen refers to the Constitution and the State Law she undermines her statement with the Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1.6 is a lawyer’s kryptonite. BUT, It’s like the first rule of “Fight Club”.

Snap out of the politics, Kathleen. Your destiny is here.

Release the Constitution on their asses.


Kathleen Kane is the only US Attorney General to make any effort to thwart the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. If she is acting solely to hold back the repercussions until a plan is formed for JUSTICE after Rule 1.6, then I over estimated her. A rational and reasonable approach can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion. The “THWARTer” becomes the “THWARTee” – that’s Pennsylvania politics. Don’t play politics with my civil rights and liberties.

Injustice continues while the CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE is delayed. People lose hope when their civil rights and liberties are denied. People are committing suicide. Families are being destroyed. Communities are being ripped apart.

The other Attorneys General defaulted. The only Attorney General standing in the way of JUSTICE is Kathleen Kane.
The only Attorney General standing in the way of the US Constitution is Kathleen Kane.

kath

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=7251

“These people round here wear beaten down eyes shrunk in smoke dried faces so resigned to what their fate is.”
BUT NOT US. NO, NOT US. WE ARE FAR TOO YOUNG AND CLEVER.
TOO-RA-LOO-RA TOO-RA-LOO-RYE-AY
Come on, Kathleen!

2013
10.22

They filed 65 pages of complete HORSESHITE.

They never even attempt to produce a valid document granting them the title to the home.

They say that since they are in my home they get to keep it.

AND of the 5 original pages they filed, they file them twice. Once number and once not numbered.

See for yourself. (PDF)

2013
10.21

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 )

MOTION FOR CORRECTIONS TO THE DOCKET FOR THIS MATTER

1. Plaintiffs’ have been presented with discrepancies in the Docket for this matter and have been denied and prevented from addressing any necessary corrections or modifications.

2. A copy of the docket which was provided on October 18, 2013 by the Clerk of Courts is attached as Exhibit A.

3. Docket entries have been made in paragraph form containing multiple documents, as such the content of the docket entries are misleading.

4. There are fifty eight named parties to this matter, in the interest of clarity for all parties ivolved, an accurate representation of documents filed and docketed by the Clerk of COurts is essential.

5. A copy of the Plaintiffs’ issues and proposed corre3ctions is attached as Exhibit B.

As such, Plaintiffs resptctfully request the Court to order the Clerk of Courts to address the misleading entries to accurately and properly reflect the matter to the satisfaction of the parties.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy Todd M. Krautheim
871 Mustang Road 207 Woodspring Circle
Warrington, PA 18976 Doylestown, PA 18901

MOTION FOR CORRECTIONS TO THE DOCKET FOR THIS MATTER (PDF Version)

2013
10.21

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 )

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT

1. A Complaint Constitutional Challenge was filed on August 8, 20913 with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

2. Deputy Clerk Patricia A. Jones issued a Summons which was delivered to the Plaintiffs for service to the Attorneys General.

3. All Attorneys General were served the initial pleading, summons, and notice on August 13, 2013.

4. A Certificate os Service was filed on September 6, 2013 with copis of signature cards indicating receipt of documents by each of the Attorneys General.

ATTORNEY GENERAL

5. A Response has not been received or filed with the clerk of courts from the above-named Attorney General.

6. There is no record of a praecipe filed with the Clerk of Courts regarding appearance of counsel for the above-named Attorney General.

7. There is no record of representation entered into the Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”), or request to be excused from using the ECF for the above-named Attorney General.

8. The record indicates no representation for the Attorney General to receive documents filed with and issued by the Court which utilizes ECF as a device for service to parties.

9. The records contain no indication that the above-named Attorney General has been informed or has any awareness of pleadings, responses, motions and rulings in this ongoing matter.

INDICATION OF INTENT TO DEFAULT

10. Plaintiffs respectfully request clarification if it is the intention of the Attorney General to not respond and to accept the default ruling in this matter.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to Order the above-named Attorney General; to provoide an indication of their intention, an appearance by their representative counsel, an indication of awareness of this ongoing matter by motion or a response to the initial pleading filed on August 8, 2013.

Respectfully,


Terance Healy Todd M. Krautheim
871 Mustang Road 207 Woodspring Circle
Warrington, PA 18976 Doylestown, PA 18901


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (ALABAMA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (ALASKA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (AMERICAN SAMOA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (ARIZONA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (ARKANSAS)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (CALIFORNIA)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (COLORADO)

MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (CONNECTICUT)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (DELAWARE)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (FLORIDA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (GEORGIA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (GUAM)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (HAWAII)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (IDAHO)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (ILLINOIS)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (INDIANA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (IOWA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (KANSAS)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (KENTUCKY)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (LOUISIANA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MAINE)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MARYLAND)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MASSACHUSETTS)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MICHIGAN)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MINNESOTA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MISSISSIPPI)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MISSOURI)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (MONTANA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NEBRASKA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NEVADA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NEW HAMPSHIRE)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NEW JERSEY)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NEW MEXICO)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NEW YORK)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NORTH CAROLINA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NORTH DAKOTA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (OHIO)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (OKLAHOMA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (OREGON)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (PUERTO RICO)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (RHODE ISLAND)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (SOUTH CAROLINA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (SOUTH DAKOTA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (TENNESSEE)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (TEXAS)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (UTAH)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (VERMONT)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (VIRGIN ISLANDS)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (VIRGINIA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (WASHINGTON)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (WEST VIRGINIA)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (WISCONSIN)


MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT (WYOMING)

2013
10.21

The Constitutional Challenge
of
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information
of
The Rules of Professional Conduct

  • Not Lawfully Enacted
  • Violates Separation of Powers
  • Prevents prosecution of judicial misconduct and corruption
  • Results in a complete denial of Constitutionally protected rights and liberties
2009LincolnCommemObvLineArt copy

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” – Abraham Lincoln

 

The Challenge presents circumstances where the States have demonstrated their inability to take action to prosecute judicial corruption and misconduct.

Filed on their own behalf, and also for others – as a large portion of the citizenry of the United States have been placed at risk while the Attorneys General have ‘lawfully’ failed to take action to address or restore the lost rights and civil liberties of the People.

How was the Judiciary permitted to usurp the power of the Legislatures, and the Governors, enacting a law mandating judicial corruption and misconduct be ignored and excused while obstructing justice and denying Constitutionally protected liberties.

Rule 1.6 is authored, updated, edited, promoted, maintained, managed, directed and scripted by The American Bar Association.

How did the American Bar Association come to be responsible for this unconstitutional and improperly enacted law in EVERY state? The people demand an explanation.

wethepeople

2013
10.19

facebook-logoThe following is a dialogue from Facebook:

Terance Healy Permit me to explain how you lost your rights, what happened to the US Constitution, and how it happened.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT – – – (PDF Version)

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

T.J. Palazzolo What is this in regards to specifically Terance??
Terance Healy You may have noticed that people seem to think the constitution is dead, and can’t quite get anyone to address the issues. Turns out, I found the needle in the haystack. I had to. The injustice I experienced was not gonna end… so I had no choice but to find the cause and fix it. And when I found it, it was way bigger than the old buddy – good ole boy type network people discuss. THIS WAS DELIBERATE. Take 5 and read the post. It explains the story for everyone. I assure you I never imagined I’d file a case against EVERY Attorney General in the USA.
Terance Healy https://www.facebook.com/groups/ChallengeRule1.6/
Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
T.J. Palazzolo Dude…I’m better than half way through it and still don’t know what the case is concerning!!! Just answer the question!!!
Terance Healy The Supreme Court in every state has enacted a law – without the legislature – without the governor. It prevents prosecution for judicial corruption and crimes. Because they do not get prosecuted, the victims of their injustice are doomed to be terrorized without escape.
Terance Healy Judges and lawyers are not only above the law, they usurped the power to enact law, and to enforce law.
Terance Healy They did it in every State. Same Law. Same name. Same injustice results. OH, and it was written by the American Bar Asssociation so the word sedition comes to mind.
Terance Healy Think Foreclosure Crisis. An act of misconduct by an attorney – like a robo-signed deed, results in the injustice of a family losing their home. It wasn’t the bankers behind it – so they bankers didn’t go to jail. The lawyers and judges were behind it, and avoided any prosecution.
Terance Healy Seriously, did I over answer, or under answer?
T.J. Palazzolo O.K. I got it now….all that reading is making some sense!!! That shit has been going on for years!!!
T.J. Palazzolo You did great …once you started to answer it!!!
Terance Healy YES, current lawwyers have no idea WHY it is this way, they just know that it is. 1987 in PA. It rolled out across the country over 15 years.
T.J. Palazzolo 🙂
Terance Healy Thanks. Keep my answers sharp.
T.J. Palazzolo So as it stands now what’s goin’ on with it??
Terance Healy It is in Federal Court in Philadelphia. Case #13-4614. This doc was filed yesterday with the Court. Now we await 55 more of them from every state.
Terance Healy Then we get to the pre-hearing phase.
Terance Healy If the AGs are honorable, they will default and restore the Constitution Nationwide. It is truly the best thing they could do. BUT, there’s gonna be alot of pissed off people. Better to deal with the repercussions than continue the injustice.
T.J. Palazzolo So slow and steady and stay the course is the plan??
Terance Healy We are at the pace of the Federal Court in Philly. BUT, if they turn me down, the Appeal goes to the US Supreme Court in Washington. And maybe by then two guys from rural Pennsylvania will get some media attention for uncovering the overthrow of every state government by the Bar Association.
Terance Healy It has been steady… I’m no lawyer, and I do not want to be, or pretend to be one. IF I WAS, I COULD NOT LAWFULLY ADDRESS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LAW. Rule 1.6 makes that unlawful for lawyers.
T.J. Palazzolo Oh boy!!! These idiots have it all fucked up don’t they???
Terance Healy As soon as it was enacted, albeit illegally, it was unlawful to address it. Like The Terminator and Judgment Day.
Terance Healy Unlawful to address, UNLESS YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER.
T.J. Palazzolo Well I’m glad you stepped up to the plate brother!!!
Terance Healy Thanks for the dialogue. I am sure it will help others understand it as well.
Terance Healy JUSTICE IS COMING.
T.J. Palazzolo That’s what patriots do!!!
Terance Healy Looking forward to the day I can sing this song with pride again.


Lee Greenwood – God Bless the USA (Live in 1985)
If tomorrow all the things were gone,
I’d worked for all my life.
And I had to start again,
without my children and my wife.

I’d thank my lucky stars,
to be livin here today.
‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can’t take that away.

And I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

From the lakes of Minnesota,
to the hills of Tennessee.
Across the plains of Texas,
From sea to shining sea.

From Detroit down to Houston,
and New York to L.A.
Well there’s pride in every American heart,
and its time we stand and say.

That I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

And I’m proud to be and American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

2013
10.19

Filed on October 18, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
(PDF version)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

(PDF Version)

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS UNDER RULE 36
(PDF version)

Certificate of Service (PDF version)


The Federal Docket


300px-US_Eastern_Pennsylvania_District_Court

There seems to be NUMEROUS issues relating to the Federal Court Docket for Case# 13-4614.

Not only where items have been docketed improperly in paragraph form, but where they have been entered incorrectly resulting in necessary documents being concealed from view.

There is also the issue of the entire case docket being concealed from view in the PACER system.

The Federal Docket should read as follows:

08/08/2013 1 COMPLAINT – CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE filed by Terance Healy, Todd M. Krautheim;
and
Filing Fee $400 receipt number PPE0086455;
and
Civil Cover Sheet;
and
Case Management Track Designation Form;
08/08/2013 SUMMONS ISSUED TO GREG ABBOTT, American Samoa Attorney General, LUIS SÁNCHEZ BETANCES, JOSEPH R. “BEAU” BIDEN, III, PAM BONDI, JON BRUNING, JAMES D. “BUDDY” CALDWELL, MARTHA COAKLEY, JACK CONWAY, ROBERT E. COOPER, JR., ROY COOPER, KEN CUCCINELLI, MIKE DEWINE, BOB FERGUSON, JOSEPH A. FOSTER, TIM FOX, VINCENT FRAZER, DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, MICHAEL GERAGHTY, KAMALA HARRIS, JOHN JAY HOFFMAN, JIM HOOD, TOM HORNE, MARTY J. JACKLEY, GEORGE JEPSEN, KATHLEEN KANE, PETER KILMARTIN, GARY KING, CHRIS KOSTER, DAVID LOUIE, LISA MADIGAN, CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, DUSTIN MCDANIEL, PETER K. MICHAEL, TOM MILLER, JANET T. MILLS, PATRICK MORRISEY, IRVIN NATHAN, SAM OLENS, SCOTT PRUITT, LENNY RAPADAS, ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM, JOEY PATRICK SAN NICOLAS, DEREK SCHMIDT, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, BILL SCHUETTE, WILLIAM H. SORRELL, WAYNE STENEHJEM, LUTHER STRANGE, JOHN SUTHERS, JOHN SWALLOW, LORI SWANSON, J.B. VAN HOLLEN, LAWRENCE WASDEN, ALAN WILSON, GREG ZOELLER.
Forwarded to Pro Se on 8/9/13
08/08/2013 Special Case Management Track
09/06/2013 2 PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE AND FOR WAIVER OF PRO HAC VICE REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-PENNSYLVANIA DEFENDANTS;
and
PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF THE RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE AND WAIVER OF PRO HAC VICE REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-PENNSYLVANIA DEFENDANTS;
and
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.
Modified on 9/9/2013
09/06/2013 3 NOTICE of request for ECF filing;
and
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FOR INITIAL FILING.
Entered on 9/9/2013
09/09/2013 4 Letter dated 9/6/2013 from Terance Healy, Todd M. Krautheim re: Request for ECF Filing.
Entered on 09/09/2013
09/11/2013 5 PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE AND FOR WAIVER OF PRO HAC VICE REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-PENNSYLVANIA DEFENDANTS;
and
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.
Entered 09/11/2013
09/16/2013 6 ORDER
“AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 2013, upon consideration of Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane’s request for extension of the responsive pleading deadline and waiver of the pro hac vice requirements for non-Pennsylvania defendants, and plaintiffs’ response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the request is GRANTED. The non-Pennsylvania defendants shall not be required to file a responsive pleading to plaintiff’s pro se complaint until thirty days after the Court rules on Attorney General Kathleen Kanes’s notion to dismiss the complaint. It is further ORDERED that if the non-Pennsylvania defendants are required to file a responsive pleading, the pro hac vice requirements for the non-Pennsylvania defendants are waived. Plaintiffs do not oppose this waiver.” Signed by Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr on 09/16/2013.
Entered on 09/17/2013
09/27/2013 7 ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’s MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT;
and
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .
Entered on 09/27/2013
10/18/2013 8 PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
and
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
and
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS UNDER RULE 36;
and
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE;
and
MOTION FOR ECF FILING
and
AFFIDAVIT FOR ENTRY OF CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS PREVIOUSLY FILED AND DOCKETED on September 6, 2013 as CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.
%d bloggers like this: