2013
12.25

“Together we can find a better balance, end mass surveillance and remind the government that if it really wants to know how we feel asking is always cheaper than spying.” – Edward Snowden

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/alternative-christmas-message/4od

The missing part of the Edward Snowden story is WHY? Perhaps the necessity of preventing the American public from being informed of the problem with it’s judicial branch necessitated the surveillance. It just went out of control because no one could be told the true purpose.

Each state judiciary, under their lawful authority to self-regulate, rendered themselves a nullity. The Rules of Professional Conduct once enacted into LAW rendered the state courts unconstitutional because they denied the people of their rights protected by the US Constitution. The state courts were void… a nullity…

The state courts did not have the authority and necessary jurisdiction YET terrorized honest law abiding people into poverty, homelessness and suicide. Nowhere is this more evident than the family courts… where the twisted mental perversions and hatred of judges like Rhonda Lee Daniele, Thomas DelRicci, Garrett Page and Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio attacked every effort of their victims to persevere and survive. In my case, because of my ability to persevere and my incapacity for suicide, eighteen judicial terrorists attacked and annihilated every aspect of my life and existence. NOT ANY ONE OF THEM DID ANYTHING TO ADDRESS OR RESTORE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

2013
12.24

Rule 3.10 is similar to Model Rule 3.8(0, but its operative language is broken into two parts – the text of the rule itself, which contains the simple injunction that a prosecutor shall not subpoena an attorney to provide evidence about a current or former client without “prior judicial approval,”
– followed by a “Comment.”

The unique feature of Rule 3.10 appears in the comment, which begins as follows:
It is intended that the required “prior judicial approval” will normally be withheld unless.., the court finds
(1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by Rule 1.6, the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine …. (Emphasis added.)

PENNSYLVANIA RULES Rule 3.10 cmt.

What makes this provision striking is the fact that Rule 1.6 defines an attorney’s ethical obligation of non-disclosure of client information.

In short, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explicitly and unambiguously set out to convert an attorney’s personal ethical obligation of non-disclosure into an evidentiary rule equal in stature to the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine
and enforceable against the government in the person of the prosecutor.

They deliberately made it illegal to prosecute crimes… or to address the failure of the system.

When the judiciary and the entire legal profession dismissed the basic rights of the people, they created a void, an imbalance, an irreparable violation of the public trust. You can’t fix it when you have destroyed and killed so many people deliberately to conceal the sedition and treason.

America was so pre-occupied blaming everyone else for the failure, so preoccupied with protecting freedom by denying freedom… America never noticed the judiciary initiated an anarchy that has torn so many people’s lives apart.

The Judiciary broke the Constitution.
The Legislative watched.
The Executive Branch prepares for martial law, because it’s a likely outcome once the anarchy crosses a threshold.

2013
12.24

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is a deliberate, intentional and pivotal part of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It is also a completely unnecessary element of any forum which sincerely seeks the truth.

Each entry in the Rules of Professional Conduct has a contrary nullifying entry. Rule 1.6, 3.3, 3.8, 4.2 are frequently cross-referenced and manipulated to propose a decision in any direction.

They are impediments, both in law or practice, that jeopardise the administration of justice and the rape every rule of law and human rights standard.

CONSIDERING MODEL RULES 3.3, 3.8 AND 4.2 IS A MOCKERY OF ANY LEGITIMATE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

The rules discussed above are contrary to existing federal law, the principal concern is not with whether the rules would be sensible in a legal system. It is necessary to question whether they are appropriate as ethical standards. You may remember that the Rules of Professional Conduct are a minimum ethical standard. The most Minimum ethics would be none. They hit their mark. They were going for none.

[Could this be why the legal profession is so caught up with conferring honorable titles upon each other.]

The three rules represent a new, troubling and ultimately illegitimate use of the process of professional self-regulation for lawyers. These rules are an abuse of the ethics regulation process, even if viewed only from within the confines of the bar.

An even more profound difficulty with these rules flows from the fact that their enforcement would markedly change the parameters of basic constitutional rights, principally the right to counsel, and would alter the character of a fundamental institution of the criminal justice system, the grand jury.

When combined with Rule 1.6 the confidentiality results in the complete denial of rights AND a litigant is left with no possible way to address it.

By design and intent the Rules of Professional Conduct – the LAW enacted by the Judiciary – has clear designs to ignore constitutionally protected rights and leave you without any recourse.

The denial of your constitutionally protected rights has been legalized.

While remaining unconstitutional, you are abandoned unrepresented to be further victimized by injustice with no possible escape because IT IS THE LAW.

IT IS ONLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO YOU. AND YOU MUST BE THE ONE TO DISCOVER AND PRESENT THAT TO THE FEDERAL COURT.

Todd Krautheim and Terance Healy found it… in civil, criminal and family courts… in every state… undermining the judiciary… and mandating injustice… filed the CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE of RULE 1.6 on August 8, 2013 in the US Federal District Court in Philadelphia.

Every lawyer, every prosecutor, every District Attorney, every Attorney General, every Judge knew of the ethical and moral black hole in the judicial system. BUT, when implemented the same combination of LAWS made it illegal and unlawful to do anything to correct the sin of the judicial branch of government.

Todd & Terance are not lawyers. They found it. LAWFULLY. They lawfully petitioned the federal courts to declare the the deliberately unethical and immoral Rules of Professional Conduct UNCONSTITUTIONAL. LAWFULLY.

At that point, the Constitution will be resurrected. Justice will be restored. And the injustice caused by the unconstitutional law can be addressed with those responsible.




The EVIL realization is that you can search on any internet search engine for Rule 1.6 in combination with any word describing ethics and morale and propriety… and you will find published law review documents and student writings and professional documentation which proves the entire legal profession was aware. Very aware. THEY FUCKING KNEW. THEY ALL FUCKING KNEW.

The judicial branch of the government let their system terrorize people to poverty, homelessness and suicide.

The entire judicial branch made themselves unconstitutional. A nullity. Which does not exist; that which is not properly in the nature of things. In a figurative sense, and in law, having no more effect than if it did not exist, and also the defect which prevents it from having such effect. That which is absolutely void. By design, and in accordance with the US Constitution they are void.

The judicial branch and everyone working within had no professional or personal sense of self-respect or morality or humanity to resolve the systemic crisis. For that violation of the public trust, the punishment should most definitely fit the crime.

The judicial branch can no longer be self-r trusted to be self regulating. They blew it.

2013
12.24

Protecting Democracy, Civil Liberties, and the Rule of Law.

Free debate within the United States is essential to the long-term vitality of American democracy and helps bolster democracy globally. Excessive surveillance and unjustified secrecy can threaten civil liberties, public trust, and the core processes of democratic self-government.

All parts of the government, including those that protect our national security, must be subject to the rule of law.

PDF file

2013
12.23

I have NEWS. After a long 4 days of research reviewing the “Analysis and Interpretation of the US Constitution” and the “Homeland Security Legal Division Handbook” and many other documents available online from the US Govt, I am able to confirm every aspect of the terror that I have been put through since 2007.

Every intrusion. Every Injustice. Every single thing. The docs corroborate every action and intrusion, every fear and threat that I have been writing on this web site for what feels like decades. I am still awaiting a copy of the US Attorney Civil Rights Manual.

America must stand firmly for the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the absolute power of the state; free speech; freedom of worship; equal justice; respect for people; religious and ethnic tolerance; and respect for private property.

Additionally, EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is proper and appropriate in the District Court. Third Circuit will have no trouble deciding.

An improper and unsubstantiated dismissal by a Federal District Court Judge demonstrates the collusion. The US Courts are truly corrupt. They made it impossible to fix it themselves. I’ll fix it. Not so certain we can trust them with that self governing concept. The lawyers and judges have demonstrated their willful and deliberate intent to deny, prevent and obfuscate the US Justice system and undermined every state government. As a profession they violated a national trust without regard for people’s dignity and lives.

I see no reason why that type of malicious corruption should be permitted to persist. What would ever cause judges to believe it was acceptable behavior to terrorize a man and deny him everything, isolate and attack and destroy him even denying his most basic Constitutional rights.

I have always believed that I was being prevented from finding documents… and prevented from information which would corroborate my experience. I finally found them.

Emotionally I don’t know how I feel. I think I am disgusted at the Montgomery County Judiciary for what they deliberately did to annihilate my life. I asked in May 2013, and I’ll ask them again now. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? Deliberately using injustice as a means of terror. The level of EVIL is incomprehensible.

I feel proud. I did the one positive thing I could do in the situation. I persevered. I survived. I WILL MAKE SURE THEY NEVER HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DESTROY ANYONE EVER AGAIN. Humiliated beyond belief. I have self respect. I have dignity.

TAKE YOUR ILLEGAL UNETHICAL AND IMMORAL SURVEILLANCE GEAR AND GET OUT OF THE WAY.
JUSTICE IS COMING!

“I find some of what you teach suspect
because I am used to relying on intellect
but I try to open up to what I don’t know
because reason says I should have died three years ago”

I did not lose my dignity. Some people cared. I will wake tomorrow from this nightmare.
Terance

www.work2bdone.com/live

2013
12.22

behrI wonder if they will find an attorney to take her spot. They will need someone who is required to keep the secrets of judicial corruption which are pervasive in Montco.

A court so corrupt and unjust it has demonstrated the necessity of a Constitutional Challenge of the Law which cause the complete failure of law and justice under the nose of Risa Ferman and the watchful eye of 3 PA Attorneys general. A law in every state which requires confidentiality of lawyers, District attorneys, and attorney generals when it comes to Judicial corruption.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 will resurrect the Constitution.

Sheriff Eileen Behr Resigns To Take New Job

2013
12.21

2013-12-21 20.53.57

2013
12.20

Those who are acting to prevent or delay the restoration of Constitutionally protected rights are on notice. They could face federal prosecution. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed to restore rights and liberties which have been lawfully, but unconstitutionally, ignored.

It was served to each US Attorney General to address the unconstitutionality of a law. No other distractions. Nothing more.

There was no concurrent request to seek remuneration from any Attorney General.

“IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THE US ATTORNEYS GENERAL HAD AGREED TO DEFAULT ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE AND LAWFULLY RESTORE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS TO THE PEOPLE IN EVERY STATE.”

BUT IF REQUIRED… This can be filed again and again and again.

Constitutionality will always have standing, injury and a cause for relief. Those who take an active part in preventing and obstructing the case before the federal court will likely be subject to criminal prosecution. Their actions will not be the deliberate lawful neglect which the issue has faced previously. Their actions will be documented and occur in full view of federal court.



In federal courts, cases against officials acting on behalf of states are permitted to proceed despite the State’s Sovereign immunity where the State has acted unconstitutionally.

When a state official does something that is unconstitutional, the official cannot possibly be doing it in the name of the state. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that the Constitution overrides all the laws of the states, invalidating any contrary laws. Therefore, when a state official attempts to enforce an unconstitutional law, that individual is stripped of his official character. He becomes merely another citizen who can constitutionally be brought before a court by a party seeking injunctive relief.

The Court held that suits may be brought to enjoin state officials from enforcing unconstitutional laws in the United States District Courts, which have the power to enjoin those officials from enforcing such laws.


42 USC § 1985 – Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

(1) Preventing officer from performing duties
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof;
or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;

(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror;
or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;


Conspiracy Against Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241.
Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute.

Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 242. This provision makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

2013
12.18

What if you discovered there was a law which mandated injustice? preventing prosecution of those responsible? and that it was illegal to annul or strike the law? where the result was people lost their rights and the judiciary lost integrity.

No District Attorney could prosecute the injustice. No Attorney General could request an investigation by Federal authorities – the law made that unlawful.

The Supreme Court which enacted the law is precluded from removing it.

The only lawful way to remove the law is for a person to have been denied their rights by that law, suffered damages, had standing and a cause for relief and filed in federal court. No lawyer would be permitted to handle the case. THAT would not be lawful. The only lawful approach is by non-lawyers.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6. (Filed August 8, 2013)

Responsible Attorneys General, not lawfully permitted to take any action which would expose the corrupt law, would permit a default to occur and thus restore the constitutional rights of the people.

A Judge loses his integrity by issuing contradictory statements which do not support his decision.

A Judge refuses to reconsider his application of incorrect rules and procedures.

THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (Filed December 2, 2013)

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 …

JUSTICE IS COMING.

2013
12.10

DIVORCE CORP - FACT SHEET 121013-page-001

%d bloggers like this: