2014
01.30

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim #13-4591
on behalf of the United States
v.
Kathleen Kane
Pennsylvania Attorney General
and
The Attorneys General of the United States


Appeal to
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
from the Order and Memorandum entered in
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
on the 29th day of October, 2013.

Submitted by :
Terance Healy
871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976
215-343-1686

Todd M. Krauitheim
207 Woodspring Circle
Doylestown, A 18901


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Jurisdictional Statement
District Court
Court of Appeals
Filing Dates
Final Order

Issue #1
Issue #2
Issue #3
Issue #4
Issue #5
Background
Personal
Appendices

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT #13-4591

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

DISTRICT COURT

The jurisdiction of the District 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 or 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

The venue is properly placed in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania fir civil action;
– where a substantial p[art 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

Evidence of proper standing has been presented in the true and factual circumstances and actions documented and admissions filed with the United Sates District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

COURT OF APPEALS

The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit is invoked as memorandum and Order being appealed from has been issued by the United states District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

FILING DATES

On August 8, 2013, a Complaint Constitutional Challenge was filed in the United states District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On October 29, 2013, a Memorandum and Order was filed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On November 26, 2013, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On December 2, 2013, A Notice of Appeal was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On December 2, 2013, an Order was filed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying the Motion for Reconsideration.

FINAL ORDER

As Such, the Appellants appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from the FINAL ORDER dated October 29, 2013.


ISSUE #1

Did the Court fail to act pursuant to FRCP 5.1(b) CERTIFICATION BY THE COURT of a Constitutional Challenge?

HISTORY OF ISSUE

On August 8, 2013, Plaintiffs (Appellants) filed the Complaint – Constitutional Challenge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (#13-4614).

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4(b) Summons Issuance. Individual summons were prepared by Deputy Clerk Patricia A. Jones, signed, sealed and issued to Plaintiffs for service in accordance with FRCP Rule 4(c).

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5.1(a) , Plaintiffs (Appellants) served the Constitutional Challenge, summons and notice upon each Attorney General by the United States Postal Service using certified mail, return receipt requested.

On September 6, 2013, Plaintiffs provided the court with proof of service and certified mail receipts to all Attorneys General. The seventy seven page document was not properly entered into the docket by the Court.

The Information in the proof of service document filed on September 6, 2013 was not properly entered into the docket.
Plaintiffs (Appellants) called this to the attention of the Clerk on September 11. 2013.
Plaintiffs (Appellants) called this to the attention of the Clerk on Octo0ber 18, 2013
Plaintiffs (Appellants) called this to the attention of the Court in a MOTION FOR CORRECTIONS TO THE DOCKET filed on October 21, 2013.

During each meeting with the Clerk, the issue of Certification by the Court was presented but not addressed or acted upon.

After October 21, 2013 with information from the proof of service documents having been properly entered into the docket, ‘answer due’ dates were calculated documenting the failure of EVERY Attorney General to provide a timely response to the Constitutional Challenge.

Only one of the fifty six (56) Attorneys General was represented and registered to receive electronic notices after filing an untimely motion on behalf of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

The docket reflects the failure of fifty-five (55) Attorneys General to answer or file an appearance or register for notices in the matter as required by law.

On September 6, 2013, an untimely motion on behalf of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane was filed. The motion was not served upon the fifty-five (55) other Attorneys General, who additionally had not registered for electronic notices as required by law.

The ‘Transaction Report’ on the Docket indicates the motion was immediately terminated on September 6, 2013.

The ‘Transaction Report’ on the Docket indicates no connection to the Plaintiffs Response filed on September 11, 2013.

The Motion, which specifically ‘does not represent the other defendants” who were not served with the document, was GRANTED on September 16, 2013.

On September 16, 2013, the ‘Parties Report’ from the Docket indicates a conversion of each Attorney General to an ‘Unrepresented Party PRO SE’.

The ‘Transaction Report’ on the Docket indicates no connection between the Order of the Court dated September 16, 2013 and the Motion Filed on September 6, 2013 or the Plaintiffs’ (Appellants’) Response filed on September 11, 2013.

Plaintiffs (Appellants) prepared MOTION FOR INDICATION OF INTENTION TO DEFAULT which were filed on October 21, 2013 and served upon each of the 56 Attorneys General. Docket #14-67

The Docket fails to include the Motion prepared and served upon Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler.

On October 23, 2013, the Court DENIED the Motions without opportunity for an answer or other response from the Attorneys General.

LAW

RULE 5.1 CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO A STATUTE – NOTICE, CERTIFICATION, AND INTERVENTION

Rule 5.1(b) Certification by the Court. The court must, under 28 U.S.C. 2403, certify to the appropriate attorney general that a statute has been questioned.

The purpose of ‘certification’ is to assure and confirm that an attorney general has been appropriately notified of the constitutional challenge of a statute. If a default should occur due to non-response or failure to answer the summons, the certification by the court serves the purpose of indicating that the default was a deliberate and intentional act by the attorney general.

Local Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 7.1(c) indicates “Unless the Court directs otherwise, any party opposing the motion shall serve a brief in opposition together with such an answer or other response that may be appropriate, within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion.”

ANSWER

Did the Court fail to act pursuant to FRCP 5.1(b) CERTIFICATION BY THE COURT of a Constitutional Challenge?

YES. The Court failed to certify to the Attorneys General that a statute had been questioned.


ISSUE #2

Did the Court fail to act pursuant to Rule 5.1(c) INTERVENTION of a Constitutional Challenge?

HISTORY OF ISSUE

On August 8, 2013, Plaintiffs (Appellants) filed the Complaint – Constitutional Challenge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (#13-4614).

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4(b) Summons Issuance. Individual summons were prepared by Deputy Clerk Patricia A. Jones, signed, sealed and issued to Plaintiffs for service in accordance with FRCP Rule 4(c).

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5.1(a) , Plaintiffs (Appellants) served the Constitutional Challenge, summons and notice upon each Attorney General by the United States Postal Service using certified mail, return receipt requested.

On September 6, 2013, Plaintiffs provided the court with proof of service and certified mail receipts to all Attorneys General. The seventy seven page document was not properly entered into the docket by the Court.

The Information in the proof of service document filed on September 6, 2013 was not properly entered into the docket.
Plaintiffs (Appellants) called this to the attention of the Clerk on September 11. 2013.
Plaintiffs (Appellants) called this to the attention of the Clerk on Octo0ber 18, 2013
Plaintiffs (Appellants) called this to the attention of the Court in a MOTION FOR CORRECTIONS TO THE DOCKET filed on October 21, 2013.

During each meeting with the Clerk, the issue of Intervention pursuant to Rule 5.1(c) was presented but not addressed or acted upon.

On October 29, 2013, the Court dismissed the Complaint – Constitutional Challenge.

On November 26, 2013, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed.

On December 2, 2013, a Notice of Appeal was filed appealing the Order of October 29, 2013.

On December 2, 2013, the Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration.

On December 5, 2013, a Summons and Complaint – Constitutional Challenge was accepted by the U.S. Attorney.

LAW

RULE 5.1 CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO A STATUTE – NOTICE, CERTIFICATION, AND INTERVENTION
Rule 5.1(c) INTERVENTION; FINAL DECISION ON THE MERITS. Unless the court sets a later time, the attorney general may intervene within 60 days after the notice is filed or after the court certifies the challenge, whichever is earlier. Before the time to intervene expires, the court may reject the constitutional challenge, but may not enter a final judgment holding the statute unconstitutional.

Rule 5.1(d) NO FORFEITURE. A party’s failure to file and serve the notice, or the court’s failure to certify, does not forfeit a constitutional claim or defense that is otherwise timely asserted.

ANSWER

Did the Court fail to act pursuant to Rule 5.1(c) INTERVENTION of a Constitutional Challenge?

YES. The court failed to act pursuant to Rule 5.1(c).
The court did not set a later time for intervention.
The Notice of the Constitutional Challenge was filed on August 8, 2013. The US Attorney accepted service of a summons and complaint on December 5, 2013. The attorney general did not intervene within 60 days after the notice was filed.
The court did NOT certify the challenge.

Pursuant to Rule 5.1(c), the failure of the court to certify the challenge and allow for the intervention by the attorney general prohibits the court from entering a final judgment holding the statute unconstitutional.


ISSUE #3

Did the Court ignore, deny, prevent and obstruct the Attorneys General from intentional default in the matter?

HISTORY OF ISSUE

As presented in Issue #1 and Issue #2, the court has demonstrated deliberate intentional actions which ignore the Federal Rules of Civil procedure.

As presented in Issue #1 and Issue #2, the court has taken an active position to deny and prevent the Attorneys General from any answer, response or non-response action which would indicate their decision to default on this matters.

The Docket and the related docket reports demonstrate activity by the court which misrepresents the matter, the activity in the matter, and any attempt to correct the inaccurate information contained in the docket.

The neglectful and deliberate actions of the Court demonstrate extraordinary efforts to remove the Attorneys General from the matter, excusing every failure to respond or answer while preventing the opportunity for deliberate and intentional default.

Certification would require the Attorneys General to respond indicating the constitutionality of the statute, or to not respond indicating their informed intentional default.

ANSWER

Did the Court ignore, deny, prevent and obstruct the Attorneys General from intentional default in the matter?

YES, the Court has ignored, denied, prevented and obstructed the Attorneys General from intentional default in the matter.


ISSUE #4

Did the court incorrectly dismiss the matter without basis in law while failing to substantiate any justification for dismissal in law, doctrine or case law?

HISTORY OF ISSUE

The Court has written that the decision was based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which does not subject this matter to dismissal, and the Younger abstention which is not relevant to the constitutional matter before this Court, and Article III which grants judicial power to the District Court for cases which arise under the US Constitution.

Plaintiffs respectfully address the issues presented by the Court’s Memorandum dated October 29, 2013.

Plaintiffs have filed this Constitutional Challenge to address the denial of their civil rights and liberties which are guaranteed by the US Constitution.

The denial of their rights and liberties has been caused by an improperly and unlawfully enacted state law – Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Pursuant to Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968, Article V, Section 10(c), “… the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure, and conduct of all courts… if such rules are consistent with Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive right of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of peace, nor suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose. All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions.” As Rule 1.6 causes the denial of substantive rights of a litigant, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court lacks the authority required to properly and lawfully enact Rule 1.6 into law.

The Plaintiffs have been directly harmed by the denial of their constitutionally protected rights. The harm suffered will continue until the law which mandates that the state courts ignore their rights is nullified and their rights and liberties are restored.

The Constitutional Challenge before this court is a NECESSITY. The Challenge presents the loss of constitutionally protected rights and liberties and the irreparable harm and inescapable injustice which occurs when basic rights and liberties are irretrievably denied and prevented.

While the plaintiffs have clearly stated their singular intention to present the constitutional challenge to this Honorable Court for review, the Court has inappropriately and incorrectly written “that plaintiffs seek review and rejection of decisions previously made by the Pennsylvania state courts.” The state court records are evidentiary for the purpose of demonstrating the unconstitutionality of actions mandated by the law being challenged.

The Court incorrectly writes that “it is clear that plaintiffs are, at bottom, asking the Court to consider and reverse determinations made in the state court divorce and mortgage foreclosure proceedings.”

The referenced footnote on page eight correctly indicates “To the extent that plaintiffs do “not, [in their complaint,] complain of injuries caused by a state court decision,” and instead raise “a direct challenge to the constitutionality” of Rule 1.6, their complaint is “not subject to dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.” Gray v Yavil, 513 F. App’x 210,212(3d Cir. 2013)

Plaintiffs have not petitioned this Honorable Court to affirm or reject any decision or opinion of the state court. Plaintiffs concur with the Court that the constitutional challenge is “not subject to dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.”

This matter is properly placed in the US District Court as the proper court of first instance for a Constitutional Challenge. The underlying state court cases are not the subject of review. The state court actions and decisions are the evidence which demonstrates the constitutional issue and the necessity for this challenge.

The state court lacks jurisdiction to address a Constitutional Challenge where the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution have been denied as a consequence of a state law. Additionally, the state court is prevented from a proper review of the matter as the law being challenged mandates and prevents any proceeding or remedy at the state level. The constitutionality of the law must be addressed at a federal level.

The state supreme court’s direct responsibility for authoring, enacting and enforcing the law in question represents an undeniable conflict of interest which would preclude the state supreme court from proper jurisdiction. The state supreme court is prevented by Rule 1.6 from acting sua sponte to address the unconstitutional law. Rule 1.6 resists lawful resolution of the constitutional issue further demonstrating the necessity of this matter before this Honorable Court.

The Younger Abstention does not apply to this constitutional issue as there can be no state proceeding which affords any opportunity to raise this federal/constitutional claim.

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5.1(a)(2) Constitutional Challenge to a Statute – Notice, Certification, and Intervention, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane and the Attorneys General of the United States have been served with the Constitutional Challenge as “a party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned – or on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned.”

There has been no record on the Court docket regarding Certification by the Court with the Attorneys General that a statute has been questioned pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5.1(b).

Attorney General Kathleen Kane and this Court have improperly understated and paraphrased the law being challenged in this matter with the implication that the plaintiffs are challenging ‘attorney-client privilege’. Plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 in it’s entirety.

Analysis of Rule 1.6 indicates it is not a necessity for justice. It was only after Rule 1.6 was enacted into law that the denial of Constitutional Rights became lawful and injustice was ignored.

Once this Court has ruled on the constitutionality of the law, the litigants rights will be restored and state court will be lawfully permitted to hear, address and resolve the injustices experienced in the state courts. The Judiciary will have the ability and opportunity to correct injustices and restore their integrity through each judges own actions and rulings. The judiciary should never have been mandated to suffer the loss of integrity required to conceal injustice.

The evidence in support of the facts in the complaint demonstrate the denial of constitutionally protected rights by the state courts. Those civil rights and liberties have been denied and ignored as a mandate of the law being challenged.

The Plaintiffs have yet to present this Court with their experience in the state courts which clearly demonstrates the denial of their rights, the injustices experienced in their respective cases, and the inability of the courts and the government to permit due process and procedure to petition the government for redress of grievances.

The relief requested will not usurp state jurisdiction or authority, or overturn any state decision(s) or opinion(s). The remedy will permit the state court to address parties in an unbiased, unaffected and fully informed equal forum.

It is not appropriate or lawful for this Honorable Court to dismiss this Constitutional Challenge and further deny, delay and prevent the plaintiffs from their civil rights and liberties under the United States Constitution.

Plaintiffs have presented their ‘injury in fact” and the causal connection between the injury and the law being challenged. A determination that Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional would permit the injury to be addressed by restoring their constitutional rights in the state courts.

The injury is defined, documented and evident upon review of the state court record.

The chance of future injury occurring is likely and demonstrated by the matter already indicated for inclusion in this matter. In Healy v Healy where a defective and void series of court orders has been used as the basis for a penalty in excess of $300,000 ordered in March 2013.

The chance of future injury occuring is actual and demonstrated in the matter of Healy v Miller, where a defective and void order from Healy v Healy has been improperly presented by Miller in November 2013 as a valid order of the court with statement that the validity of the defective and void order, a nullity, cannot be collaterally challenged in an Action for Ejectment.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT #13-4591

ANSWER

Did the court incorrectly dismiss the matter without basis in law while failing to substantiate any justification for dismissaal in law, doctrine or caselaw?

YES, the court has incorrectly dismissed the matter without basis in law while failing to substantiate any justification for dismissal in law, doctrine or caselaw.

The Court’s review of the pleadings indicates proper subject matter jurisdiction, a valid statement of a claim for which relief can be granted, proper authority and jurisdiction for this Court to proceed with the matter, and a concise statement of the case being presented to the Court.

As the Court is not required to dismiss the matter under Rooker-Feldman doctrine, or Younger abstention.

Article III of the US Constitution provides jurisdiction and authority to the Court for all cases which arise under the constitution.


ISSUE #5

Did the Court fail to reconsider the matter based on an incorrect application of LRCP Rule 7.1(g) where FRCP Rule 52(b) applies to an action which concludes the matter before the court?

HISTORY OF ISSUE

On October 29, 2013, in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 52(a)(1), The Court filed a Memorandum and Order writing its findings of facts specially and stating its conclusions of law separately.

On November 26, 2013, Plaintiffs (Appellants) filed a Motion for Reconsideration timely pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 52(b).

A Certificate of Service was filed concurrently with the Motion for Reconsideration on November 26, 2013.

On December 2, 2013, while awaiting the Court’s decision on the Motion for Reconsideration and pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a Notice of Appeal was filed timely appealing to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from the Order and Memorandum dated October 29, 2013.

On December 2, 2013, The Court issued an Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration as untimely pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 7.1(g).

There had/has been no response filed by any of Attorneys General regarding to the Motion for Reconsideration.

LAW

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 7(b) applies to Pleadings and Motions generally.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 6(c)(1)(B) Time for Motion Papers applies to Motions generally with an exception “when these rules set a different time.”

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 52(b) Findings and Conclusions by the Court permits the court to amend its judgment on a parties motion filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.

Local Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 7.1(c) indicates “Unless the Court directs otherwise, any party opposing the motion shall serve a brief in opposition together with such an answer or other response that may be appropriate, within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion.”

Local Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 7.1(g) permits “Motions for reconsideration or reargument shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after entry of the judgment, order or decree concerned.”

Local Rules of Civil Procedure of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania do not indicate any effective date or revocation with regard to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 6 or Rule 52.

ANSWER

Did the Court fail to reconsider the matter based on an incorrect application of LRCP Rule 7.1(g) where FRCP Rule 52(b) applies to an action which concludes the matter before the court?

Where Plaintiffs (Appellants) have acted in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has incorrectly applied LRCP Rule 7.1(g) and failed to recognize the exception permitted pursuant to FRCP Rule 52(b) applicable to an action which concludes the matter before the court which permits the parties to file a motion no later than 28 days after entry of judgment.

Plaintiffs (Appellants) respectfully request their uncontested Motion for Reconsideration be GRANTED.


BACKGROUND – THE NECESSITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALENGE

( Healy v Healy )
Since 2007, after years of seeking assistance from local, state and federal law enforcement and being summarily disregarded; and after years of requests seeking local, state and federal government involvement were completely ignored; and after years of filing documents exposing the deliberate injustice which were summarily dismissed without review or explanation. The failure of everyone in a position to address or resolve any legal issue was absolute and the failure to provide any explanation was unacceptable.

Those who were ignoring the clear and well-documented reports of the injustice were concealing the matter and enabling and causing further injustice.

Those who were deliberately failing to follow state law and documented court procedure excused their own misconduct without consequence and never explained, justified or addressed their actions.

The state court absolved without penalty the failure of others to follow court orders; to follow state law; and to follow court procedures. This ‘courtesy’ was not granted to plaintiff, Terance Healy. Never. Ever. EVERY false allegation against plaintiff, Terance Healy, was scheduled with the state court for immediate review and was required to be disproved. Plaintiff, Terance Healy, followed every state court order issued in the matter whether the order was valid, invalid, unjust, void, voidable, within or outside the jurisdiction of the court. Even where the order was unconstitutional. Even where the court order caused irreparable harm.

Plaintiff, Terance Healy, petitioned the state court to address and correct their improper, unlawful and unjust actions. The state court ignored and dismissed those pleadings. As a result of diligence and perseverance, the injustice is well-documented on the state court record.

Everyone acting, or not acting, in any regard failed to remedy or resolve any issue and each believed their actions were lawful.

Since 2007, a lack of jurisdiction was the most frequent reason given for inaction by law enforcement even where the law clearly indicated their proper jurisdiction for the situation.

Since 2007, no explanation was provided for the injustice of the state court. Eighteen judges have been assigned to the divorce matter. None have explained the injustice. Each subsequent judge sacrifices their integrity to deny, conceal and endorse the lack of integrity of the prior judges in the matter.

The injustice was inescapable. Any order could be raised in any court at any time by any party to cause an additional injustice which the court would not explain or justify. Appeals filed timely and served properly were prevented from being transmitted to the appellate court. The law, the truth, court procedures and jurisdiction were not a necessity or a concern to the state court.

It was necessary to determine the cause of the complete breakdown of the legal system and the state judiciary, and why each level of law enforcement and the judiciary believed their actions were lawful.

It was necessary to find, define, document and address a law that made deliberate injustice ‘lawful’.

Rule 1.6 is the unconstitutional law which mandates deliberate injustice.

Rule 1.6 must be followed by legal professionals, lawyers, law professors, district attorneys, attorneys general, the judiciary, a majority of each state legislature, a majority of the United States Congress, employees of the United States Department of Justice, the legal counsel consulted by law enforcement agencies, the legal counsel who advise the media, and many others.

Since 2007, every person and court to whom plaintiff, Terance Healy, pleaded for assistance and relief was mandated to follow Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information. Non-legal professionals were advised to ignore the injustice by their legal counsel who is mandated to follow Rule 1.6. The mandated ‘confidentiality’ extends to any explanation for actions or inaction.

Enabled and excused by the unconstitutional Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION, the direct violation of procedures and law prevents resolution of the matter

PERSONAL

Plaintiff (Appellant), Terance Healy, has defined the situation of what it is like to experience the loss of Constitutional rights as follows:

I am a sane man dealing with an absolutely insane situation. Every person in a position to help has acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter… they each make the situation worse… NO ONE HELPED.

The impact and effect of the loss of rights and the inability to have them respected and addressed by the state courts has resulted in his being homeless, destitute, losing all his property, having no prospects for improvement, denied and prevented from any recovery or survival as every effort to persevere and enjoy life causes further litigation and attacks in a court which has ignored his inalienable right to life liberty.

Plaintiff (Appellant), Terance Healy, receives no public assistance in any form from any local, state or federal programs. After suffering the humiliation of applying and being turned down, the opportunity to address the decision can only be addressed in state courts where his rights have been summarily dismissed and ignored.

Plaintiff (Appellant), Terance Healy, has had his life and his family annihilated. After years of being prevented any custody or visitation with his children by the court, the courts direct involvement of his children, the relationship with every member of his family has been severed.

While prevented and hindered from recovery and survival at every turn , the litigation in federal courts has been extended and delayed based on unsubstantiated and baseless statements.

Each improper action of the court requires more and more effort to research and prepare a required response or action where daily survival has been hindered. The court is requiring a destitute person to incur additional expenses, pressure and stresses to accomplish a task which if his constitutionally protect rights were available, the situation would not exist.

There is no future when the rights of the people are being ignored.

SUMMARY

Terance Healy and Todd Krautheim have filed a Constitutional Challenge with the Attorneys General of the United States regarding 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 integrity of the judiciary.

When enacted into law by each of the state courts at the behest and misguided recommendation of the American Bar Association, a guideline of professionally acceptable conduct was made LAW making it unlawful and illegal to act in an ethical and moral manner under threat of facing prompt, immediate disciplinary prosecution.

Healy and Krautheim seek a determination that the state law is unconstitutional which will restore their rights in the state, and restore the integrity of the judiciary and the reputation of professionals involved in the process and enforcement of law.

The Attorneys General of the United States have lawfully acted to default in this matter and their deliberate efforts and intentions, lawful under Rule 1.6, have been denied, prevented and delayed by the court.

A finding of ‘unconstitutional’ will permit the state to address litigants with their civil rights in full force and effect without a ‘lawful’ mandate which denies law, obstructs justice and negatively affects the integrity of the courts.

An Oral Argument is requested.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Terance Healy       Todd M. Krautheim

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: