2014
01.13

Well somebody is likely not too happy that today’s posting was DIRECT. It is remarkable how the mighty with their unlimited resources and financing fear the small.

I was banned on Facebook.

I was posting to the groups to which I have belonged and participated for years:
FBRestriction

The American Bar Association has caused the problem, deliberately, intentionally, unethically, immorally, and unconstitutionally. They then made it illegal for lawyers and judges to fix it.

Along comes 2 pro se defendants who can demonstrate the loss of constitutional rights and the law which caused it to happen and further caused it to be ignored by every level of law enforcement. Because it became unlawful to prosecute judicial corruption.

Simply put… That’s Unconstitutional.
JUSTICE IS COMING. https://www.facebook.com/groups/ChallengeRule1.6/


Perhaps a status update of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is in order…

It is my belief that the US Attorneys General support the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6. Their oath of office indicates their responsibility to the US Constitution, BUT their Rules of Professional Conduct which they must follow as lawyers nullifies the rights of the people and prevents them from lawfully taking action to address the unconstitutionality of the law.

Each Attorney General failed to respond to the federal summons issued and served in August 2013. The Attorneys General intended to default, and have actually defaulted. The Attorneys General failed to answer. They also failed to file any appearance of counsel even though pro hac vice requirements were waived by Judge O’Neill. The one document electronically filed on behalf of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane was untimely – and lacked any explanation or excuse.

The actions which have resulted in the case moving to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals are based on the actions of one lawyer, who neglected to present any valid argument for dismissal, and one judge who documented the failure of the laws and doctrines which substantiate dismissal BUT dismissed the case anyway.

We have discovered another active party in the courts actions. In the Eastern District Court, The Clerk of Courts has documented their failure to certify the matter and the failure to notify the US Attorney General for intervention. The clerk also documented their participation and deliberate actions to ‘sandbag’ the matter. This all appears on the docket.

The Clerk removed the Attorneys General from the matter though they must act in their official capacity. They were replaced by 56 people who were elected to serve as Attorneys General, appearing pro se, listed as unrepresented, with several being terminated from the case entirely. The clerk changed the case into personal civil litigation between two people and the Attorneys General in their unofficial capacity.

The matter is a constitutional challenge of a state law and as such according to Federal Law must be served upon the state Attorney General.

The docket also demonstrates when these actions occurred.

We have experienced the state courts games.

It was our anticipation that the manipulation of the matter would be less likely as the actions were filed with each state Attorney General, with copies to each state Governor, the Department of Justice, the FBI, the US Attorney General, the US Marshall Service. Posted to Facebook, and internet sites. Delivered to the news media organizations. Notices delivered to Bucks County Courthouse, Montgomery County Courthouse, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

The Third Circuit Court had started the appeal with the plaintiff having access to the Electronic Case Filing System. BUT, the notices have stopped without an order, a letter or an explanation.

The original request for electronic access was requested and filed with the District Court on September 6, 2013. The request was ignored.

The second request for electronic access was requested and filed with the District Court on October 18, 2013. The request was granted on October 23, 2013. The Court’s unsubstantiated and improper dismissal of the matter occurred on October 29, 2013.

The Appeal would occur sooner than expected, AND be required because of misinformation relating to an attempt to dismiss the claim. All on paper. Not one hearing. And without 55 of the state Attorneys General, the US Attorney General, and each state Supreme Court.

There’s the matter of the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF RULE 1.6 which is the subject of the Constitutional Challenge. I suppose we will get to the heart of the matter after the foolish games and manipulations have stopped. If the Attorneys General had taken a stand on the matter, the constitutionally protected rights of the people would be restored and protected. RULE 1.6 mandates the Attorneys General take no action to reveal the injustice caused by the judiciary when the law was enacted.

Judge O’Neill was on the bench when this unconstitutional injustice was enacted. Sadly, the judge has neglected the opportunity to correct a nationwide injustice which devastates and destroys people, isolating them and ignoring their civil rights and liberties.

Protecting the integrity of the judiciary requires judges to have integrity… not just a lawful (but unconstitutional) mandate to conceal corruption and injustice in the courts.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: