2014
03.31

imagesPolitely and respectfully use the following paragraphs as a guideline to alerting the court of your knowledge of the loss of constitutionally protected rights in your case.

If there is silence… and it goes without any discussion or mention. Then, you have been clearly heard and understood.

The courts corruption and injustice is occurring in full view of knowledgeable litigants.


As a section before you close your legal filing….


COMPLAINT – CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

12. Plaintiff provides this Honorable Court with a copy of a document filed on August 8, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which challenges the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and has been served upon Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General and the Attorneys General of the United States. [ Exhibit D ]

13. “The Rules of Professional Conduct set out the minimum ethical standards for the practice of law and constitute a set of rules which all lawyers must follows.” – The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

14. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information causes a denial of the constitutionally protected rights to petition the Government for redress of grievances (First Amendment); causes a denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without duie process of law (Fifth Amendment); which causes the 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).

15. Plaintiff believes that Defendant is a currently practicing legal professional who ‘must follow’ the Rules of Professional Conduct, and as such Plaintiff asserts that any misrepresentation made by Defendant will be lawfully ignored by this Honorable Court resulting in the denial of Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights.

16. The potential of a represented party intentionally introducing an act of fraud or misconduct which triggers the loss of constitutionally protected rights when facing a Pro Se litigant creates a situation which would demand strict actions regarding misconduct.

17. Those lawful practices endorsed and enabled by the Rules of Professional Conduct are unconstitutional and as such are a nullity.

18. Plaintiff does NOT ALLEGE knowledge of any prior misconduct by the Defendants, and is respectfully not acting with the intent to disparage, undermine or disrespect the Defendants or adversely affect the integrity of this Honorable Court.

Challenge13-4614

2014
03.31

041612_dneditorial_400Everyone is suing Attorney General Kathleen Kane and their cases are mentioned in the television and news media and the blogs.

They neglect to mention that she is named in the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 which is now in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

How’s that for a demonstration about how CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION works?

Rule 1.6 explains all of their actions… Lawyers using ridiculous speculation and posturing are politicizing justice and law enforcement. All a criminal needs to do is involve the judiciary in their crimes to mandate the law community into silence. While mandated to not disclose the known facts, that leaves speculation and fiction to get the front page.

It undermines truth. It undermines the constitution.

2014
03.31

5526_10152122462594398_1301841340_n

The courts crippled themselves. They MANDATED their own corruption by law.

They MANDATED silence and CONFIDENTIALITY of Information.

Every level of state courts participated.

The Courts mandated the participation of every lawyer in their conspiracy to deny and obstruct justice and constitutional rights.

Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information is UNCONSTITUTIONAL… and once removed JUSTICE WILL BE RESTORED.

And then, the Constitution in every state must remove the self-policing power from the judiciary who has betrayed the trust of the people.

%d bloggers like this: