2014
03.12

The Plaintiff’s respectfully inform this court that the convoluted misinformation provided on behalf of the Defendants which has successfully dismissed cases in the past DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE.

The Plaintiffs have standing.
– Article III standing is established.
– The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is not applicable.
– The Younger Abstention does not apply.
– Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not permit the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to deny rights protected by the United States Constitution.

The Court has jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of the law and provide the relief requested declaring the challenged law UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Rule 1.6 causes the plaintiffs loss of constitutionally protected rights and additionally prevents the state from addressing the loss, which is of itself a protected right which is being denied..

Plaintiffs have lawfully petitioned the court and served the challenge on every US Attorney General to address a constitutional calamity which has ‘LAWFULLY BUT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY’ persisted in the United State for decades.

An act of sedition in every state was committed by the American Bar Association in the conspiracy to promulgate Rule 1.6 to every state. Each state supreme court acting in violation of the US Constitution to enact ‘law’ which violates the rights of the people and prevents denies and obstructs any remedy for the loss.

We lawfully and strongly demand restoration of our constitutional rights and petition this Honorable Court to review the constitutional matter..

When used in this document “law”, ‘law’, “lawful”, ‘lawful’, “lawfully”, and ‘lawfully’ indicates a law which has been incorrectly presumed to be lawful and constitutional, however as it is repugnant to the US Constitution is ultimately and in actuality a nullity.

THE CASE AND CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE COURT

Plaintiffs have been denied rights and liberties which are granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1343, 1345.

Kathleen Kane is the Attorney General of Pennsylvania.

Kathleen Kane is a lawyer.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane failed to act and did not to address the Plaintiff’s matters.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s deliberate and intentional failure to take any action regarding the denial of the constitutional rights of the litigants is the basis of the ‘controversy’ before the Court. The Attorney General has done nothing.

(Article III requirement is met.)

A case or controversy between the plaintiffs and the defendant is properly placed before the court.

ARTICLE V – The Attorney General

Jurisdiction was improperly removed from the Attorney General to the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court per Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

When acting per Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court may not deny constitutionally protected rights and privileges.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane had proper jurisdiction because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not have authority to remove jurisdiction from the Attorney General where it denied constitutionally protected rights and privileges.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane failed to act and did not to address the Plaintiff’s matters.

ARTICLE V – The Pennsylvania Supreme Court

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court failed to act and did not to address the Plaintiff’s matters.

The Judicial Conduct Board failed to act and did not to address the Plaintiff’s matters.

The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania failed to act and did not to address the Plaintiff’s matters.

Plaintiff’s allege violations of Constitutionally protected rights and liberties and the failure of the Attorney General to take any action to address the resulting injustice due to the unconstitutional removal of jurisdiction from the Attorney General to the Supreme Court who also took no action.

Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information

Lawyers are required and responsible to report all misconduct
– unless it affected the integrity of the judicial system
– unless it was self incriminating
– unless it adversely affected the client

The Attorney General must be a lawyer.

The Attorney General must follow the U.S. Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane is the chief law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is responsible for law enforcement, prosecution and review while representing the Commonwealth in all actions brought by or against the Commonwealth.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane did not address the absolute failure of the Supreme Court to take any action to address the denial of constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.
RULE 1.6(#) Lawyers are not required to report ‘misconduct’ where it affects the integrity of the judicial system.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane did not address the failure of the Attorney Generals office to act to address the denial of constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.
Rule 1.6(#) Lawyers are not required to report ‘misconduct’ where is is self-incriminating.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane took no action to address the law which causes her to take no action as that would reveal the improper actions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania when the law was enacted.
Rule 1.6(#) Lawyers are not required to report ‘misconduct’ where it adversely affects the client.

Rule 1.6 prevented Attorney General Kathleen Kane from acting to address the loss of constitutionally protected rights and privileges which the Rule itself was causing to be denied.

Rule 1.6 has a ‘self-defense mechanism’ which prevents it from being addressed by anyone who is required to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. No Lawyer, District Attorney, or Attorney General could ‘lawfully’ take any action to address the loss of constitutionally protected rights and privileges of the plaintiffs.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court who had enacted the law could not take any action to address the unconstitutional law as Rule 1.6(#) prevented them from any action which was self-incriminating.

The author of Rule 1.6 who presented The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Supreme Courts of the other states, with the law to enact was equally protected from exposure as any action to reveal the unconstitutional result of the law was protected by the CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

RULE 60 Attachments to follow for immedaite action and as evidence of the deliberate and intentional denial of rights.

The latest order issued without jurisdiction was issued 3/11/2014 by Judge Bernard Moore, the 20th member of the Montgomery County Pennsylvania judiciary to have conspired in the case.
No escaping the injustice of Rule 1.6.

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: