2014
03.17

Plaintiff’s allege that Rule 1.6 results in the denial of rights protected by the United States Constitution.

Plaintiff’s allege that Rule 1.6 which was NOT LAWFULLY ENACTED pursuant to PA. CONST. Article V 10(c) is a nullity because it results in the denial of constitutionally protected rights and liberties.

Plaintiff’s allege that the actions of The Pennsylvania Supreme Court are NOT LAWFUL in removing jurisdiction for law enforcement from the Attorney General, and in enacting a law which prevents the Attorney General from properly and lawfully executing the responsibilities of the office of Attorney General.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane is a lawyer who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct which prevent her from properly and lawfully executing the law enforcement responsibilities of the office of Attorney General.

Plaintiffs have proper standing pursuant to Article III as Attorney General Kathleen Kane has failed to act to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and failed to address the loss of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights basing her failure and ‘lack of jurisdiction’ on an unconstitutional ‘law’ improperly enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in violation of Article V Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution which further unlawfully and unconstitutionally denied citizens of any forum for the redress of grievances, denying the plaintiffs of any resolution and further denied the plaintiffs of justice.


‘Lawful but unconstitutional’ IS NOT LAWFUL
even when enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.


RETURN TO REPLY BRIEF INDEX

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: