Overt / Covert … Why does the county neglect to document their failure to act? AN OVERT ACT IS NECESSARY TO PROVE A CONSPIRACY.

District Attorney Risa Verti Ferman ignores the crimes. No paperwork in her failure to respond to reports/correspondence.

County Detectives verbally indicate they are not permitted to get involved as instructed by the District Attorney.

Judge Carluccio prevented the August 2011 Appeal from review by the Superior Court. Judge Carluccio blocked the Appeal from being transmitted to the Superior Court. Judge Carluccio further prevented production of the transcripts and the court record involving the Court Reporters and the County Prothonotary in the conspiracy. All undocumented but evidenced by the court records.

Judge Carluccio, president of the county bar association which refused any legal respresentation, had built up an immunity to federal investigation/prosecution by working in the US Attorney’s office. The US Attorneys Office is not permitted to investigate anyone who worked in their office.

Judge Carluccio’s corrupt action further cause the judicial immunity of the prior judges to be void. Carluccio acted to suppress and conceal the multiple frauds upon the court which dated back to the beginning of the divorce matter when an order secretly issued by Judge Rhonda Daniele without jurisdiction was leveraged to subvert every proceeding in the matter. The ‘secret’ order was found in August 2010 and had been used as leverage to deny custody and visitation, and excuse burglary, computer and telephone surveillance/intrusions/redirection and other crimes.

Judge Page, who acted without jurisdiction during the pending Carluccio appeal, prevented the court record and exhibits from being delivered to the Superior Court. The threat of incarceration for failure to pay the over $ 300,000 CONTEMPT order he improperly issued keeps me unemployed and destitute. Were I to gain employment all wages would be attached to satisfy his absurd order which is defective and void as he lacked jurisdiction during the appeal.

Judge Page acted to prevent the Court Reporters from producing the transcripts. Verbally communicating to the Court Reporters. Documented only by the Court Reporters acting on his ex parte order where Judge Page lacked authority and jurisdiction.

The covert actions of Carluccio and Page to deny, prevent and obstruct the Appeals also cover up the inclusion of the Superior Court judiciary in their crimes. An overt act is a REQUIRED ELEMENT in a conspiracy.

Carluccio and Page do not qualify for judicial immunity because their actions lack jurisdiction – which is documented on the court record. Carluccio and Page knowingly acted without jurisdiction. Their actions were informed and deliberate. They were not acting acting as judges. They were acting as protected co-conspirators.

Judge Gail Weilheimer committed the OVERT ACT when she ordered Healy v. Miller #2013-29976 dismissed.

That OVERT ACT confirms the county’s conspiracy to deny my rights not only in my divorce, but in the separate property matter. It causes all of the undocumented failures by county departments, detectives, court admin, and the district attorneys office to become solid and deliberate evidence of the conspiracy against me.

Judge Weilheimer has NOT filed an Opinion in the Appeal of that matter. The Concise Statement of Issues on Appeal has been filed and served in accordance with her order to do so. An Opinion is a requirement for review of the matter by the Superior Court.

Judge Weilheimer has violated the law and procedures failing to address jurisdictional failures. The law mandates she address the void and defective order which was presented in her court. It is not a discretionary issue, it is mandatory. Knowingly enforcing a void and defective court order where the law mandates she address the issue and prove jurisdiction is an act of treason.

A Weilheimer Opinion would not substantiate her decision in the matter as all documents, evidence and exhibits presented in the course of the proceeding demonstrated the void and defective order of Carolyn Carluccio. Opposing counsel never presented any argument to the contrary. Opposing counsel did not comprehend the scope of the matter and additionally was representing Genuine Title Company moreso than the Millers.

The Opinion by Judge Weilheimer would be a self-incriminating OVERT ACT which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary. The failure to file the opinion is excused by Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional, a nullity. The fore-knowledge of this will not permit it to be used as a defense. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was part of the litigation.

A Superior Court of Pennsylvania mandate, demand or enforcement of the filing of the Opinion is excused by Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct. As the Superior Court has been notified of the lower courts enforcement of a defective and void order, their inaction involves them in the treason of the lower courts action.

Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional, a nullity. The fore-knowledge of this will not permit it to be used as a defense. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was part of the litigation.

A Supreme Court Mandamus action to mandate, demand or enforce the filing of the Opinion is excused by Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The improper actions of the Supreme Court Prothonotary represent deliberate attempts at providing ‘plausible deniablity’ of the matter for the members of the Court.

Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional, a nullity. The fore-knowledge of this will not permit it to be used as a defense. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was part of the litigation.

Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct results in the denial of due process rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Rule 1.6 is an improperly and unlawfully enacted ‘law’ enacted in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the United States Constitution.

There have been over 80 attempts to have the court indicate the multiple jurisdictional failures of Judge Carolyn Carluccio. Nested jurisdictional failures to terrorize the victim of her injustice. All attempts have been ignored in violation of law and procedure.

In the past the judges, 19 of them, have failed to act or ignored the applicable law. Injustice does not end injustice. It extends it. The Weilheimer Appeal is the third pending concurrent appeal\ which causes the crime of the Common Pleas Court to extend to involve the judiciary of the Superior Court of PA.

The determined efforts of the County to deny and prevent the rights of their victim are well documented and have been ongoing since 2007. The County will continue to terrorize and harass and falsely litigate their victim to death. Their is no incentive for the County to cease in their corrupt and terroristic actions against the victim. The corrupted court mandates the participation of the victim/litigant in the furtherance of their coverup.

The County Sheriff, the Pennsylvania Attorney General and the Department of Homeland Security.

The Sheriff is new. The last one, Sheriff Eileen Behr, resigned with the full knowledge of this matter and the conspiracy of the County.

The Corruption in the Montgomery County Courthouse is undeniable and inescapable. There is no escaping when forced to turn to a judicial system mandated to continue the injustice by an unconstitutional ‘law’ which protects the integrity of the judiciary by sacrificing the integrity of everyone involved in law enforcement.

This conspiracy which involves every attorney and judge in the county is a smaller version of the nationwide conspiracy – evidenced by the CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 and filed and served upon every state Attorney General and the US Attorney General.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General will now be placed in the situation where of all of the clients which she represents are involved in a case together. Who will she chose to represent?

The Victim? The Public? Herself? The AG Office? The County? County Departments? The Courts? The Judiciary? The Law? The Governor? The Legislature? The Commonwealth?

The UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW Rule 1.6 subverts society, undermines justice, denies liberty and terrorizes victims to the point of suicide.

What does this demonstrate with regard to the Attorney General’s actions in the CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6? Which is also stalled by an inappropriate unsubstantiated dismissal which sacrifices the integrity of the federal judiciary. Fifty-five Attorneys General have ignored the matter and failed to act demonstrating by default their deliberate informed admission that Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional.

The Department of Homeland Security must address this nationwide injustice / domestic terroristic threat which undermines the Judicial branch and prevents law enforcement by the Executive branch ansd has been deliberately caused by the American Bar Association at the state and federal levels.

Terance Healy is not the only victim of Rule 1.6 style injustice.

Cash for Kids victimized over 2000 children and their families with Rule 1.6 style injustice.

The Nationwide Foreclosure Crisis victimized millions of people and families with Rule 1.6 style injustice.

Rule 1.6 being enacted into law in every state without constitutional review was a deliberate action of the American Bar Association. The ABA has been involved in the conspiracy to deny justice to every victim. The ABA’s membership has profited from their efforts to annihilate the victims through continued litigation before a judiciary mandated to conceal their corruption.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 can be refiled as a billion dollar federal lawsuit against the Montgomery County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It was not done that way as the primary interest was in restoring constitutional rights for the litigants, and every American. Having multiple versions of the same constitutional litigation going through every federal court in the country would benefit neither the victims/litigants or the country.

We have behaved and acted responsibly, where the judiciary and lawyers have not. Courtesy and respect should not be miscontrued as stupidity and foolishness. The system demands that judges be addressed with undeserved false respect even by the victims they terrorize. “Your honor” may be falling under the influence of the courts illusions.

Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional, a nullity. The fore-knowledge of this will not permit it to be used as a defense. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is a necessity and has been included as part of the litigation.




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

Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc

1. An Opinion in this matter before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was filed on April 14, 2014, Terance Healy and Todd M. Krautheim respectfully request a Hearing or Rehearing En Banc.

2. The Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc is timely pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1) Petition for Panel Rehearing – Time To File.

Plaintiffs hereby express their belief that this matter is of exceptional importance and based on a reasoned and studied review, that the panel decision is contrary to decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit or the Supreme Court of the United States, and that consideration by the full court is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of decisions of this court.

3. The Per Curiam Opinion filed neglects to address the factual information presented in the Appellant Brief, the Appellee Response and the Appellant Reply Brief.

4. The Opinion fails to accurately address the matter of the Appellants standing including (1) the case and controversy before the court, (2) Article III requirements, (3) proper application of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, (4) proper application of the Younger Abstention, and (5) improper removal of jurisdiction according to Pa. Constitution Article V Section 10(c).

5. Jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of a state law is properly placed in the Federal Court as the law being challenged is prevented by law from review by the Pennsylvania Courts with regard to validity or constitutionality.

6. The matter before the Court is a national issue of exceptional importance as the litigants are challenging the constitutionality of a law which has been enacted in every state.

7. The tone and language of the Per Curiam Opinion demonstrates the Court’s failure to “accept as true plaintiffs’ material allegations and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to them[.]” Baldwin v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med Ctr., 636 F.3d 69, 73-74(3d Cir. 2011)

8. The Per Curiam Opinion fails
– to indicate the unexplained untimeliness of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s motion notifying the District Court of the intent to file a motion to dismiss;
– the indication in the motion that the Pennsylvania Attorney General was NOT representing the fifty-five (55) other Attorneys General;
– the failure of the Pennsylvania Attorney General to notify the fifty-five (55) other Attorneys General of her motion;
– the failure of the Pennsylvania Attorney General to file and serve her motion upon the fifty-five (55) other Attorneys General;
– the failure of the fifty-five (55) other Attorneys General to provide a timely, or untimely, answer to the Summons and Challenge properly served upon each;
– the failure of fifty-five 955) other Attorneys General to file an appearance or register for electronic filing.

9. The Per Curiam Opinion fails to address, or excuse, the failure of fifty-five (55) Attorneys General to file any Appearance or timely Answer to the Constitutional Challenge where the non-Pennsylvania Attorneys General were not served or notified of the motion filed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General.

10. The District Court decision on the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s motion was not entered until after the time period for Answers had passed. The district court refused to address that fifty-five (55) Attorneys General had not been served with the motion for extension, and failed to file a timely Answer to the Summons and Challenge.

11. The Appellants complaint, and briefs, present the elements of standing required by Article III. The court has ignored the information provided.

12. The court indicates that Plaintiffs “do not explain how [they were injured] except to offer conclusory and fanciful assertions that the rule has prevented them from obtaining appellate review or otherwise seeking redress from unspecified judicial misconduct.” The court indicates awareness of this issue which is sufficient according to Rule 8(d). Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice. Rule 8(e). However, the court ignores the information.

13. The Younger Abstention does not apply and require dismissal of the matter. This is acknowledged by the Pennsylvania Attorney General and dismissal under Younger Doctrine is not justified in light of the recent Supreme Court decision. Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S Ct. 584 (2013)

14. The district court indicated in the Memorandum of the Court dated October 29, 2013, page 8. “To the extent that the 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)

15. The Court incorrectly indicates in the Opinion that the “Plaintiffs raise three arguments on appeal” and then selectively misrepresent the information regarding even those select issues, and the applicable law.

16. Certification. The court neglected to certify the Constitutional Challenge with each Attorney General, or state Supreme Court. This is typically handled by the Court ordering the state Attorney General to respond to a direct question, ie. “Does Rule 1.6 result in the denial of rights and liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution?”

17. Had Certification been attempted by the Court, the Attorneys General and state Supreme Courts would have recognized that they could not lawfully and truthfully answer the question pursuant to Rule 1.6.

18. The Certification response would affect the integrity of the judiciary; would affect the reputation of the legal profession; would self-incriminate; would violate confidentiality of information regarding the Attorney General’s clients – who include the Public (and the plaintiffs), the state government as a whole, the branch of government in which they are employed, a particular agency or department, responsible officers who make decisions with an agency or department.

19. Intervention. The district court neglected to served the summons and Constitutional Challenge to the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, for the purpose of intervention. The Intervention documents were served to the US Attorneys Office after the filing of the Notice of Appeal regarding the dismissal by the district court.

20. Plaintiffs named and served the Constitutional Challenge upon the Attorneys General of the United States in accordance with Rule 5.1 and seek to address the loss of constitutionally protected rights and privileges with the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in each state.

21. The Opinion neglects to consider the following as indicative of intention to default
– the failure of the Attorneys General to answer the Summons and Complaint;
– the failure of the Attorneys General to file an appearance in the matter;
– the failure of the Attorneys General to register for electronic filing and notices;
– the failure of the Attorneys General to respond to any motions filed in this matter; and
– the inaction and deliberate neglect of the Attorneys General with regard to the entire matter.

22. The Opinion incorrectly misinforms where the Plaintiff’s did mention the District Court’s order denying reconsideration in their notice of appeal.

23. The Opinions statement that “The District Court thus may have erred in relying on a local rule that conflicts with the Federal Rules, see In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig, 221 F.3d 449, 459 (3d Cir 2000), but any such error was harmless.” neglects to consider the harm caused by the continued loss of constitutionally protected rights of the plaintiffs and the court’s failure to address the situation.

24. Plaintiffs respectfully disagree with the Courts indication that the error was harmless. The Appeal to the Third Circuit has cost the Plaintiffs $ 505.00 in fees, required additional effort, research, preparation and submission of briefs to the Third Circuit Court and delayed the restoration of the constitutionally protected rights of the plaintiffs and other victims of injustice nationwide.

25. Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to indicate if the members of this Court are mandated by Rule 1.6, or any similar derivative of law which would prevent or hinder the ability of this Honorable Court to hear, consider, address and resolve the constitutional matter here petitioned.

26. Plaintiffs respectfully suggest that it is not in the interests of any party in this matter to compel the sacrifice of the integrity of this court and the Third Circuit Judiciary, or to maintain a conspiracy which permits the continued existence of an unconstitutional law which mandates the denial of the constitutional rights of any person.

27. Plaintiffs respectfully request a hearing or rehearing en banc to address the incorrect information documented and contained in the Honorable Court’s Opinion.

28. The unsigned Opinion which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by the facts of the matter and filed on the record in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals represents an overt act in a conspiracy to obstruct justice and to perpetuate and maintain the denial of the constitutionally protected rights of the plaintiffs.

29. Where this Court has jurisdiction but may lack the ‘lawful’ ability to address the constitutionality of the matter presented, The Plaintiffs respectfully request the matter be forwarded in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with the recommendation of this Court for Certiori of the matter for hearing/review by the Supreme Court of the United States.

30. Where the Supreme Court of the United States is similarly affected and prevented from ‘lawful’ action to address the constitutionality of Rule 1.6, a ‘law’ enacted by every state Supreme Court in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Plaintiffs respectfully request the matter remain active within this Court and that the matter be forwarded to the United States Attorney General, as the US Attorney General cannot be hindered or prevented from addressing any law.

31. Plaintiffs request that the United States Congress be notified as an Act of Congress may be required to lawfully address the affect of this situation and to restore the authority of the Judiciary to act in regard to all civil actions and proceedings within the United States courts.

Respectfully Submitted,

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

[FILED April 28, 2014]


State adoption of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
(previously the Model Code of Professional Responsibility)

When the Code was enacted into ‘law’ they changed the name to “Rules”.

There is no record of any review of the impact of these ‘laws’ on the constitutionally protected rights of the people of the United States.

The supposed intent was to make sure the judiciary was never humiliated like they were after the FBI’s Operation Graylord. To protect the judiciary they sacrificed the integrity of EVERY JUDGE in the country. As a result, the corruption involved in my one divorce in Montgomery County already includes more judges and court personnel and county agencies and personnel than Operation Graylord.

Each time these ‘laws’ have been modified or amended in each state, it has occurred to close a loophole where corruption was able to be prosecuted. Each modification has left a trail of evidence demonstrating the clear intent to perpetuate injustice.

Jurisdiction Initial Adoption
Alabama 5/2/90
Alaska 4/14/93
Arizona 9/7/84
Arkansas 12/16/85
Colorado 5/7/92
Connecticut 6/23/86
Delaware 9/12/85
District of Columbia 3/1/90
Florida 7/17/86
Georgia 6/12/00
Hawaii 12/6/93
Idaho 9/3/86
Illinois 2/8/90
Indiana 11/25/86
Iowa 4/20/05
Kansas 1/29/88
Kentucky 6/12/89
Louisiana 12/18/86
Maine 2/26/09
Maryland 4/15/86
Massachusetts 6/9/97
Michigan 3/11/88
Minnesota 6/13/85
Mississippi 2/18/87
Missouri 8/7/85
Montana 6/6/85
Nebraska 6/8/05
Nevada 1/26/86
New Hampshire 1/16/86
New Jersey 7/12/84
New Mexico 6/26/86
New York 12/16/08
North Carolina 10/7/85
North Dakota 5/6/87
Ohio 8/1/06
Oklahoma 3/10/88
Oregon 1/1/05
Pennsylvania 10/16/87
Rhode Island 11/1/88
South Carolina 1/9/90
South Dakota 12/15/87
Tennessee 8/27/02
Texas 6/20/89
Utah 3/20/87
Vermont 3/9/99
Virginia 1/25/99
Virgin Islands 1/28/91
Washington 7/25/85
West Virginia 6/30/88
Wisconsin 6/10/87
Wyoming 11/7/86

Source: The American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility
PDF version


The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 – The Conspiracy to prevent constitutional review and exposure of the injustice caused and ignored by an improperly and unlawfully enacted ‘law’.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 371

The Elements
1. Two or More Persons
2. Knowledge and Intent
3. The Agreement
4. Unlawful or Fraudulent Means or Objective
5. The Overt Act

.Parties To Criminal Offenses

The crime of conspiracy was created because of the inherent dangers posed to society when two or more individuals join together to violate the law. A person who joins with others to commit a crime strengthens the criminal scheme and enhances the potential success of the scheme. Furthermore,
once an individual joins with others, that person is less likely to change their mind than one who has made a solitary decision to violate the law. Once conspiracies are formed, there is the danger they will get out of control, recruit other criminals, and become more dangerous and difficult to immobilize. For all these reasons, the identification and targeting of multi-defendant criminal networks is essential to successful law enforcement.

To conceal the denial of constitutionally protected rights and ignore injustice, every judge and lawyer in the United States are all mandated by the same confidentiality as soon as they become lawyers./ They must follow the Law – the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In any investigation involving two or more defendants, agents should consider the following advantages of a conspiracy charge:

1. Get Beyond The First Layer
In many cases the organizers and brains behind a criminal organization insulate themselves from those members whose actions are more visible, thus making them less susceptible to getting caught.

The Author, the American Bar Association is insulated behind each state supreme court which enacted their rules into LAW.

The law of conspiracy enables the investigator to get beyond the first layer of visible members
of a conspiracy and immobilize the entire criminal organization.

2. Past, Present, and Future
The criminal investigator will often initiate a case on a criminal organization where the objectives of the conspiracy are still ongoing (a fraudulent investment scheme). In other cases, the goal of the conspiracy will have already been accomplished OR the criminal objectives may still be in the planning stage.

In a conspiracy investigation the investigator can go in any direction, past, present or future. Because the conspiracy statute is pro-active in nature, criminals may be apprehended prior to any substantive criminal offense being consummated.

So an ongoing national conspiracy started at different times in each state. Rollout by state.

3. Allow Juries to See the Entire Operation
In presenting a conspiracy case to a jury the prosecution can describe the roles and relevant conduct for each member of the conspiracy. The entire scope of the operation can be spelled out, even though some of the members of the conspiracy may not be on trial. An additional benefit to a conspiracy charge is that multiple defendants can be tried at the same time. Having the members of the conspiracy sitting together as the prosecution describes each one‘s role in the criminal enterprise
strengthens the government‘s position that they were all acting in concert together, albeit some members had larger roles than others.

4. Use of the Grand Jury
Through the grand jury, the investigator can obtain documentary evidence not easily obtained without the power of a grand jury subpoena. Witnesses who are reluctant to provide information can be subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury.

Sworn testimony of witnesses can be preserved for trial or become the basis of a perjury charge.

Developing a successful conspiracy investigation may be severely hampered due to certain limiting factors, many of which the investigator has no control over. Some of these disadvantages may be:

1. Time Consuming
In many conspiracy investigations, the overt acts that furthered the conspiracy were performed in the past. Further, members of the conspiracy take great pains to conceal their criminal scheme. It will be very time consuming for the criminal investigator to organize their goals, identify their targets, develop witnesses, corroborate the witnesses and gather evidence to strengthen the case.

It will be more time consuming to address the injustice caused by the conspiracy to deny justice.

2. Witness Difficulties
Successful conspiracy investigations depend on developing key witnesses. More often than not, the most knowledgeable witnesses are co-conspirators. Unfortunately, these witnesses are difficult to manage and control and often can be an embarrassment to the government. They are easily impeached and possess very little appeal to the jury. There will be times when even the hardest working investigator will be unable to provide enough corroboration to make these witnesses believable.

The evidence is available on the court dockets for each case or appeal which was affected.

3. No Instant Results
A primary goal of the conspiracy investigation is to prosecute all (or as many as possible) who willingly participated in the criminal venture. The larger the number of participants in a conspiracy, generally the longer it takes to develop the case. Consequently, there will not be the instant results commonly associated with single arrests for substantive offenses.

In spite of these disadvantages, the conspiracy investigation is one of the most effective weapons in the law enforcement officer‘s arsenal. It is designed to immobilize and eliminate those that bind together to strengthen their criminal endeavors. Remember, it was a conspiracy investigation that
prompted Richard M. Nixon to resign as president of the United States.


The Statute
A. Title 18 U.S.C. § 371 1
There are a number of federal statutes that criminalize certain types of conspiracies, such as 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Civil Rights) and 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Controlled Substance Conspiracy).

This class is concerned only with the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371.

This statute reads as follows:
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to
defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or
more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both.

When two or more lawyers and judges conspire to prevent the prosecution of judicial corruption…

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a
misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

The plain language of the statute prohibits two distinct types of conspiracies. First, it prohibits any conspiracy to violate a civil or criminal federal law. Second, the statute prohibits any conspiracy to defraud the United States or any agency of the United States, including conspiracies formed for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful functions of any department of the United States government.

The conspiracy violates the US Constitution. OK.
The conspiracy did not intend to impair, obstruct or defeat the US Govt. OK.
The conspiracy undermined the integrity of the judiciary, impacted the reputation of lawyers and caused an inability to address injustice in the entire judicial system.
The conspiracy destroyed people to the point where suicide was their only exit.

The statute provides a maximum punishment of not more than five years, as well as a fine up to $250,000.00, but only if the intended or committed substantive offense is a felony. If the
offense committed or intended is a misdemeanor, the maximum punishment for the conspiracy charge cannot exceed the maximum possible punishment for the misdemeanor.

Think per offense… over 25-30 years.

B. The Elements
There are five essential elements the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to establish a violation of §371. A conspiracy exists when:
– Two or More Persons
– Intentionally
– Agree
– To Violate Federal Law or Defraud the United States
– Commit an Overt Act in Furtherance of the Agreement

Once these elements have been met, the crime of conspiracy is COMPLETE.

The Clerk of Courts filed an Opinion which denied the Court the opportunity to review the constitutional matter presented by the litigants. The misinformation, fraud and inaccuracies of the Per Curiam unsigned Opinion IS AN OVERT ACT intended to conceal the conspiracy.

In other words, once a co-conspirator commits an overt act in furtherance of the agreement, all of the co-conspirators may be prosecuted for conspiracy, even if they take no further steps to accomplish their ultimate goal.

That one Opinion/Action permits the prosecution of everyone involved in the conspiracy. Everyone. Every lawyer. Every Judge. Every court. Since the conspiracy began in the 80’s.

Two or More Persons
A conspiracy requires the participation of two or more persons.
The persons need to be capable of forming the necessary criminal intent to agree to the objects of the conspiracy. One person cannot be convicted of conspiring with himself, an undercover law enforcement officer, or a cooperating informant. Because a government agent or an agent of the
government (cooperating informant) does not truly intend to commit the ultimate crime of the conspiracy, they cannot be counted as a conspirator. Likewise, individuals who do not have the mental capacity to form the criminal intent to conspire may not be one of the required two or more persons in a conspiracy. Minors and mentally ill persons could fall into this category.

The two persons need not meet. They need not know each other‘s identities. But, they must be aware of, or must reasonably foresee of, each other‘s existence and roles. For example, in a conspiracy to hijack goods, the person who steals a tractor-trailer from a truck stop may not know the person on
the inside who advised when the tractor-trailer could be easily taken nor would he necessarily know the person who was purchasing the stolen goods. Further, as long as there are at least two members, a conspiracy continues even if the members change.

Knowledge and Intent
The government must prove that the defendant had knowledge of the conspiracy and intended to participate in it.
(a) Knowledge
To be a party to a conspiracy, an individual must know of the conspiracy‘s existence and its overall plan or purpose.

The misinformation, fraud and inaccuracies of the Per Curiam Order demonstrates the authors knowledge of their assigned task in the conspiracy.

However, each conspirator need not know all of the details of the plan. While the defendant must know that at least one other person is involved in the conspiracy (so that an agreement is possible), there is no requirement that the defendant know the identity, number, or role of all co-conspirators.

Secrecy and concealment are features of a successful conspiracy.

RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. Secrecy and concealment are the very issue.

Accordingly, the law allows the conviction of individuals without requiring that they have knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy or of all those participating in it.

(b) Intent
The defendant must intend to participate in the conspiracy. The government must present evidence that the defendant joined voluntarily, by agreeing to play some part with the intent to help it succeed.
The mere showing that a defendant was aware of the plan or that the defendant approved of the plan is not enough to prosecute, without showing intent to participate in the conspiracy. A defendant‘s intent may be proven through circumstantial evidence, such as the defendant‘s relationship with other members of the conspiracy, the length of the association between the members, the defendant‘s attitude and conduct, and the nature of the conspiracy. Acts committed by the defendant that furthered the objective of the conspiracy are strong circumstantial evidence that the defendant was a knowing and willing participant in the conspiracy.

Each member of the Bar Association joined voluntarily and followed the mandate which permitted the injustice to continue unaddressed and unresolved. Those responsible for eh conspiracy mandated continued silence and disciplined any who dared try to expose the conspiracy.

3. The Agreement
The essence of any conspiracy is the agreement.

Conspiracy is different than substantive crime. In substantive crime the act is criminal. In conspiracy, the mere agreement to violate the law becomes criminal once an overt act in
furtherance of the agreement takes place. Seldom, if ever, is there proof of a formal agreement. The agreement does not have to be put into words, either oral or written. The agreement is often established through circumstantial evidence and can be as loose as a mutual understanding.

The Conspiracy was documented in the law, improperly enacted because it resulted in the loss of constitutional rights. Volumes of documents exist in every state which demonstrate the development of the ‘agreement’ in every state by the American Bar Association.

Association with members of a conspiracy is helpful in establishing a defendant‘s willing participation; however, mere presence at the scene is not enough to show agreement. A subject can be present with other known conspirators without intending to join or further the objects of the conspiracy.

A subject can also do something to help the conspiracy without actually joining. For example, an individual may rent an apartment to members of a conspiracy. The conspirators use the apartment to set up their operation. As such, the apartment owner has aided the conspiracy. However, absent a showing that he had a stake in the venture (doubled the rent) or knew of the conspiracy and intended to help it by providing a hiding place, he has not joined in the agreement.

So an organization of lawyers pretending to fight for Civil Liberties would help the conspiracy. The unions and organizations being created at the same time as the Rule became Law is evident.

Mere presence and helping without joining in the agreement are common defenses to conspiracy charges. Efforts must be made to establish a defendant‘s joining in the agreement. This can be shown directly by co-conspirators‘ testifying about the defendant‘s role in the organization or indirectly by
documenting a series of acts or events that demonstrate the defendant acted in concert with and must have been in agreement with other members of the conspiracy.

4. Unlawful or Fraudulent Means or Objective

To successfully prosecute under § 371, either the objective of the conspiracy or the means to accomplish the objective must (1) be an offense against the United States or (2) tend to defraud the United States. If neither the objective, nor the means to accomplish the objective, violate federal law or tend to defraud the United States, prosecution under § 371 is not available.

The means to accomplish the conspiracy – Violation of the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution AND making it illegal to prosecute judicial corruption and the resulting injustice violates federal law.

This illustrates an important concept; the objective of the conspiracy does not have to be a crime. It is sufficient to show that the contemplated objective would impede, impair, defeat, or obstruct the proper functions of the United States Government.

This could be accomplished through a scheme such as bid-rigging or through an agreement to obstruct the regulatory functions of a government agency, such as the Internal Revenue Service, which is often a civil violation of law.

It is not a defense that the objective was factually impossible to achieve. For example, if the objective of the conspiracy is to kill an individual who, unknown to the conspirators, is already dead, then it is factually impossible for the conspirators to carry out their plan.

While factually possible to accomplish (IT HAPPENED)… Who would believe they would actually do it and avoid exposure for over 25 years.

However, the conspiracy charge was complete the moment the first overt act in furtherance of the agreement was committed.

The First overt act…. or the latest overt act by the Clerk of Courts in the Third Circuit.

5. The Overt Act
The final element in a conspiracy prosecution under §371 is that, following an agreement, one of the conspirators committed an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. The overt act demonstrates that the conspirators have moved from a thought crime to one of action.

Instead of simply talking about the crime, the conspirators have actually taken a step towards making it a reality. An overt act shows that the agreement is not dormant, but is actually being pursued by the conspirators.

The misinformation, fraud and inaccuracies of the Per Curiam Order demonstrates the authors knowledge of their assigned task to conceal the exposure of the conspiracy.

Only one overt act must be committed to complete the crime of conspiracy. An overt act is any act done for the purpose of advancing or helping the conspiracy. A single overt act is sufficient to complete the conspiracy for all members, including those who join the conspiracy after it has begun. The overt act must occur after the agreement. The government may not rely on acts committed before the agreement to complete the conspiracy.

Additionally, the overt act need not be criminal in nature to complete the conspiracy, but may, in fact, be entirely lawful.

The Overt act of “The Per Curiam Opinion” is lawfully filed. It is also inaccurate, misleading, and represents a fraud upon the court.

For example, the overt act may be preparatory in nature, such as buying a car or mask to use in a bank robbery. If the substantive offense is actually committed, that offense may be used as the overt act necessary to complete the conspiracy. For instance, if two persons agree to rob a bank and did so, the bank robbery would be the overt act necessary to complete the conspiracy.

III. The Law of Conspiracy
In addition to the elements to be proved in conspiracy cases, there is significant law you should know when undertaking a conspiracy investigation. The following sections provide the criminal investigator some additional legal principles to guide investigations.

The Doctrine of Merger/Double Jeopardy
A conspiracy charge is a separate and distinct offense from the crime being planned and does not merge with the substantive offense, should it ultimately be committed. The Doctrine of Merger holds that inchoate offenses (those committed to lead to another crime) such as solicitation and attempts to commit crimes merge into the substantive offense if that offense is committed. Conspiracy, an inchoate offense, does not merge into the substantive offense. In addition, conspiracy to commit a substantive offense has different elements than the substantive offense and will survive a double
jeopardy challenge when both are charged utilizing the exact same evidence.

Pinkerton Theory of Vicarious Liability
Conspirators are criminally responsible for the reasonably foreseeable acts of any co-conspirator that was committed in furtherance of the overall plan. This is known as the Pinkerton Theory of vicarious liability. For example, if the plan was to smuggle counterfeit computer software into the United States, bribing a U.S. Customs Inspector would be a reasonably foreseeable act. In such a case, each conspirator would be liable for the substantive act of bribery, regardless of who
actually committed the bribery. If an act was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the overall plan, a defendant could not be held liable for that act unless he or she was the individual who actually committed it. The benefit of this rule is that all foreseeable acts of the conspiracy can be introduced at trial even though those on trial may not have participated in the acts. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946).

Co-Conspirator‘s Statements
The Federal Rules provides, in pertinent part: of Evidence (Rule 801(d)(2)(E)) 2
A statement is not hearsay if … the statement is offered against a party and is … a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Even though hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible, there are a variety of exclusions and exceptions to that rule. One of those exclusions is that everything said, done, or written by a conspirator during the existence of the conspiracy and in furtherance of the conspiracy is admissible against all co-conspirators. When deciding whether a co-conspirator‘s statement is admissible
under this rule, five questions must be asked:

Was there a Conspiracy? YES
Was the Defendant a Member of the Conspiracy? YES
Was the Person who made the Statement a Member of the Conspiracy? YES
Was the Statement made during the Conspiracy? YES
Was the Statement made in Furtherance of the Conspiracy? YES

If the answer to each of the above questions is yes, then the statement is admissible. If the answer to any of the above questions is no, then the statement is not admissible under this rule, although it may be admissible under another exception or exclusion to the hearsay rule. The co-conspirator, against whom the statement is admitted, need not have been present or even heard the statement when it was made.

The logical reason for the disappearance of 55 Attorneys General from the Constitutional Challenge. Admissable evidence. As the AGs have been served with the documents, and have filed documents indicating their conference calls on the matter, plausible deniability is not likely a factor.

Furthermore, any witness who heard the statement may testify regarding it, irrespective of whether the witness is a member of the conspiracy. Thus, if A and B conspire, and B makes statements to C during and in furtherance of the conspiracy, C may testify about B‘s statements at A‘s trial, even though C was not a member of the conspiracy. In contrast, things said or done by a conspirator only in his self-interests, not meant to help the conspiracy, are called ?frolics? and are not admissible
evidence against the conspiracy.

Likewise, a post-arrest statement is not admissible under this rule because the statement was not made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Late Joiners to a Conspiracy
The law recognizes that an individual may join a conspiracy after it has begun but before it has been terminated.

Such an individual is referred to as a late joiner to the conspiracy. They do not have to commit an overt act, only join in the agreement. Late joiners take the conspiracy as they find it. Late joiners are criminally responsible; not only for the conspiracy charge, but for any reasonably foreseeable acts done by any co-conspirator while the late joiner is a member of the conspiracy.

Late joiners are not criminally responsible for the criminal offenses of co-conspirators committed prior to their joining the conspiracy. Nonetheless, the prior acts of the co-conspirators are admissible at the trial of the late joiner, in order to show the existence of the conspiracy.

Were the late joiners informed before or after they were admitted to the practice of law. Or on a need to know basis.

Withdrawal from a Conspiracy
Just as the law recognizes that individuals may join a conspiracy after it begins, the law also recognizes that individuals may withdraw from the conspiracy prior to its termination. Withdrawal from a conspiracy requires more than simply no longer participating. A valid withdrawal from a
conspiracy has two basic requirements. First, the individual must do some affirmative act inconsistent with the goals of the conspiracy. Unless a conspirator produces affirmative evidence
of withdrawal, his or her participation is presumed to continue.

Rule 1.6 is for LIFE. There is no withdrawal from the mandate to maintain confidentiality.

Second, the affirmative act must be reasonably calculated to be communicated to at least one other known conspirator or law enforcement personnel. Withdrawal is an affirmative defense that must be proved by the defendant.

Rule 1.6 made it illegal to communicate the issue, AND at the same time made it illegal for law enforcement to take any action to address the issue had it been reported.

If an individual validly withdraws from a conspiracy, the statute of limitations on the conspiracy charge for that individual will begin to run the date of the withdrawal. Further, the withdrawal of a conspirator does not generally change the status of the remaining members. The valid withdrawal of a
single conspirator from a two-person conspiracy however, will result in the termination of the conspiracy, because the requisite ?two or more persons? are no longer present. Once a valid withdrawal occurs, the withdrawing defendant will escape liability for any subsequent criminal acts of the remaining conspirators, but remains liable for conspiracy and for any criminal acts committed while a member of the conspiracy.

Only by withdrawing from the agreement before the commission of the overt act will the individual escape liability for the conspiracy charge.

Statute of Limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3282)
The statute of limitations for the crime of conspiracy is five years. Generally, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date the conspiracy is completed, terminated, or abandoned. Typically, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date the last overt act was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy (e.g., dividing the money from the bank robbery).

As the actions relating to the conspiracy continue, the conspiracy is not completed, terminated or abandoned. The statute of limitations has yet to begin tolling.

The conspiracy itself may, depending on the nature of the agreement, continue past achieving the objective, in order to conceal the crime or to destroy or suppress evidence. In such
cases, the statute of limitations would be extended and would not start to run until such time as the last overt act (i.e., the last act of concealment) occurs.

For substantive offenses committed during the time frame of the conspiracy, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date the offense was committed.

The action which triggered the injustice for many was a fraud upon the court. As the court was acting without proper jurisdiction, the orders of the court are void ab initio.

The Sixth Amendment requires that prosecution occur in the State and District wherein the crime shall have been committed.

The Conspiracy should then be addressed in Philadelphia where the latest ‘overt act’ occurred.

Because the legal basis for a conspiracy is an agreement and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement, venue for a conspiracy charge exists in the district where the agreement was entered into, or in any district in which an overt act in furtherance of the agreement was committed. Since the
act of one conspirator is an act of all conspirators, an act in a district by one will result in venue in that district for all conspirators, even where the others were never physically present in the district.

Litigants in each federal district will need to seek relief in the district where the injustice, or ‘error’, occurred.

If a substantive offense is committed, venue for the substantive offense will be in the district where it occurred. As a practical matter, cases are charged in the district where venue for both the conspiracy and the substantive offense overlap.

IV. Investigating Conspiracies
The general approach to conducting a conspiracy investigation is to identify the members within the organization along with their respective roles for achieving the criminal objectives. Criminals attempt to conceal their plans and avoid detection so recruiting and developing witnesses is critical to any conspiracy investigation. You will need to locate and obtain evidence to corroborate witnesses and support the theory of the case that the defendants were acting together in agreement, toward a common criminal objective.

To accomplish these goals, you need to be organized.
Documenting the activities of the organization and charting the members of the organization can simplify these tasks.

Each state court should have the records required within the docket for each case.

A. Chronology
Documenting the criminal activities of an organization is accomplished through the use of ?overt act sheets.

An overt act sheet is a single sheet of paper that summarizes an overt act one in furtherance of the conspiracy. It includes the date and synopsis of the overt act, the defendant(s) involved, the primary and corroborative witnesses and the type of evidence whether oral, documentary or physical. Maintaining a notebook compilation of overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy will provide a chronology or time line of the conspiracy. This chronology is of utmost importance in presenting the case to an AUSA for prosecution and in identifying the weaknesses and strengths in the government‘s proofs.

B. Organizational Chart
Prepare an organizational chart identifying all known and ?unknown members of the organization. In identifying known members of the conspiracy, you should strive to determine each player‘s particular role in the criminal scheme. Identifying roles will assist in targeting the main members of the conspiracy.

Further, identifying member‘s role in the offense facilitates establishing how they all worked together to accomplish the criminal venture.

C. Recruit and Develop Witnesses
Always attempt to identify and recruit the broadest base of witnesses to ensure the most expansive and credible amount of testimony available. Be conscious of being compromised when interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence. When interviewing new witnesses, you should not instantly identify
the targets? of the investigation by name or showing them photo spreads of the subjects being investigated. Maintain the spirit of strict confidentiality with the witness and what they
disclose. Do not divulge the identity of other witnesses in the investigation even if the witness being interviewed knows their identity.

In most cases, the most knowledgeable witnesses will be members of the conspiracy themselves. Unfortunately these witnesses come with a lot of ?baggage? and are easily impeachable. They often have prior criminal histories, are testifying for some particular benefit to themselves and give
incomplete or inconsistent statements. Every effort must be made to corroborate these witnesses.
Generally speaking, witnesses can be discredited; documents don‘t lie. Extract details from witnesses and obtain documents to corroborate their testimony. Never cut corners when you have located documentary evidence that could become invaluable in corroborating your witness‘s testimony. Use the proper search warrant or subpoena to obtain evidence.

Statements made by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy are some of the most damaging evidence in a conspiracy prosecution. Make a concerted effort develop this testimony and corroborate it through supporting co-conspirator testimony and non-conspirator testimony. As always, any supporting documentary or physical evidence should be pursued. For example, a witness could testify to conversations she heard from a co-conspirator describing how he and a third co-conspirator murdered an individual who hadn‘t paid his drug debt.

Testimony from evidence technicians and the coroner as to where the shell casings were found and the
trajectories of the bullets entering the body would corroborate the co-conspirator witness‘s account of the shooting conversation to establish the defendant had to have been present to possess that particularized knowledge.

D. Locate and Acquire Evidence
Locate and acquire evidence in support of the witness‘s testimony. Utilize whatever law enforcement techniques are available to obtain evidence of the conspiracy. Use search warrants, grand jury subpoenas, trash pulls, evidence purchases, consensual recordings, ?clone pagers, wire-taps,
and evidence seized by other agencies to further the case. Bank accounts, credit cards, tax records, toll call records, photographs, real property records, airline tickets, car rentals, hotel records, vehicle, boat, aircraft registrations, to name a few, should all be explored in support of the investigation. The more you can independently corroborate each witness‘s testimony the greater the chances for a successful prosecution.

At times you will encounter a suspect who knowingly helps a conspirator commit a target crime, but it is unclear if the suspect has JOINED the conspiracy. Consider arresting that suspect for aiding & abetting the target crime.

V. Attempt to Commit a Crime
An attempt to commit a crime is a crime, although it is not defined by statute. To prove a person attempted to commit a crime, the government must show the defendant‘s intent to commit a crime together with the commission of an act that constitutes a substantial step towards commission of the
crime. The government‘s burden of proving the defendant took a substantial step toward commission of the crime protects a defendant from being convicted for mere thoughts, desires or motive.

The degree of a defendant‘s performance of a substantial act in furtherance of the illegal activity is a factual issue depending on the circumstances of each particular case.

Generally speaking, something less than a completed transaction supports an attempt, provided there is a substantial step toward completion of the crime.


Judge Weilheimer has yet to submit her opinion regarding her order which is under appeal.

She’s run the Concise Statement stall tactic.

And the Concise Statement filed and submitted without her Opinion clearly demonstrates the impossibility of her finding any law to support her ruling.

I remain homeless and destitute while the courts continue the injustice and corruption.

Judge Gail Weilheimer is the 20th judge directly involved in the matter in the Montgomery County Courts.

Rule 1.6 destroys the integrity of every judge in an attempt to protect the integrity of the judiciary. There is no escape for their victim. Judicial integrity is a farce.


The love that my daughter and I shared was truly special. She is a such a sweet, kind and gentle spirit. I am so sorry that I will not be there to see her grow into a beautiful woman. It absolutely crushed me to not be in her life over the last three years. I worked very hard as a father to build her confidence and self-esteem. She is smart, funny and considerate, but she didn’t know it yet. I pray that she realizes her strengths and her confidence in herself will continue to grow. I love you dearly, [name redacted].

My son [name redacted] was just entering Kindergarten, when I lost access to him. He is gregarious, outgoing and a great athlete. He is smart and fearless. He could have just as much fun by himself as he could with other kids. Even the older boys in our neighbourhood wanted to play with [name redacted]. It absolutely breaks my heart that I will not be able to help him grow into a man. I love you to, [name redacted]. I miss you both so much.

My identity was taken from me, as result of this process. When it began, I was a commercial real estate broker with CB Richard Ellis. I lived by the Golden rule and made a living by bringing parties together and finding the common ground. My reputation as a broker was built on my honesty and integrity. When it ended, I was broke, homeless, unemployed and had no visitation with my own children.

I had no confidence and was paralyzed with fear that I would be going to jail whenever my ex-wife wanted. Nothing I could say or do would stop it. This is what being to death or ‘targeted’ by a psychopath looks like. This is the outcome. I didn’t somehow change into a ‘high-conflict’ person or lose my ability to steer clear of the law. I’ve had never been arrested, depressed, homeless or suicidal before this process. The stress and pressure applied to me was deliberate and nothing I could do or say would get me any relief. Nothing I or my attorneys said to my ex-wife’s attorney or to the Court made any difference. Truth, facts, evidence or even the best interest of my children had no affect on the outcome.

The family court system is broken, but from my experience, it is not the laws, its the lawyers. They feed off of the conflict. They are not hired to reduce conflict or protect the best interest of children, which is why third parties need to be involved. It should be mandatory for children to have a guardian ad litem, with extensive training in abuse and aggression.

It is absolutely shameful that the Fairfax County Court did nothing to intervene or understand the ongoing conflict. Judge Randy Bellows also used the Children as punishment, by withholding access for failing to fax a receipt. The entire conflict centered around the denial of access to the children, it was inconceivable to me that he would use children like this. This is exactly what my ex-wife was doing and now Judge Bellows was doing it for her.

To all my family, friends and the people that supported me through this process, I am so sorry. I know my reactions and behavior throughout this process did not always make sense. None of this made sense to me either. I had no help and the only suggestion I got from my attorneys was to remain silent.

At first, I did what I was told, remained silent and listened to my attorneys. Then after I had given my ex-wife full custody to try and appease her, I learned about Psychopathy and emailed Dr. Samenow about my concerns and asked him for help. Of course, I was ignored. As the conflict continued, I was forced to defend myself. When that didn’t work, I thought I could get the help I needed by speaking out. There is no right or wrong way to defend yourself from abuse. Naively, I thought that abuse was abuse and it would be recognized and something would be done. I thought speaking out would end the abuse or at least get them to back off. It didn’t. When no one did anything they were emboldened.

I took my own life because I had come to the conclusion that there was nothing I could do or say to end the abuse. Every time I got up off my knees, I would get knocked back down. They were not going to let me be the father I wanted to be to my children. People may think I am a coward for giving up on my children, but I didn’t see how I was going to heal from this. I have no money for an attorney, therapy or medication. I have lost four jobs because of this process. I was going to be at their mercy for the rest of my life and they had shown me none.

Being alienated, legally abused, emotionally abused, isolated and financially ruined are all a recipe for suicide. I wish I were stronger to keep going, but the emotional pain and fear of going to court and jail [because of exorbitant child support] became overwhelming. I became paralyzed with fear. I couldn’t flee and I could not fight. I was never going to be allowed to heal or recover. I wish I were better at articulating the psychological and emotional trauma I experienced.

I could fill a book with all the lies and mysterious rulings of the Court. Never have I experienced this kind of pain. I asked for help, but good men did nothing and evil prevailed. All I wanted was a Guardian Ad Litem for my children. Any third party would have been easily been able to confirm or refute all of my allegations, which is why none was ever appointed to protect the children or reduce the conflict.

Abuse is about power and control. Stand up for the abused and speak out. If someone speaks out about abuse, believe them.

Please teach my children empathy and about emotional invalidation and ‘gas-lighting’ or they may end up like me.

God have mercy on my soul.

Chris Mackney





Of Arlington, Virginia died tragically December 29, 2013 in Washington, D.C.

Chris was born to the late Gregory and Carolyn Machnij in Boston, MA. Chris graduated from Chaminade Prep School in St Louis, MO and from Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. He worked in New York City for Bloomberg before relocating to Vienna, Virginia to embark on a career in commercial real estate in the Washington, DC area.

Chris was a loving and devoted father to two children, Lilly and Jack of Vienna, Virginia. He was a bright, engaging, articulate, and thoughtful friend to many. Chris would always proudly say that his children were the most important people in his life. Chris is survived by his two children and two brothers – Jeffrey of Lomita, CA and Gregory of Gardena, CA as well as relatives in Ohio and Colorado.

Chris was an active and passionate advocate for spousal rights in the area of family law and made the world better by bringing awareness to this important element of modern society. His active blog www.goodmendidnothing.com provided education to others while documenting his real life experiences.

Services will be held in California in the Spring.

In lieu of flowers, many friends, colleagues, and members of the community have chosen to donate to www.batteredmen.com.



We had been informed by letter that on Thursday April 3, 2014, the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 Appeal would be submitted to the judges without oral argument. “This means your presence will not be required.”

Todd called and spoke to the case manager and was informed that the documents would be provided to the Judges during the afternoon session.

Our experience justified our concern that the judges might not be provided the correct Appeal documents and we decided we would go to witness the Appeal Brief, Response and Answer as it was distributed to the judges.

When we arrived we were told that there was NO session with the judges. There was NO way to witness the judges receiving the documents. The documents had been transmitted to the judges electronically. It had already happened that morning.

The case manager knew nothing and had no information. She blamed everything on the Calendar Guy.

BTW, Calendar Guy doesn’t schedule appointments with the Clerk of Courts when you need to discuss their mishandling of the case and their misinformation. No one does that.

Everyone confirmed that the imaginary “Kathleen” does not work in their office even though she convinced fifty five attorneys general to not participate or register to receive case documents.

The lawyer who the case manage went to for assistance was a special kind of crazy. Her name was Kelly. She is a lawyer under the mandates of Rule 1.6.

Kelly was refusing to provide and truthful information. She was making faces like people do when they are on the phone. The eye rolls. Talking from one side of her mouth. Twisting her face up. Speaking as if we had no idea she was lying.


They sent for the US Marshalls because what else was she going to do?

The Third Circuit Clerk of Courts office was unable to explain… ANYTHING. The list of misinformation was growing.


The US Marshall walks in and recognizes Todd and myself. He was one of the Marshalls we spoke with in November 2013 when we were concerned that the District Court Clerk of Courts office was not handling the paperwork properly. Everything on the docket was misnamed and out of order. And 55 Defendant Attorneys General had disappeared without a word. Five minutes after we told the US Marshalls about the Sheriffs nationwide being convinced they lacked authority as it was essential to conceal the injustice caused by Rule 1.6. The US Marshalls realized the same had happened to them. It was a very good conversation with them. We explained the Challenge, who what when where why and how.


On April 14, 2014, a Per Curiam Opinion was issued concurrent with a Judgment for costs. The Per Curiam Opinion is NOT signed by the judges. The Judgement is /electronically signed/ by Marcia Waldron, Clerk.

A Per Curiam Order/Opinion is appropriate where issues are non-controversial. They typically consist of boilerplate statements, a few sentences which apply to the case, and require little editing.

The Court tried to fit the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 into a per curiam boilerplate, they failed. Six pages in length. Clearly, the author had not read ANY of the court documents.

“Opinions containing language that is more expansive, such as when the opinion expound on the particular facts or law at issue, should be attributed to its author in order to serve as a check on judges’ fidelity to the law and to enable the public and the legal professional to formulate an accurate understanding of the law.” Ira Robbins @ SCOTUSBlog.com

The April 14, 2014 Per Curiam Opinion fails to address the issues presented in the Appeal, misrepresents statements provided in the Court Opinion, neglects the law, fails to acknowledge the information provided in Court documents, and ignores the established doctrine relevant to the matter. The issue under review relates to a well-concealed national controversy regarding the rights and privileges protected by the United States Constitution and the inescapable injustice once a litigant is victimized.

Stop_hiding_by_WeltenderIt would seem that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals DID NOT PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTS to the judges assigned to the matter. The Result – A Per Curiam Order without any signatures affirming the District Courts dismissal of the matter even though the District Court’s Opinion documented the failure to substantiate the decision to dismiss.

“Beginning in the mid-1900’s, the Court expanded the role of the per curiam, fashioning it as a strategic device to resolve time-sensitive cases quickly, as a protective sheild from controversial issues, and as a way to make new law by indirection. Through the per curiam, the Court at times also aimed to convey a message of consensus while engaging in more complicated and substantive decisionmaking. In addition, the per curiam became a convenient tool for the Supreme Court in deciding controversial cases, because “with no Justice signing the opinion, there was no individual to be blamed for evading the tough question.” Ira Robbins @ SCOTUSBlog.com

I wonder who wrote the unsigned Per Curiam Opinion.


No one has ever said RULE 1.6 is Constitutional.

The Most logical reason for this… BECAUSE IT IS NOT.

However, RULE 1.6 mandates the judges and lawyers not say THAT either.

When facts and law are NOT discussed, addressed or properly resolved, the resulting injustice is a clear indicator that RULE 1.6 is affecting in the matter.


Within the next few days… I will post
– a Breakdown of the incorrect information in the Opinion
– the issues raised on appeal which the Judges neglected to address




The Fees raises alot of questions. BUT the first thing to consider is that the Attorney General was supposed to be representing the plaintiffs… aka The Public.

Instead, Attorney General Kathleen Kane neglected her clients, the PUBLIC.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane defended her other clients,
1. the Government as a whole,
2. herself as Attorney General,
3. the office of the Attorney General, and
4. the staff of the Attorney General’s office

kathleenkaneBUT THOSE CLIENTS are there at the request of the PUBLIC, the neglected client.
THOSE CLIENTS are there on behalf of the PUBLIC, the neglected client.

Why does this problem exist for the Attorneys General?… RULE 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane must maintain confidentiality of information for her clients… EVEN WHEN IT CAUSES THE PUBLIC TO BE DENIED OF RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES PROTECTED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

The twisted law would required Attorney General Kathleen Kane to be disciplined if she even discussed it with herself.




When authority figures distort truth, abuse their power, involve additional county personnel and departments in their treasonous acts and denial of due process, it creates helpless situation for honest, innocent individuals.

When law enforcement is too preoccupied with preventing their criminal liability from being exposed, they deny equal protection under the law and essentially become terrorists.

PovertyWhen you are left with no choice but to report the crimes to one of the co-conspirators involved with concealing the crimes, there is little hope of escape or survival.

Injustice doesn’t end injustice. It extends it.


IT IS LAW. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

A lawyer has an obligation to maintain confidentiality where information
– would affect the integrity of the judiciary, or
– would reveal the misconduct of their own office, or
– would expose individual liability, or
– would negatively impact their client.

When a lawyer hires a lawyer to represent him, that lawyer must maintain confidentiality where information
– would affect the integrity of the judiciary, or
– would reveal the misconduct of their own office, or
– would expose individual liability, or
– would negatively impact their client.

Government lawyers are unsure of WHO their client even is…
– Public
– Government as a whole
– Branch of government in which employed
– Particular agency or department
– Responsible officers who make decisions with an agency or department.

THE LAW MANDATES CONFIDENTIALITY FOR THE CLIENT – even when you have no idea who your client is, or may be, or might be, or will be.

3535Along comes Attorney General Kathleen Kane ending an investigation and saying nothing. CONFIDENTIALITY – mandated by LAW.

Along comes Kathleen Kane with a lawyer to visit the Philly newspapers and saying nothing. CONFIDENTIALITY – mandated by LAW.

Read the accusations by other lawyers who know what she cannot say and speculating. Those lawyers know very well that Kathleen Kane BY LAW must not say anything. But they can speculate all they want.

Chris Christie Gives Speech On Financial Integrity And Accountability In DCNJ Governor Chris Christie releases a report on BRIDGEgate through his lawyer.

Christie must do that to protect the state, the governor’s office, he can’t say anything. IT’s THE LAW.

So Chris Christie hires a lawyer, who must protect the client, and the lawyer says nothing. He can’t say anything. IT’s THE LAW.

Aside from the political games being played in full view of the entire country, the Rule 1.6 game plays out in every level of courts every day. It denies and obstructs justice to litigants when the lawyers and the courts must take every action to maintain confidentiality of the corruption and the injustice in the United States Courts.

The law becomes clearly unconstitutional when it denies rights and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

The lawyers can’t fix it because they would violate the LAW.

The courts can’t fix it because it would violate the LAW.

The legislature can’t fix it because it would violate the LAW.


The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is in the Federal Courts – Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Filed and served upon every state which is following the same ‘law’ which demands the unconstitutional denial of the rights of litigants to protect a system which has self destructed protecting the integrity of a judiciary which lacked integrity, concealing the misconduct of lawyers, hiding the individual liability of lawyers and law enforcement who are prevented from their responsibilities because of a ‘law’ buried in the Rules of Professional Conduct.

And then there are the media lawyers who have informed the news media to ignore the story.

The American Bar Association, the author of the ‘law”, has undermined and corrupted the judiciary of the entire United States… and they hide from the two pro se litigants who proved the ABA’s conspiracy and mandate of silence in the name of integrity. You cannot encourage integrity by a mandate which sacrifices integrity. JUSTICE IS COMING.

%d bloggers like this: