White paperIf you have any question about the legal industry awareness of the impact of Rule 1.6, review the following documents for an amazing collection of evidence.

Statement of Additional Authorities (4 pages)

Second Statement of Additional Authorities (2 pages)

Third Statement of Additional Authorities (7 pages)

Fourth Statement of Additional Authorities (9 pages)

Fifth Statement of Additional Authorities (16 pages)

Sixth Statement of Additional Authorities (3 pages)

Seventh Statement of Additional Authorities (7 pages)

Eighth Statement of Additional Authorities (20 pages)

Strange I have never found this site and series of documents before. It is a massive resource on the corruption and injustice of Rule 1.6 that I had never before encountered.



The graph demonstrates the dramatic increase in judicial complaints as Rule 1.6 was enacted in each state. Most complaints are dismissed without review or investigation.

Ronald Reagan Years (enacted in 30 states/jurisdictions)
1984 – New Jersey, Arizona
1985 – Minnesota, Montana, Washington, Missouri, Delaware, North Carolina, Arkansas
1986 – New Hampshire, Nevada, Maryland, Connecticut, New Mexico, Florida, Idaho, Wyoming, Indiana, Louisiana
1987 – Mississippi, Utah, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, South Dakota
1988 – Kansas, Oklahoma, Michigan, West Virginia, Rhode Island

George H.W. Bush Years (enacted in 8 states/jurisdictions)
1989 – Kentucky, Texas
1990 – South Carolina, Illinois, District of Columbia, Alabama
1991 – Virgin Islands
1992 – Colorado

Bill Clinton Years (enacted in 6 states/jurisdictions)
1993 – Alaska, Hawaii
1997 – Massachusetts
1999 – Virginia, Vermont
2000 – Georgia

George W. Bush Years * (Enacted in 6 states/jurisdictions)
2002 – Tennessee
2005 – Oregon, Iowa, Nebraska
2006 – Ohio
2008 – New York

Barack Obama Years (Enacted in 1 state/jurisdiction)
2009 – Maine

* It is within the realm of possibility that the involvement of the US Supreme Court in the Presidential Election was leveraged using Rule 1.6. The US Supreme Court could have been instructed to give the election to George W. Bush, or face charges of sedition and treason based on Rule 1.6.

That sedition would demonstrate how Rule 1.6 undermined the judiciary in every state which had enacted Rule 1.6. The revelation that the United States Courts had undermined the constitutionally protected rights of the people AND IGNORED THE INJUSTICE could cause civil unrest throughout the country.

The US Supreme Court caves to the pressure giving George W. Bush the presidency. Al Gore quietly accepts their ruling for the sake of the entire country. Tennessee is the next state to enact Rule 1.6 into law – this would mandate Al Gore’s silence.

The Foreclosure Crisis in the US which became a national issue during the Bush years is demonstrative of Rule 1.6 undermining the rights of the people by the Courts with the mandate of confidentiality of lawyers and judges assured by the law.


There have been many groups attempting to address the constitutional crisis in the United States. Their approaches include the following:
Civil Disobediance
Constitutional Conventions
Court Reforms
Enacting New Laws
Grand Juries

Unfortunately, the same problem which is causing the crisis prevents those approaches from being successful.

Where a national approach is necessary, Americans are very apathetic when it comes to their rights. Those who are unaware that they have lost their rights are content to ignore the people who have lost their rights.

Once you experience a loss of rights, you will be forced to turn to the very courts which deny your rights for a resolution. A court where no one will acknowledge your loss of rights. A Court where the issue is ignored with a deliberate silence that overwhelms the matter.

The best definition I have found for the victim of this type of inescapable loss of rights is…

“I am a sane man dealing with an absolutely insane situation. Every person in a position to help has acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter… they each make the situation worse… NO ONE HELPS”

Those in govt did not expect proactive attempts at a resolution. This may be why the government is trying to get guns off the streets while seemingly preparing for a sort of martial law in every community.

The government never expected anyone to find the needle in the haystack of injustice.

It was a necessity in my case. I needed to find out why the courts and every level of law enforcement failed to address the denial of my constitutional rights while annihilating every aspect of my life in the process. The injustice continually delivered by the 20 judges over the course of my court appearances since 2007.

Nationally, 30 years of denial of constitutional rights could come to an end.

Once I knew the problem, everyone’s failure to take action on my behalf was clear. I had an explanation. FINALLY.

ONE LAW. Enacted by the Supreme Courts in each state. IS THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM. Same ‘law’ in every state. Same number. Same Name. Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Rule 1.6 makes it illegal for a lawyer to address the problem. I am not a lawyer.

Rule 1.6 makes it illegal for a state Attorney General to address the problem. They are lawyers mandated to follow the rule or face disciplinary action… disciplinary action is swift to occur and deliberately intended to prevent exposure of the unconstitutional ‘law’. Disciplinary proceedings are kept CONFIDENTIAL.

The ‘law’ in place makes it illegal for the state Supreme Courts to fix the problem the state Supreme courts caused when they enacted the ‘law’.

The ‘law’ in place makes it illegal for lawyers within the legislature to fix the problem caused when the state Supreme Courts enacted the ‘law’.

Truth be told, Most lawyers just accept it and had no idea what caused the constitutional crisis.

Lawyers who knew the effect were the same lawyers who foreclosed on millions of Americans and threw people out of their homes. An act of judicial misconduct or fraud upon the court was all that was required to cause the loss of rights. Fraudulent robo-signed documents served to the court.

The DOJ and the Courts (every level of the Courts) were all aware of the Constitutional Crisis. The ‘law’ makes it illegal for them to take any action to fix the problem.

Only one person in government would be able to lawfully address the problem. BUT, doing so would expose the active participation of every member of the judiciary and the membership of American Bar Association in the matter. Every judge and lawyer in the country.

Rule 1.6 was enacted into law starting in 1984 in New Jersey. Quietly and gradually it was enacted in every state.

When Rule 1.6 was a trade code, it was a guideline for legal professionals. HOWEVER, when enacted into law, CONFIDENTIALITY became a MANDATE for all lawyers, district attorneys and attorneys general.

When it became a mandate people experienced the denial of constitutionally protected rights and liberties. This denial was committed by the courts and the entire judiciary. Those responsible to make sure a persons rights were available to them in a courtroom were the very ones ignoring people’s rights. The denial was done without mercy by those who knew their actions were unconstitutional, but the ‘law’ mandated the denial of those rights and liberties. An Appeal to a higher court would only cause the same results, because the courts are mandated to keep the injustice CONFIDENTIAL. Opinions from higher courts became documents of misinformation which ignored the lower courts injustice.

Any law which denies rights and privileges guaranteed by the US Constitution is a nullity. And while the judges and lawyers know this, they allowed Rule 1.6 to undermine the courts, the law and the constitution in every state.

The failure of lawyers and judges to stop the deliberate injustice demonstrates the intimidating and threatening disciplinary power of the courts conspiracy of confidentiality. The courts self-regulation disciplinary processes used to conceal the court’s injustice.


The US Attorney General may not be prevented from addressing issues regarding ANY LAW in the country. Rule 1.6 does not prevent the US Attorney General from action. I think the mess is considered so massive, that the US Attorney General have opted to permit the continued injustice to occur instead of having civil unrest throughout the nation..

The only other person in the country who could lawfully address the matter is a pro se litigant (non-lawyer) who has experienced the injustice, survived the injustice, found the cause of the injustice, documented the injustice, and would have standing to address the matter in the Federal Courts. THEY NEVER ANTICIPATED THIS POSSIBILITY. It was the last place I looked. Only when it was realized that everyone who was failing to act had to directly or indirectly follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. They were lawyers or were guided by lawyers.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed on August 8 2013 and served upon every state Attorney General.

No news media has carried the story. We tried.

The Federal Courts have deliberately acted improperly to attempt to dismiss the matter. This causes more courts to become involved in the actions to continue

The State Attorneys General failed to respond to the Summons & Challenge. Rule 1.6 mandates their silence. They defaulted.

Currently in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals with the anticipation it must go on to the US Supreme Court, the recommendation of certiori by the Third Circuit judiciary would be beneficial.

Since August 2013, you may have noticed changes in the justice system. The quick end to some injustice which has caused people to be released from jail. The government seems to be preparing to restore justice. But simply put they know that people are going to be angry. Justifiably angry.

I never imagined I’d find the fix. But like I said, I had no choice. The victims are relegated to homelessness, prison or suicide… and that was just not an option for me.

Once Rule 1.6 is out of the way, justice and the constitution and the law will be restored.

When South Africa was writing their Constitution they recognized that the apartheid in South Africa was extended by the courts who falsely imprisoned civil rights activists. The courts were used to intimidate and threaten the people. The Courts were the enforcers of apartheid.

South Africa’s Constitution makes sure that their judiciary is the weakest and most vulnerable branch of their government.

The US Judiciary has been permitted to self regulate their courts. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 exposes that the courts betrayed the trust of the People and were unable to handle that responsibility.


unnamedIt’s interesting… When South Africa wrote their Constitution… They recognized how their courts had perpetuated apartheid, denied people’s human and civil rights, and persecuted their critics.

Their constitution makes sure that their judiciary is the weakest and most vulnerable branch of their government.

“Having no constituency, no purse and no sword, the judiciary must rely on moral authority.”

South Africa did not enable their branches of government to usurp the power of the other branches.

They knew about the United State’s Rule 1.6 problem of the judiciary usurping the power of the entire government… appointing presidents… concealing their sedition.




Those of you who have read the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 may have noticed that IT IS NOT A 1983 Claim. That was deliberate. 1983 Claims get dismissed almost immediately.

The Constitutional Challenge is called a Preemptive Claim/Constitutional Challenge.

As the matter is proceeding to the United States Supreme Court, the documents will be marked specifically as a Preemptive Claim.

Here’s why…..

The Bivens remedy has never been considered the proper vehicle for altering an entity’s policies, injunctive relief has long been recognized as the proper means for preventing entities from acting unconstitutionally.

Damages and attorney fees are NOT available in preemptive claims.


The Preemption cause of action’s weakness – lack of damages – is also its strength.

The Supreme Court is comfortable with injunctive relief against states when sovereign immunity bars damages, so recognizing preemptive claims for injunctive relief does not send up the same alarms as Section 1983 suits do.

With respect to injunctive relief, the typical relief in a preemption case is invalidation of the preempted state or local law, regulation, or agency order and an injunction against enforcing it.

The preemption cause of action arises from the Constitution’s Supremacy clause, not from a statute, and thus congressional intent is irrelevant to the existence of the cause of action: “In this type of action, it is the interests protected by the Supremacy Clause, not by the preempting statute, that are at issue.”


Preemption under the Supremacy Clause “concerns the federal structure of the Nation rather that the securing of rights, privileges, and immunities to individuals.”


Remedies designed to end a continuing violation of federal law are necessary to vindicate the federal interest in assuring the supremacy of that law.

The option to sue for injunctive relief under the Supremacy Clause… is almost always available.

The core principle is a state or local law, regulation official written policy, or agency order that is invalid because it conflicts with a federal statute or frustrates Congress’ objectives. Relief then revolves around invalidating the state or local action to the extent that it conflicts with federal law and enjoining the state or local government from implementing it.


The preemptive cause of action originates in the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s implicit recognition of the preemption cause of action is well entrenched and would be difficult to reverse.

The Court must pay attention to the broader purposes and may not rest the decision on the phrasing of a particular subsection.

Jurisdiction and standing requirements, including causation and redressability, must be met.


Preemption is intended for use in situations which challenge a state or local law, regulation, written policy, or administrative order.

Preemption claims may generally be brought only against government officials.


The Supreme Court’s decisions construing the scope of Section 1983 and related jurisdictional statutes are irrelevant to the scope of supremacy clause preemption claims that are not based on Section 1983.


WHAT IS THEIR MOTIVATION? Why does the court wish to continue to sacrifice the integrity of every judge in the US and mandate continued injustice and corruption.


10291059_10152122045465197_5982114347444823299_nIn the end, the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me…
We are stateless, imprisoned, powerless…
No, the Obama administration is afraid of you…
an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised
– and it should be.
Edward Snowden



If you are involved in a Rule 1.6 concealed injustice the following cases will likely have no impact – because you have lost your constitutional rights.

Let your experience be your guide.

Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885)
Justice Bradley, “It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis.”

Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
“It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgement in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution.”

Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966), cited also in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644
“Constitutional ‘rights’ would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied.”

Juliard v. Greeman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)
Supreme Court Justice Field, “There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States… In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise power which they have not, by their Constitution, entrusted to it. All else is withheld.”

Mallowy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1
“All rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to the federal Constitution are equally applicable.”

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no ‘rule making’ or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 7; 8 S. Ct. 568, 2 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1958)
“…in our country the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to them by taking away their citizenship.”

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”

Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
“The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime”… “a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law”.

Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas., 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996)
Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law.


Burton v. United States, 202 U.S. 344, 26 S. Ct. 688 50 L.Ed 1057
United States Senator convicted of, among other things, bribery.

Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882)
“No man [or woman] in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.”

*Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694
Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process.

*Geiler v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1973) 10 Cal.3d 270, 286
Society’s commitment to institutional justice requires that judges be solicitous of the rights of persons who come before the court.

*Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance, (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 359, 371, 374
Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process.

Olmstad v. United States, (1928) 277 U.S. 438
“Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”

Owen v. City of Independence
“The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury.”

Perry v. United States, 204 U.S. 330, 358
“I do not understand the government to contend that it is any less bound by the obligation than a private individual would be…” “It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.”

*Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance, (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 518, 533
Before sending a person to jail for contempt or imposing a fine, judges are required to provide due process of law, including strict adherence to the procedural requirements contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Ignorance of these procedures is not a mitigating but an aggravating factor.

U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882)
“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it.”

“It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives.”

Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas, 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996)

Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law.


Note: [Copied verbiage; we are not lawyers.] It can be argued that to dismiss a civil rights action or other lawsuit in which a serious factual pattern or allegation of a cause of action has been made would itself be violating of procedural due process as it would deprive a pro se litigant of equal protection of the law vis a vis a party who is represented by counsel.

Also, see Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60 – Relief from Judgment or Order (a) Clerical Mistakes and (b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, etc.

Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas, 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996)
Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law.

Walter Process Equipment v. Food Machinery, 382 U.S. 172 (1965)
… in a “motion to dismiss, the material allegations of the complaint are taken as admitted”. From this vantage point, courts are reluctant to dismiss complaints unless it appears the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief (see Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).


Cochran v. Kansas, 316 U.S. 255, 257-258 (1942)
“However inept Cochran’s choice of words, he has set out allegations supported by affidavits, and nowhere denied, that Kansas refused him privileges of appeal which it afforded to others. *** The State properly concedes that if the alleged facts pertaining to the suppression of Cochran’s appeal were disclosed as being true, … there would be no question but that there was a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894)
Due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government.”

Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657, 662 (1893), Citations Omitted
“Undoubtedly it (the Fourteenth Amendment) forbids any arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty or property, and secures equal protection to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their rights… It is enough that there is no discrimination in favor of one as against another of the same class. …And due process of law within the meaning of the [Fifth and Fourteenth] amendment is secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government.”

Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337 (1885)
“The rule of equality… requires the same means and methods to be applied impartially to all the constitutents of each class, so that the law shall operate equally and uniformly upon all persons in similar circumstances”.

Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312, 332
“Our whole system of law is predicated on the general fundamental principle of equality of application fo the law. ‘All men are equal before the law,’ “This is a government of laws and not of men,’ ‘No man is above the law,’ are all maxims showing the spirit in which legislatures, executives, and courts are expected to make, execute and apply laws. But the framers and adopters of the (Fourtheenth) Amendment were not content to depend… upon the spirit of equality which might not be insisted on by local public opinion. They therefore embodied that spirit in a specific guaranty.”


Duncan v. Bradley, No. 01-55290 (9th Circ., 12-24-02)
A state trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on an entrapment defense, in a second trial on drug sale charges, amounted to prejudicial constitutional error where evidence presented at a first trial warranted such an instruct. To read entire text of the opinion, see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0155290p.pdf


See Judicial Immunity page for more citations (links) and news articles regarding the topic.
See also, 42 USC 1983 – Availability of Equitable Relief Against Judges.

Note: [Copied verbiage; we are not lawyers.] Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal act or for their administrative/ministerial duties, or for violating a citizen’s constitutional rights. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion – he is then not performing a judicial act; he is performing a ministerial act.
Nowhere was the judiciary given immunity, particularly nowhere in Article III; under our Constitution, if judges were to have immunity, it could only possibly be granted by amendment (and even less possibly by legislative act), as Art. I, Sections 9 & 10, respectively, in fact expressly prohibit such, stating, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States” and “No state shall… grant any Title of Nobility.” Most of us are certain that Congress itself doesn’t understand the inherent lack of immunity for judges.

Article III, Sec. 1, “The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior.”
Tort & Insurance Law Journal, Spring 1986 21 n3, p 509-516, “Federal tort law: judges cannot invoke judicial immunity for acts that violate litigants’ civil rights.” – Robert Craig Waters.

Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859)
“No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence.”

Chandler v. Judicial Council of the 10th Circuit, 398 U.S. 74, 90 S. Ct. 1648, 26 L. Ed. 2d 100
Justice Douglas, in his dissenting opinion at page 140 said, “If (federal judges) break the law, they can be prosecuted.” Justice Black, in his dissenting opinion at page 141) said, “Judges, like other people, can be tried, convicted and punished for crimes… The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution”.

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it”. See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).

Cooper v. O’Conner, 99 F.2d 133
There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully, although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign.

Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938)
A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts.

Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. at 227-229, 108 S. Ct. at 544-545 (1987); Westfall v.Erwin, 108 S. Ct. 580 (1987); United States v. Lanier (March 1997)
Constitutionally and in fact of law and judicial rulings, state-federal “magistrates-judges” or any government actors, state or federal, may now be held liable, if they violate any Citizen’s Constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities, or guarantees; including statutory civil rights.
A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity.

Gregory v. Thompson, F.2d 59 (C.A. Ariz. 1974)
Generally, judges are immune from suit for judicial acts within or in excess of their jurisdiction even if those acts have been done maliciously or corruptly; the only exception being for acts done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417
“The courts are not bound by an officer’s interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act.”

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803)
“… the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

“In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank”.

“All law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID”.
Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states “NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, … or equal protection under the law”, this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.

Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)
“Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.”

Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984); 104 S. Ct. 1781, 1980, 1981, and 1985
In 1996, Congress passed a law to overcome this ruling which stated that judicial immunity doesn’t exist; citizens can sue judges for prospective injunctive relief.
“Our own experience is fully consistent with the common law’s rejection of a rule of judicial immunity. We never have had a rule of absolute judicial immunity. At least seven circuits have indicated affirmatively that there is no immunity… to prevent irreparable injury to a citizen’s constitutional rights…”

“Subsequent interpretations of the Civil Rights Act by this Court acknowledge Congress’ intent to reach unconstitutional actions by all state and federal actors, including judges… The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state [federal] from denying any person [citizen] within its jurisdiction the equal protection under the laws. Since a State [or federal] acts only by its legislative, executive or judicial authorities, the constitutional provisions must be addressed to those authorities, including state and federal judges…”

“We conclude that judicial immunity is not a bar to relief against a judicial officer acting in her [his] judicial capacity.”

Mireles v. Waco, 112 S. Ct. 286 at 288 (1991)
A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity; however, even in a case involving a particular attorney not assigned to him, he may reach out into the hallway, having his deputy use “excessive force” to haul the attorney into the courtroom for chastisement or even incarceration. A Superior Court Judge is broadly vested with “general jurisdiction.” Provided the judge is not divested of all jurisdiction, he may have his actions excused as per this poor finding.

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges’ orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect.

The U.S. Supreme Court stated that “when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.”

Stump v. Sparkman, id., 435 U.S. 349
Some Defendants urge that any act “of a judicial nature” entitles the Judge to absolute judicial immunity. But in a jurisdictional vacuum (that is, absence of all jurisdiction) the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing.
A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity.

Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (1980)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an Arizona District Court dismissal based upon absolute judicial immunity, finding that both necessary immunity prongs were absent; later, in Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (1986), the Ninth Circuit, en banc, criticized the “judicial nature” analysis it had published in Rankin as unnecessarily restrictive. But Rankin’s ultimate result was not changed, because Judge Howard had been independently divested of absolute judicial immunity by his complete lack of jurisdiction.

U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (State use of), 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697
When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction.

U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882)
“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.”

“It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives.”

Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326
When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.


NOTE: It is a fact of law that the person asserting jurisdiction must, when challenged, prove that jurisdiction exists; mere good faith assertions of power and authority (jurisdiction) have been abolished.

Albrecht v. U.S.
Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)
“The United States District Court is not a true United States Court, established under Article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court.”

Basso v. UPL, 495 F. 2d 906
Brook v. Yawkey, 200 F. 2d 633
Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
Under federal Law, which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “if a court is without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered, in law, as trespassers.”

Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d 272
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528
Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990)
Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases.
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149
Mack v. United States, 07-27-97, Justice Antonin Scalia
“The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

Mack v. United States, 07-27-97, Justice Antonin Scalia
“Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete and enumerated ones.”

Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1
Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (1938)
“The term ‘District Courts of the United States’ as used in the rules without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under Article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are Legislative Courts, properly speaking, and are not district courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the district courts of the United States (98 U.S. 145) does not make it a ‘District Court of the United States’.

“Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules the territorial court and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended.”

McNutt v. General Motors, 298 U.S. 178
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)
“We have held, however, that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction.”
Owens v. The City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 100 S. Ct. 1398 (1980)
Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442


United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. I at 16 (1976)
“It is deeply distressing that the Department of Justice, whose mission is to protect the constitutional liberties of the people of the United States, should even appear to be seeking to subvert them by extreme and dubious legal argument.”


Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347; 6 S. Ct. 2673; 49 L. Ed. 2d (1976)
“Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”

Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 2d. 486, 490; 42
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one, because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105
“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.”

Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262
“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”
United States Constitution, First Amendment
Right to Petition; Freedom of Association.


Brinegar v. U.S., 388 US 160 (1949)
Probable Cause to Arrest – Provides details on how to determine if a crime has been or is being committed.

Carroll v. U.S., 267 US 132 (1925)
Probable Cause to Search – Provides details on the belief that seizable property exists in a particular place or on a particular person.

Draper v. U.S. (1959)
Probable cause is where known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, are sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution in the belief that a crime has been or is being committed. Reasonable man definition; common textbook definition; comes from this case.


Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425

Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957)
“Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice”… “The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.” The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.

Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449
“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”

Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905
“… the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws.”

Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA “Next Friend”
A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)
“Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient”… “which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240;

Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233
Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants’ pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.

Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938)
“Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment.”

NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969)
Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with “unauthorized practice of law.”

Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals
The plaintiff’s civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as “inept”. Nevertheless, it was held “Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff’s Pleadings without regard to technicalities.”

Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA)
It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).

Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982)
“Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices… the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law.”

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights.”

Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239.
“The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State.”

Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925)
“The practice of law is an occupation of common right.”
Nowhere can be found a competent attorney that is able to execute the proper remedy without embarrassing the Court, Corpus Juris Secundum 2d Vol. 7 section 25.

Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 that, “No accused may be deprived of, his liberty as the result of any criminal prosecution, whether felony or misdemeanor, in which he was denied assistance of counsel.”

At the present time, Bar Attorneys (Public Vessels) are not Assistance of Counsel and defense is severely limited by being represented by an attorney since the Texas Code of Professional Conduct permits a defendant to have only four choices of input in his defense, 1) what plea to enter, 2) whether to testify, 3) whether to appeal, and 4) whether to opt for a jury trial. Best said a “trial by jury”.


Healy v Miller
#2013-29976 Action in Ejectment

#900 EDA 2014 Superior Court of Pennsylvania
The Weilheimer Appeal

The Defective and Void May 2011 ‘Order’ is submitted by Defendants. Judge Weilheimer deliberately ignores sworn testimony and ALL evidence.

Evidence from the court record of the courts lack of jurisdiction was clearly presented during the hearing.

No evidence of the validity of the Order was presented during the hearing.

Judge Weilheimer has knowingly and deliberately enforced a void and defective order.
Judge Weilheimer fails to address the court’s jurisdiction which is a necessity when challenged.
Judge Weilheimer continues the denial of Constitutional rights in her courtroom.

Judge Weilheimer entered the proceeding planning to dismiss the case, and thereby rendering the MOTION TO STRIKE A DEFECTIVE AND VOID ORDER to be moot. And she proceeded according to that plan.

The Defendants presented the ‘defective and void order’ in support of their claim of ownership, Plaintiff challenging the courts jurisdiction to issue that ‘order’ was appropriate and properly before the court. Counsel for the Defendants neglected to provide ANY information, evidence or exhibits to support the jurisdictional challenge. As a result, there is no evidence to assert/present proper jurisdiction in the Appeal, a mountain of evidence which demonstrates the courts lack of jurisdiction, and a transcript where the judge ignores everything – law, facts, the court record, everything.

Judge Weilheimer sacrificed her integrity.

Judge Weilheimer acted without any concern for the law, justice or constitutional rights.

Judge Weilheimer also failed to recognize that the MOTION TO STRIKE was simply a formality should the court choose not to act sua sponte to strike the defective and void order.

The passage of time, continued disrespect, denial of rights, and punishment of additional injustice will not affect the validity of a judgment where the court which did not have jurisdiction to act.

Injustice does not end injustice. It extends it.

Treason and judicial misconduct ignored because the District Attorney is a lawyer who must follow Rule 1.6. Prosecution of Judge Weilheimer would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.

Treason and judicial misconduct protected because the Attorney General is a lawyer who must follow Rule 1.6. Prosecution of Judge Weilheimer would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.

The Superior Court cannot review an appeal where a judge neglects to file an Opinion.

An Opinion (not yet delivered) for this APPEAL will expose the Judge Weilheimer’s treason and the further demonstrate the conspiracy to conceal the corruption of the entire Montgomery County judiciary. I have stood before 20 judges since 2007. I have only asked two to recuse. One recused immediately. Judge Carluccio was obstinate and refused. Several times. As judge, president of the bar association, and a former employee of the US Attorney’s office… Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio would be difficult to have prosecuted even without Rule 1.6 to conceal her malice and corruption.

Judge Weilheimer is also not likely to self-incriminate by attempting to support her improper decision. Again, the process fails because of an injustice which occurs within the courtroom, leaving the litigant without opportunity for resolution – a denial of a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

– Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information causes an denial of the constitutionally protected right to petition the Government for redress of grievances. (First Amendment)

– Rule 1.6 causes a denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law. (Fifth Amendment)

– Rule 1.6 causes a 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)
Rule 1.6 mandates a judge sacrifice their integrity for prior judges who lacked integrity.

In August 2007, Rhonda Daniele issued her secret order without jurisdiction and then concealed it from Terance Healy, additionally deliberately concealing the order from the court record, the resulting injustice has been inescapable. The secret injustice was leveraged and undermined every proceeding before the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas where every person in a position to help acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information prevented any resolution and MANDATED no explanation to the victim.

The Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas participated in the conspiracy to deny CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS.

Each judge conspired to conceal the injustice to protect the integrity of a judiciary which lack any integrity.

The deliberate obstruction of the Carluccio Appeal is permitted (mandated) under Rule 1.6.
The deliberate obstruction of the Page Appeal is permitted (mandated) under Rule 1.6.
The inaction permitted under Rule 1.6 is now causing an obstruction of the Weilheimer Appeal, and an overall failure to resolve matters which are a right guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Rule 1.6 causes an unconstitutional denial of rights of a litigant.

Judge Weilheimer continues the terror. Her victim persevered and survived to find and address the cause of the injustice problem. The victim’s Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 will resurrect the U.S. Constitution and restore the integrity of the judiciary.

An undeserving judiciary that annihilated every aspect of his life with malice and intent.

An undeserving judiciary that refuses to accept responsibility for their deliberate corruption and conspiracy to deny justice.

Injustice does not end injustice. It extends it.


Civil Docketing Statement 900 EDA 2014

Table Of Contents

Civil Docketing Statement 900 EDA 2014
Civil Docketing Statement ( 2 Pages )
Appeal from Order of March 4, 2014 ( 1 Pages )
Description of Appeal ( 3 Pages )
Concise Statement – Weilheimer ( 5 Pages )
Docket 2013-29976 ( 3 pages )


Previous Pending Appeals

Concise Statement – Page ( 25 Pages )
– Concise Statement
– Appeal filed August 15, 2011
– Concise Statement – September 15, 2011

Court Record, Documents, Transcripts and Exhibits have NOT been forwarded to Superior Court.


Concise Statement – Carluccio (7 pages)

Court Record, Documents, Transcripts and Exhibits have NOT been prepared or forwarded to Superior Court.


Previous Pending Appeals

Concise Statement – Page (25 pages)
– Concise Statement
– Prior Appeal filed August 15, 2011
– Previous Concise Statement – September 15, 2011

Court Record, Documents, Transcripts and Exhibits have NOT been forwarded to Superior Court.


Previous Pending Appeals

Concise Statement – Carluccio (7 pages)

In order to type the legal documents I am FORCED to relive the terror of the past 8 years. I need to have my head in the right place or I will fall completely apart.

It is a necessity that I keep it together.

When every action by everyone, and I mean everyone, is designed and clearly determined to cause me more trouble, when I am not in any position to escape them, please realize, YOU ARE MAKING MY VERY EXISTENCE HARDER. YOU ARE PROLONGING THE NIGHTMARE.

YOU ARE PREVENTING MY ESCAPE. You will be the cause of my suicide if you continue. THAT has happened to too many in the same situation. I have worked very hard for THAT not to happen.

– Terance

%d bloggers like this: