2014
06.16

Senator Bob Casey Jr.’s office called after a meeting request was sent along with an explanation of the issue we wish to discuss.

Cathy called back on Friday and was making excuses in her message. Phone tag ensued.

When finally we connected, Cathy asked for an explanation of the issue. I gave her a verbal description of the issue we wished to discuss. It was quite clear she had NOT read the documents sent to Senator Casey.

Cathy kept trying to create an excuse to end the call. No matter how incorrect her thought was, Cathy persisted while I pointed out her failure to comprehend the issue.

Cathy indicated that the US Congress can do nothing. She was wrong.
I politely explained to her the US Constitution’s Separation of Powers.

Cathy persisted in saying that no branch has interaction with the judiciary. She was wrong.

Cathy insisted that the Congress had no oversight of the Judiciary. She was wrong. We are not seeking oversight. She was battling a strawman logical fallacy.

Her next action was to feign insult because I told her any third grade civics student knows the separation of powers.

Cathy was insulted at being wrong. Cathy persisted in indicating that she knew better than me. Though, CATHY DOES NOT KNOW ME OR MY BACKGROUND AT ALL.

When I asked her background and experience, Cathy became more offended – and did not respond. Cathy indicated that the Senator has no jurisdiction to meet with us on this issue.

RIDICULOUS. Cathy was wrong.

Cathy hung up.


The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
requires the action of the United States Congress
to address a problem created by the Judicial Branch
which by its own authority
enacted a mandate for injustice
which sacrifices the judiciary’s integrity and
prevents the court from lawful action to resolve the problem.


THE PROBLEM WITH CATHY…

Cathy started the conversation with her mind made up.

Cathy had indicated she doesn’t know the issue.
– She asks for information about the issue. She is barely listening except when she is trying to interject a reason to hang up… BUT because she has not been paying attention, her excuses fail.

Cathy has asked for more information and it was provided.

Cathy incorrectly indicates that a US Senator and the US Congress have no interaction with the Judicial Branch, no Constitutional authority, and that Senator Casey has no jurisdiction to conduct a meeting on the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6.

CATHY IS WRONG and ABSOLUTELY COMMITTED TO BEING WRONG.

Instead of indicating a willingness to check her information, Cathy puts herself in a position of looking completely foolish.

Instead of accepting the responsibility, redirecting to a proper authority, or finding the correct information (even if just to challenge my information), Cathy places herself in a position of gatekeeper and hangs up the phone.

The litigation has been unending since 2007, I have been blocked by gatekeeper tactics before. They can hang up the phone. They take no responsibility. They may act like they know everything and nothing at the same time. They frequently act like it is their first day on the job. The flawed misinformation tactics prevents and denies and obstructs and stalls.

WHAT COULD BE THE MOTIVATION?
Who are the fans of injustice? …the fans of the lack of integrity demonstrated by the United States Judiciary? …the fans of judges who lose their integrity when they write fraudulent and twisted orders and opinions? …the fans of corruption which goes unprosecuted? …the fans of the power attained by undermining and usurping the authority of the judicial branch? …the fans of a multiple decade conspiracy to deny and undermine the U.S. Constitution?

The membership of the American Bar Association is the only beneficiary from the injustice caused when their guideline set of ‘trade rules’ which were discretionary were enacted into law and became MANDATORY.

The ABA created an industry where their membership could thrive financially by charging litigants who could never expect to escape a deliberate mandatory injustice. Concealing the effect of the Rule under attorney client privilege and aggressively enforcing the Confidentiality of Information till death with its members, the ABA prevented its members from exposing their sedition as the organization usurped the authority of every state judiciary.

Cathy. YOU KNOW NOTHING.

The Constitutional Challenge did not arise out of malice. It grew out of necessity. It was presented and filed without accusations and blame. A responsible approach to an issue which required careful presentation to the entire country.

By taking the approach to the matter as a preemptory challenge to the Constitutionality of a state law, it removed the emotionally charged cases of the victims who simply wanted their constitutional rights to be restored in the state where they could then return for JUSTICE. Their cases became evidentiary support demonstrating the loss of constitutional rights.

This responsible approach was perceived as weakness or foolishness by the court. EVEN WITH THE ISSUE CLEARLY EXPOSED the court demonstrated the deliberate intent for the judiciary to continue in their injustice, to persist in the sedition, to abuse the authority of the court without regard for the US Constitution.

While failing to substantiate statements in fact or law or doctrine, the court continued to carelessly issue orders and opinions without regard for relevance or consistency. The law mandated that the judiciary sacrifice their integrity.

The Rule is clearly and deliberately unconstitutional. Yet, knowledgeable judges and lawyers, senators and representatives, and government officials continued to perpetuate the injustice.

The matter should have ended immediately with the judiciary accepting responsibility and indicating RULE 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. However, the court actively participated in actions which ignored the law and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; undermining the default action by every state attorney general; removing the attorneys general from the matter; deliberate misrepresentations on the docket; refusing to allow the Attorneys General to indicate their default.

A LAW WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IS A NULLITY. Informed and knowledgeable judges and lawyers are continuing to sacrifice their reputation and integrity based on a nullity. The delusion of the court’s flawed and irrelevant opinions and “supporting” documents continued without any cognizance of reality or fact or law.

It is not necessary for the Supreme Court of the United States to disgrace themselves by ignoring the matter and denying certiori; or, by reviewing the matter and sacrificing integrity for the illusion of judicial integrity which has not existed in the United States since the 80’s.

The litigants request the United States Congress address the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 and permit the Supreme Court of the United States to maintain an illusion of judicial integrity.

It is clearly a mistake to ignore or fail to comprehend the carefully thought out actions of the litigants. As survivors of the systematic injustice and extreme corruption, they discovered the unconstitutional ‘law’ and lawfully presented a workable resolution to the government.

It is in every American’s best interest that Congress act at this time.

We demand the United States Constitution be respected honored and fully enforced by the Judiciary, the US Congress and the President.



CIVICS LESSON FOR CATHY

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the United States.

Senator Casey is a member of the United States Senate.

The United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives form the Legislative Branch of the United States Government.

The Legislative branch makes the law and has the power to initiate constitutional amendments.

First, the Legislative branch makes the law.
Second, the Executive branch executes the law.
Last, the Judicial branch interprets the law.
Each branch has an effect on the other.

Legislative Branch
Checks on the Executive
– Impeachment power (House)
– Trial of impeachments (Senate)
– Selection of the President (House) and Vice President (Senate) in the case of no majority of electoral votes
– May override Presidential vetoes
– Senate approves departmental appointments
– Senate approves treaties and ambassadors
– Approval of replacement Vice President
– Power to declare war
– Power to enact taxes and allocate funds
– President must, from time-to-time, deliver a State of the Union address
 
Checks on the Judiciary
-Senate approves federal judges
-Impeachment power (House)
-Trial of impeachments (Senate)
-Power to initiate constitutional amendments
-Power to set courts inferior to the Supreme Court
-Power to set jurisdiction of courts
-Power to alter the size of the Supreme Court
 
Checks on the Legislature – because it is bicameral, the Legislative branch has a degree of self-checking.
– Bills must be passed by both houses of Congress
– House must originate revenue bills
– Neither house may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house
– All journals are to be published
Executive Branch
Checks on the Legislature
– Veto power
– Vice President is President of the Senate
– Commander in chief of the military
– Recess appointments
– Emergency calling into session of one or both houses of Congress
– May force adjournment when both houses cannot agree on adjournment
– Compensation cannot be diminished
 
Checks on the Judiciary
– Power to appoint judges
– Pardon power
 
Checks on the Executive
– Vice President and Cabinet can vote that the President is unable to discharge his duties
Judicial Branch
Checks on the Legislature
– Judicial review
– Seats are held on good behavior
– Compensation cannot be diminished
 
Checks on the Executive
– Judicial review
– Chief Justice sits as President of the Senate during presidential impeachment

Checkbalance

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: