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 Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 exists because of a necessity. Litigants in the American Courts have experienced a loss of constitutionally protected rights and privileges. The state courts fail to consider their responsibility for the loss of constitutional rights of a litigant which leaves the litigant without any recourse.

The litigant is forced to petition the court to address the loss of rights, however the court fails to recognize and acknowledge responsibility. Further, the court fails to realize that the litigant has no choice but to return to the court for justice which will never occur.

The litigant realizes he has lost his rights, BUT it is not until the matter can be removed to a higher court that the evidence which demonstrates and corroborates the loss of rights presents itself.

The lower court is permitted to take any actions to deny, prevent and obstruct justice in the Appeals court. The Appeals court neglects to address the actions or enforce the Rules of Civil Procedure or the Rules of Appellate Procedure. There is no protection under law accorded to the victim.

Judges issue orders without regard for the rule of law, proper procedure, due process or a lack of jurisdiction.

The victim soon learns that a defective and void court order is more powerful than the United States Constitution. No judge will review the order and address the defects and lack of jurisdiction. Case law, precedent and procedures are summarily dismissed and ignored by the court.

This is a deliberate result of the action intended when the judge issued the defective and void order. Judges refer to these orders as ‘unappealable’.

There is no escaping the damage when the court is not lawfully permitted to address the injustice caused by the issuing judge;
when district attorneys will not take any action to prosecute the corruption;
when the attorney general will not take any action to prosecute the corrupt judge;
when the judicial conduct board will take no action against the judge;
when the clear lack of jurisdiction additionally removes the judge’s immunity;
when federal law enforcement will not respond to your complaints unless invited into the jurisdiction by a District Attorney or Attorney General;
where both the District Attorney and Attorney General are lawyers who according to the Rules of Professional Conduct may not take any action which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary.

The victim litigant is isolated and further victimized while every court and every level of law enforcement fails to act in any regard to the injustice and the collateral crimes which occur based on the defective and void order.

Without empathy or mercy, the court annihilate the litigant with only possible futures for the victim litigant. (1) Homeless/destitute, (2) incarceration or (3) suicide.

At this point, it became necessary to determine why everyone believed their inaction contrary to the law and the responsibilities of their office and their oath was acceptable.

After evaluating the relationship of those involved (ALL LAWYERS AND JUDGES) a review of the Rules of Professional Conduct revealed that Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct made every failure to act lawful. The failure to act to address the injustice and judicial corruption was MANDATED by law.

The cross references within the Rules of Professional Conduct revealed the needle in the haystack of injustice. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information. The courts and law enforcement were not doing anything and refusing to explain their inaction, or misrepresenting their inaction as a lack of jurisdiction. The Attorney General had jurisdiction to act, but lacked a lawful ability to act pursuant to Rule 1.6.

Rule 1.6 prevented the prosecution of judges for injustice and corruption. The intent to abuse the power of the judiciary and violate the public trust was deliberate, intentional, undeniable and demonstrative of a conspiracy concealed by every level of state and federal court.

Reacting to the FBI’s Operation Greylord which decimated the Cook County Judiciary and Courthouse, the American Bar Association encouraged the Code of Professional Conduct be enacted by the state supreme courts into law. The Rules of Professional Conduct replaced a discretionary ethical aspect with a MANDATE to maintain confidentiality where information would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.

Instead of promoting a strong sense of ethics, morality and integrity in the judiciary, the enacted Rules of Professional Conduct would MANDATE participation of each judge to sacrifice their integrity to conceal the injustice and corruption of the judiciary.

Whenever an injustice caused by Rule 1.6 was exposed and prosecuted, the state supreme court modified Rule 1.6 to close the loophole. These edits on the record provide breadcrumbs which reveal evidence of the true intent and purpose of enacting Rule 1.6 into law.

By the state Constitution, the County Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the county. The Sheriff has the constitutional authority, the resources and the staff available to him to prosecute the injustice and corruption of the judiciary.

Yet contrary to the state constitution, the County Sheriffs have a greatly diminished role in law enforcement and take no action to enforce the law. It seems that there was a series of cases where the constitutional power and authority of the County Sheriff was progressively diminished. A Sheriff is not required to be a lawyer.

The only available law enforcement authority who was NOT mandated by the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Sheriffs, were convinced of their diminished law enforcement role by the judges and lawyers. The actions of the each level of state court improperly reducing the constitutional authority of the County Sheriff demonstrates the intention of the judiciary and the lawyers to abuse the authority of their position under color of law to avoid responsibility and prosecution while enabling an ability to commit deliberate criminal injustice and judicial corruption.

In a perverse and twisted irony, the Sheriffs responsibilities include protection of the judges on the county bench. The Sheriffs are protecting the criminally corrupt judiciary who undermined the Sheriff’s constitutional authority in furtherance of sedition. The Sheriffs were criminally and deceptively manipulated to participate in injustice and judicial corruption while denying equal protection under the law to the victims and the public.


Growing out of necessity, the challenge did not arise out of malice, seeking to restore the constitutional rights of the People, to restore the integrity of the judiciary, and the reputation of legal professionals.

By taking the approach to the matter as a preemptory challenge to the constitutionality of a state law, the challenge deliberately avoided the usual 1983 abuse of power dismissal doctrine.

The Challenge referred to their cases within the state ONLY for the purpose of evidentiary support demonstrating the loss of rights, loss of liberty, and denial of any respite from the constant litigation, false allegations and threats of future litigation.

The lack of any aggressive assignment of blame was perceived as weakness or foolishness by the court. EVEN WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE CLEARLY EXPOSED, the court demonstrated with unapologetic arrogance the deliberate intent for the judiciary to continue in their injustice, to persist in the sedition of each state government, to abuse the authority and power of the court without regard for the rights of the People or the United States Constitution.

While failing to substantiate statements in fact or law or doctrine, the federal court continued to carelessly issue orders and opinions without regard for relevance or consistency. The judiciary was determined to perpetrate a fraud and 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 by every state attorney general (the only option which could have avoided adversely affecting the integrity of the federal judiciary); removing the state attorneys general from the matter; deliberate misrepresentations on the court docket; refusing to allow the Attorneys General to indicate their default; failing to certify the constitutional claim with each state; and failing to notify the United States Attorney General in this matter of national significance.

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

When filing with the district court, the plaintiffs did not intend to cause the judge to embarrass and humiliate himself in orders and opinions. Had the default been permitted, the court would have not been required to be directly involved and compelled to undermine the case and sacrifice the courts integrity.

When the court improperly accepted the late, incorrectly filed, irrelevant and undistributed filing from Randall Henzes purportedly on behalf of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, who had already defaulted in the matter, the Court created a requirement to be directly involved in the rulings and opinions in the matter. The nature of the case would require the court to conceal the facts, misrepresent the case and sacrifice the integrity of the court in a futile attempt to protect the integrity of the court.

On Appeal to the Third Circuit Court, the Appellants could do nothing to prevent the improper manipulation of the docket and the documents in the matter; the disappearance of fifty five state attorney general from the matter; the clerk of courts instructions to the state attorneys general to NOT PARTICIPATE in the Appeal; the failure of the clerk to respond to issue raised regarding the actions of the personnel in the clerk’s office; further fraud and misinformation in the court’s incomplete unsigned Per Curiam ruling and opinion; the unsigned court order denying reconsideration or rehearing en banc.

It is not the litigants intention 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 the integrity of the highest court in the United States for the illusion of judicial integrity which been usurped and undermined by corruption and injustice since the mid 80’s.

RESPECTFULLY, 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.

As survivors of the systematic injustice and extreme corruption which lead to the discovery of the unconstitutional ‘law’;
the lawful presentation with an emphasis on resolution of the constitutional issue;
without irresponsibly attempting to cause civil unrest in the United States
the United States Attorney General and the Department of Justice prosecute the criminal sedition of the American Bar Association
the corruption of the judiciary at every level of the state and federal courts;
actions to restore the authority of the County Sheriff in accordance with the state constitution;

The litigants respectfully request the prompt resolution of this matter and restoration of the the rights of the People in accordance with the United States Constitution .

Enough is enough. It is time to act responsibly. REBOOT.

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.


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 and the People of the United States?

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.

With malice aforethought, the ABA created an industry where their membership could thrive financially by charging litigants who could never expect to escape a deliberate mandatory injustice and abuse of power of the judiciary.

Concealing the Rule under attorney client privilege, the ABA aggressively enforces the Confidentiality of Information with disciplinary actions and requires that confidentiality continue even after the death with its members.

The ABA conspired with, trained and misinformed its members to keep from exposing their sedition as the organization usurped the authority of every state judiciary.


No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: