2014
10.31

It is the sworn duty of the courts to determine and fix the rights of the parties in each particular case brought before them, if they have the power to do so.

To do this, they must determine what the facts are and the law applicable thereto. The facts must be determined either from the evidence or from the want of evidence. The tribunal may err. The law must be determined from the books.

The validity of the proceeding must be determined. If any jurisdictional question is debatable or colorable, the court must decide jurisdiction; and an erroneous conclusion can only be corrected by some proceeding provided by law for so doing.

Where it can be shown, lawfully, that some matter or thing essential to jurisdiction is wanting, the proceeding is void.

The doctrine of stare decisis does not forbid overruling what has been affected by defects which prevent jurisdiction.

DIRECT ATTACK: A direct attack on a judicial proceeding is an attempt to avoid or correct it in some manner provided by law. The litigant has a responsibility to notify the court to address the defect and the resulting lack of jurisdiction.

– Petition to the Court June 6, 2011, June 9, 2011
– Testify/Evidence/Exhibits July 18, 2011
– Petition the Court Summer 2011
– Appeal of the Order August 15, 2011

COLLATERAL ATTACK: A collateral attack on a judicial proceeding attempts to avoid, defeat, evade or deny its force and effect.

– Asserting ownership of my property – October 3, 2013
– Fraudulent documents are presented – October 22, 2013
– Challenge Jurisdiction – November 12, 2013

Any proceeding provided by law for the purpose of avoiding or correcting a judgment, is a direct attack which will be successful upon showing the error; while an attempt to do the same thing in any other proceeding is a collateral attack, which will be successful only upon showing a want of power.

WHEN YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
WHEN YOU HAVE NO PROTECTION OF THE LAW
WHEN YOU HAVE PRETENDERS PLAYING COURT
PREVENTING YOU FROM THE JUDICIARY.

The following is the volume of litigation currently active because Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio issued ONE PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE DIVORCE DECREE without proper jurisdiction. Notified promptly of the defect Carluccio, and other judges, have refused to address/correct/resolve choosing instead to issue further DEFECTIVE and VOID orders causing further irreparable harm and damage and to harass the litigant.

Given the chance to fix it, EVERY JUDGE MAKES IT WORSE. Since 2007, this matter has been before twenty judges of the Montgomery County Pennsylvania Judiciary. It now advances to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania with two concurrent appeals of Superior Court decisions which IGNORED AND NEGLECTED to address the lack of jurisdiction for the Court. While another Appeal awaits action by the Superior Court.

If they could prove jurisdiction, that would have occurred by now. This is abuse of power under color of law with the intentional infliction of emotional distress…. being done by persons pretending to be the judiciary.

You just cannot argue with stupidity like this.

I must persevere through their relentless corruption and re-documentation.
I WANT MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS…



1The Order of May 9, 2011 is being directly attacked in Healy v Healy by the Appeal filed on August 15, 2011.

As necessary, the Direct Attack has been coordinated with the requests for the courts to conduct hearings on petitions which have been neglected, unheard, ignored and improperly.

The petitions should have been heard prior to any Request for Entry of A DIVORCE DECREE.

No Request for Entry of a Divorce Decree was ever filed, served, or advanced as REQUIRED BY PENNSYLVANIA LAW.

Where a Request for Entry of A Divorce Decree has not been filed, the Court DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION to enter a Divorce Decree.

An Order in Equitable Distribution may only be issued contemporaneous with or subsequent to a Divorce Decree.

The Equitable Distribution Order is consequently procedurally defective and void for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court in the Opinion dated October 18, 2011 neglected to include a statement of jurisdiction for the Order of May 9, 2011. THE COURT IGNORES AND NEGLECTS THE PROBLEM.

The Appeal is prevented from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. THE COURT IGNORES AND NEGLECTS THE PROBLEM.

There is nothing I can do to get the Montgomery County Court of Common Please to do their job function.
THE DIRECT ATTACK is pending. I must wait for the Appeal to move forward.



2The Order of May 9, 2011 has been improperly presented to the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department and the Montgomery Township Police who assisted Sonya Healy in her return to the property on June 10, 2011.



3The Order of May 9, 2011 has been improperly presented to the Domestic Relation Office as a valid Order by Angst & Angst which has stopped their enforcement of court orders in this matter.
– The Domestic Relations Office (DRO) has refused to schedule any hearing, or conference.
– Letters filed with the DRO and Prothonotary have been ingored.
THE COURT IGNORES AND NEGLECTS THE PROBLEM.



4The Order of May 9, 2011 is being challenged collaterally in Healy v Healy by the Appeal filed on April 29, 2013 EVEN WHILE the earlier Appeal remains inexplicably stalled.

The defective and void order has been presented to the Court for enforcement by ANGST & ANGST.
THERE IS A PENDING APPEAL, the court lacks jurisdiction.
Angst & Angst haven’t filed their petition properly.
Angst & Angst haven’t served their petition.
Angst & Angst have been secretly writing to Court Admin to have Judge Haaz removed.
Angst & Angst have been secretly writing to Judge Carluccio asking her to take the case back.
Angst & Angst certainly seem surprised when I appear at the short list conference anyway.
AND HAVE A RESPONSE FILED.
Judge Haaz was clearly not pleased. He doesn’t schedule the hearing.

10 Months later, Judge Page schedules their hearing, ignoring the pending Appeal, which I call to his attention frequently.

All evidence demonstrating the pending Appeal is presented and ignored.
THE COURT IGNORES AND NEGLECTS THE PROBLEM.

The defect and the lack of jurisdiction has been demonstrated on the court record, evidenced in hearing statements, presented during testimony.
THE COURT IGNORES AND NEGLECTS THE PROBLEM.

Angst & Angst have deliberately neglected to present any evidence within petitions, testimony or exhibits which address the defect. THEY IGNORE AND NEGLECT THE PROBLEM.

It is the responsibility of Angst & Angst to provide the information regarding jurisdiction for the court. THEY IGNORE AND NEGLECT THE PROBLEM WHICH SERVES TO EMBARRASS THE COURT.

The Court neglects in it’s Order to explain or address how the defect does not void jurisdiction for the Order of May 9, 2011. THE COURT IGNORES AND NEGLECTS THE PROBLEM.

ON APPEAL: The information presented within Briefs to the Superior Court demonstrated the defect and the lack of jurisdiction.

AGAIN, Angst & Angst have deliberately neglected to present any evidence within petitions, testimony or exhibits which address the defect. There is NO INFORMATION provided to support the challenge of jurisdiction. THEY IGNORE AND NEGLECT THE PROBLEM.


September 6, 2011 – Immediately upon notice by facsimile from Angst & Angst, the Court continued and rescheduled petitions filed by Defendant which had been scheduled for September 20, 2011. Continuing to September 23, 2011. Courtesy would require that the person who filed the petition agree to the continuance. There was no courtesy extended.

When Angst & Angst had a hearing rescheduled to a date when my mother was having emergency open heart surgery, they refused to permit a continuance. Judge DelRicci proceeded with the hearing. As my primary witness was in surgery, I would be hindered. Their information was completely fabricated falsehoods which had been filed to delay custody proceedings. I had waited 2 years for the custody hearing and was forced to request a continuance on what mattered most to me. Angst & Angst refused to continue their counter petition and permit me and my brother to go to the hospital where the rest of the family had gathered. After Judge Del Ricci asked Angst & Angst to reconsider several times, he became disgusted by the malice of their refusal and ordered a continuance.

The petitions to be heard on September 20, 2011 related the closing date of the home.
All parties involved in the sale were preventing and denying all information from me.
This was NOT required or indicated within any order.
They were conspiring voluntarily.

On July 18, 2011, the Court had issued a verbal order for all of my belongings to be disposed of if
not removed by the closing date.

All parties were informed about the conditions for removal of my personal possessions and conspired voluntarily to remain silent.
The attorney for the Keller Williams Real Estate additionally would not provide the information.
Copies of Letters and Petitions were filed on the Court Record.

From May 2007 when Sonya Healy abandoned the home, I had held the place together, accomplished all payments, and maintenance, and prevented the destruction of every item in the home. They had swept in with a VOID order and were destroying everything… and they prevented me from resolution.



5The Order of May 9, 2011 has been fraudulently presented by Sonya Healy in the commission of a fraudulent conveyance of the marital residence.

All real estate personnel, title companies agents and managers, and transaction preparers and coordinators associated with the closing were aware that they were presenting a defective and void instrument within the transaction. They all emailed each other about it.

Sonya Healy swears that she is both married and divorced during the closing meeting.

The defective and void order of May 9, 2011 was referenced within statements on the documents BUT missing from the papers filed with the Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds.


On September 23, 2011, upon arriving in court, I was informed of the closing on the sale of my home. September 20, 2011. I was additionally presented with a newly filed petition which Judge Carluccio acted upon immediately to the exclusion of the petitions which had been scheduled and continued and prepared for hearing.

Judge Carluccio issued her Order of September 23, 2011 addressing everything in the freshly filed petition, and conducted further housekeeping where I was ordered under duress and penalty of contempt to endorse checks presented by Angst & Angst.

According to a verbal order issued on July 18, 2011, all of my belongings not removed prior to the closing date had been placed in the trash. Judge Carluccio was a direct party to the destruction of my personal property by continuing the hearing date.

The Court’s verbal order of July 18, 2011 is ALSO VOID as it is based on enforcement of the defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

On September 28, 2011, Angst & Angst withdrew their petition (1) to conceal their failure to follow any procedure in the matter, (2) to conceal the corruption demonstrated by the court and (2) to prevent any response or hearing on the matter.


During the proceeding on July 18, 2011, the Court had neglected and ignored the petitions and evidence, repeatedly interrupting testimony/responses regarding the procedural errors which had caused the Order to be defective and void.

EMERGENCY Petitions/Motions had been filed on June 6, 2011 and June 9, 2011 and IGNORED.

I WAS GIVING THE COURT EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE RIGHT THING. CLEARLY, THE COURT HAD A MORE MALICIOUS INTENT.


The void order (September 23, 2011), based on a void order (July 18, 2011), based on a defective and void Divorce Decree (May 9, 2011).

Jurisdiction cannot be obtained retroactively.

The Court had been notified of the procedural defect immediately on June 6, 2011 and June 9, 2011.

Involving County personnel in the enforcement of defective and void orders place them at risk for their improper actions. They do not have the immunity offered the judiciary.

The Sheriff’s Department and the Police Department were enforcing the defective and void order of May 9, 2011 which ordered me to vacate my home. The Sheriff Department has not been able to produce a report of why they were there or who had requested their assistance.

Where immunity may excuse error and permit a judge to be malicious and cruel, Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio was not acting as a judge.

She lacked integrity and honor, but above all else Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio lacked JURISDICTION – courtesy of Angst & Angst. Every attempt resolve any matter within the court was continued, denied, neglected and ignored by Judge Carluccio.



6The Order of May 9, 2011 is being challenged collaterally in Healy v Miller by the Appeal filed on March 6, 2014.
– When the Order of May 9, 2011 was asserted by Zarwin, Baum, DeVito, Kaplan, Schaer, Toddy, attorneys Scott Goldstein and Philip Magen representing the Miller’s deliberately neglected to present any evidence within petitions, testimony or exhibits which address the defect in jurisdiction.

The Court neglected in it’s Order to explain or address in any way how the defect does not affect jurisdiction for the Order of May 9, 2011.

The Court improperly IGNORED the MOTION TO STRIKE THE DEFECTIVE AND VOID ORDER.

ON APPEAL: The information presented within Briefs to the Superior Court demonstrated the defect and the lack of jurisdiction.

AGAIN, Zarwin, Baum, DeVito, Kaplan, Schaer, Toddy, attorneys Scott Goldstein and Philip Magen have deliberately neglected to present any evidence within petitions, testimony or exhibits which address the defect.


I HATE THE EXPRESSION – THE GAME. THIS IS MY LIFE THEY HAVE TERRORIZED. WHY?
Pretending to have jurisdiction IS NOT JURISDICTION.
Ignoring the lack of jurisdiction IS NOT JURISDICTION.
… Yes, Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio acted with malice forethought to cause irreparable harm and damage and to continue causing irreparable harm and damage instead of admitting her error.

Remember, this IS the short version…. the vexatious and overwhelming litigation, false allegations, obstruction of justice, denial of civil rights, while without any protection of the law have been happening since I lost my constitutional rights.

Any single act of misconduct, or injustice, within a court (Civil, Criminal or Family) can cause a litigant to lose all constitution rights, lose all civil rights and be left without any protection of the law without explanation of what has occurred and with no available recourse or resolution from any level of state or federal government or law enforcement.

Enacted into law in 1987 (without the protections of those ‘fraud provisions’) by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, a collateral effect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct MANDATES CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON_DISCLOSURE by everyone who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. All lawyers, all state and federal law enforcement (District Attorneys, Prosecutors, Attorneys General, etc…), all state and federal courts are mandated BY LAW to follow Rule 1.6 Confidentiality. This is accomplished through the LOCAL RULES of each Federal Court, and the McDade-Murtha Amendment affecting all Department of Justice and other federal attorneys.

The Lawyers Code had not been LAW before. Concealing and Permitting further frauds against an innocent victim is not ethical behavior, NOR IS IT LAWFUL.

In 1983, the American Bar Association stripped the ‘fraud provisions’ from their “NEWLY DEVELOPED” Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The ABA misrepresented their illegal, unethical and immoral “Code of Ethical Conduct” to each state supreme court for the purpose of being enacted into LAW.
– without ANY Construction as would have been performed by a state legislature,
– without the signature of ANY Governor, and
– without any Constitutional Review
An Aggressively enforced MANDATE OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON-DISCLOSURE was enacted nationawide into law from 1984 (New Jersey) through 2009 (Maine).

The foreclosure crisis where fraudulent and robo-signed documents submitted to the court caused people to lose their homes with complete disregard for any law.

Kids For Cash, in Luzerne County, and entire legal community and county and state judiciary permitted the trafficking of children to prisons while judges received payments.

The pseudo INJUSTICE business being conducted within the clerks offices of every state and federal judiciary. The illusion of a judiciary incapable of facts, relevance, law, or logical thought or reason is being perpetrated upon the American litigant. Concealing the systemic corruption of the judiciary which has undermined judicial independence, usurped the authority of the judicial branch, and caused the Rule of Law and the US Constitution to be ignored.

Healy v. Healy – all that ignoring the facts at every level by every one…. A VIOLATION OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS caused by Rule 1.6

RULE 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

In the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 filed on August 8, 2013, the intercept teams at the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals FAILED. THEY HAD NOTHING. THEY MADE THINGS UP. The documents which they attributed to the Federal Judiciary were a shameful desperate abomination.

Rule 1.6 IS STILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The documents were filed with the Court BECAUSE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN DENIED, PREVENTED AND OBSTRUCTED.

Angst & Angst had leveraged complete impunity to ignore EVERY court order when they secured A Secret Order from Judge Rhonda Daniele in August 2007.

In May 2008, The Secret Order was flashed to Judge DelRicci by Robert Angst during the short list after the Easter Break-In and Burglary (which was in violation of three Court Orders). Judge DelRicci reviewed the document and DENIED ME A COPY or any review. Law and Procedure (or courtesy) were never applicable.

The Secret Order was used to slander me to every policeman I asked to check on my kids.

The Secret Order was available only to Angst & Angst and to the Court Staff. It was not distributed to me. It was not docketed. There had been no hearing. Judge Rhonda Daniele, head of the Family Court Division, had NEVER been assigned the matter.

The Secret Order was leveraged to prevent the court from enforcing ANY AND ALL COURT ORDERS against Angst & Angst’s client.

During Discovery, the existence of the document was denied and mocked by Valerie Angst. It was not provided.

The Secret Order was used to induce a sense of paranoia.

The Secret Order was used to undermine credibility.

The Secret Order was kept concealed within a separate file at the Prothonotary.

Until in August 2010, it was handed to me. Signed by Judge Daniele. No notations for distribution. No sticker indicating it had been docketed. Immediately, I had the order docketed and filed petitions requesting an Explanation from the Court.

Judge Bertin recused without explanation.

So when it all comes down…..
One Question – Jurisdiction or NOT – PROVE IT. BUT, They GOT NOTHING.

INSTEAD I AM HOMELESS/DESTITUTE AND FORCED TO RESPOND TO THEIR DOPEY DOCUMENTS.

I AM SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THE DOCUMENTS ARE BEING WRITTEN BY JUDGES.

It is very clear that the idiots I am dealing with are the central legal staff following Bar Association scripts.

The lawyers are members of the various ‘intercepting’ bar associations which are positioned within every level of the state and federal judiciary.

READY AND AVAILABLE to intercept all documents and ‘play court’ by responding to litigation without signatures, logic, law or any sense.

Lawyers are permitted to continue the effort to conceal the fraud of their clients. Rule 1.6 – and the various flavors enacted in every state has them thinking they are legal, while STILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

PA Courts, Superior Court, Supreme Court. District Court, Circuit Court of Appeals.
Their fake ‘judicial’ documents and maintaining the extra dockets. Yes, I see things which I am not supposed to be seeing – like the extra dockets. Philly got caught ding that before. Old habits die hard.

It’s how they have undermined and usurped the judiciary.

It’s how they have affected judicial independence.

It’s how the US Constitution is going ignored.

It’s how the Constitutional Rights of Millions of American have been ignored.

The deliberate actions of the American Bar Association, undermining the US GOVERNMENT since 1983 when they made lawyer/client fraud ethical, permitted the continued crimes against the innocent victim, called it a Code of Ethics, and sold it to EVERY state supreme court which enacted it into LAW.

Right now, the only people to report it to is the lawyers…. and they will commit fraud and cover it up…. or just IGNORE.

You are supposed to think the judges are ignoring you…. but with unsigned paperwork how do you know if it even got past the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF.

Ask any Central Legal Staff or Prothy Clerk a question.
For Example: May I get a copy of the judges order WITH a signature…

I asked two prothy folks the other day,
The first response was that they would charge me $1 per page.
The second response was that they would charge me 50 cents per page.
Then they asked why I wanted it?
Then they asked if I had gotten a copy in the mail.
I explained that the Judge had not signed the document.
I was told that judges NEVER sign documents.
And had two ladies looking at me like I was crazy for expecting a judge to sign his own decisions.
I had to sign my paperwork, and the verification and the cert of service.
If they had scheduled the argument I would have had to sign the acknowledgement.
I would have to sign the guest log upon arrival at Superior Court.

Yea ladies, the judges spew the chaotic and insulting paragraphs at Seletyn and head to the shore.

I DIDN’T GO HOME EMPTY HANDED, though I filed a notice with the court that a signed copy of the order was denied…
Then, it was off to the Department of Justice to file an obstruction of justice complaint.

If you are going to whine in your ‘documents’ that the briefs are difficult to follow, perhaps your triple nested void orders after 5 years of constant litigation where IF AN ISSUE IS NOT LISTED IT IS WAIVED RULE needs to be revised.

How About this: Please only give list one basic simple issue per document.
Finding irrelevant citations, references and misstatements of fact to format into Memorandums without losing all sense of form results in accidental inclusion of valid statements which become confusing for everyone.

The CLS Cut n Paste works though – that’s why documents have been captioned wrong in the judge’s documents several times also. Too lazy to even get their fraud done cleanly. Geesh!

JUSTICE IS COMING.

2014
10.30

Filed in Superior Court – PDF Version

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Sonya Healy :
(Appellee) : # 1330 EDA 2013
  :
v. :
  :
Terance Healy :
(Appellant) :

NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF SIGNED DOCUMENTS

I, TERANCE HEALY, upon request at the Prothonotary of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia for signed copies of the MEMORANDUM which has been attributed to “Donohue, J.” filed in this matter on October 27, 2014 WAS DENIED that request.

The APPELLANT respectfully requests judicial notice of the deception of a MEMORANDUM entered in this matter without the signatures of the judiciary.

The APPELLANT additionally calls attention to ALL activity within the appeal of this matter (#1330 EDA 2013) which has been accomplished by the staff of the court without any indication of the involvement or signature of any member of the judiciary of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

The APPELLANT wishes to notify this Honorable court of the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE which is taking place within the court staff of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

RESPECTFULLY,

Terance Healy

FILED IN PERSON ON OCTOBER 30, 2014
FILED IN PERSON AS FEDERAL COMPLAINT at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE in PHILADELPHIA – OCTOBER 30, 2014

2014
10.29

Filed in Superior Court – PDF Version

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Sonya Healy :
(Appellee) : # 1330 EDA 2013
  :
v. :
  :
Terance Healy :
(Appellant) :

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

In the unsigned MEMORANDUM filed October 27, 2014, NO EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION for the lower court to issue the defective and void Order of May 9, 2011 is addressed, affirmed, available, asserted, authenticated, authorized, achieved, accomplished, attained, concluded, cited, confirmed, created, corroborated, discerned, determined, declared, earned, effectuated, enacted, endorsed, established, excused, filed, found, furnished, gained, granted, inherent, maintained, managed, offered, presented, provided, permitted, professed, pronounced, produced, ratified, substantiated, settled, served, supported, transmitted, unnecessary or waived.

Jurisdiction, when challenged, must be proven, not imagined.

The lack of jurisdiction for the lower Court to issue the defective and void Order of May 9, 2011 has erroneously been COMPLETELY IGNORED AND NEGLECTED by this Honorable and Superior Court.

Terance Healy (Appellant) has presented the evidence contained within the court record of the procedural defects which result in a lack of jurisdiction.

Sonya Healy (Appellee), represented by Angst & Angst, has at no time ever provided the court with evidence of proper jurisdiction and has ignored the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court.

ANGST & ANGST have litigated by providing further issues and failures which exacerbate and demonstrate their complete disregard for procedure, process, and law; conducting ex parte communications with the court; then successfully leveraging their improper activities with the result affecting the integrity of the court. The chaotic disinformation tactics used by Angst & Angst to conceal their fraud upon the court since 2007, have been documented, demonstrated, evidenced and yet ignored by the entire Montgomery County Bench.

Where this Honorable court has added to the ‘procedural quagmire’ by failing to address the issue of jurisdiction,

Appellant demands the Superior Court to produce a true and correct statement of evidence proving all elements of jurisdiction for the Order of May 9, 2011 which completely and lawfully addresses the specific defects already documented by the Appellant and not citing collateral and irrelevant law which only serves to distract from the issue.

– or –

WHERE support of jurisdiction is lacking, is unavailable, does not exist, and/or has never been presented by any court, nor any Appellee, nor any attorney at ANGST & ANGST,

Appellant demands the Superior Court to strike the Order of May 9, 2011 as VOID AB INITIO;

and

Appellant demands the Superior Court to strike all subsequent orders issued which are affected by the defective and void Order of May 9, 2011 as VOID AB INITIO;

and

Appellant demands the Superior Court to immediately set aside the Memorandum of October 27, 2014;

and

Appellant respectfully requests twenty certified copies of those Orders for use in other pending matters where the defective and void order has been improperly and illegally presented and enforced.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy

FILED IN PERSON – OCTOBER 30, 2014.

2014
10.28

The latest in convoluted disinformation arrived from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Thirteen pages of a complete disregard for the issue, and absence of facts.

Why do they persist in the foolishness of ignoring the issue. It’s no game for me.

Their fraud has corrupted the entire Montgomery County Bench, the Eastern District Court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and revealed a systemic problem throughout every state and federal judiciary regarding fraud.

It has demonstrated the complete failure of every level of state and federal government – politicians and law enforcement – to take ANY action to preserve, protect, defend, support or enforce, the United States Constitution. Responsibility for the Constitutional Crisis in the US rests with the Judicial Branch – undermined and usurped by the American Bar Association.

A problem created when the American Bar Association decided it was ethical to commit fraud and made it illegal to disclose it. Fraud is not ethical, moral or legal. Concealing it from the victim, the courts and law enforcement while obstructing justice is a violation of constitutional rights. Even when somehow the ABA convinced the supreme courts in every state to ‘go along’.

The victim of the ‘fraud’ injustice will end up 1) Homeless/Destitute, 2) Incarcerated, or 3) Suicide.

A deliberately defective order issued without jurisdiction which has been repeatedly enforced and acted upon while the court neglects the fact that the order is defective and void.

That is not something which is going to change. Jurisdiction is not retroactive.

1) The Court quashes the Appeal filed on August 15, 2011.
In doing so, the court has acknowledged the existence of a properly filed and timely appeal which was neglected by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. A VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS.

By their own acknowledgement, Judge Page lacked jurisdiction to issue the order of April 5, 2013 after improperly and ILLEGALLY conducting hearings during a pending appeal. A VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS.

2) The Superior Court neglects with clear intent and disinformation efforts to address the defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

Judge Carolyn Carluccio neglected her lack of jurisdiction. A VIOLATION OF PA LAW.

Judge Carolyn Carluccio neglected to address her clearly defective order. A VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS.

Judge Carolyn Carluccio neglected THE LAW, and the Constitutional rights of a litigant, choosing instead to further victimize the litigant with subsequent corrupt orders in support of her defective one. JUDGES ARE ALLOWED TO BE MALICIOUS.

– –

With the August 2011 Appeal pending, the litigant was left to await the decision.

UNTIL, a petition attempting to enforce the order was filed during the pending appeal.

Enforcement is allowed, BUT IT MUST CONSIDER THE VALID JURISDICTION OF THE ORDER being ENFORCED.
– Angst & Angst neglected to address the multiple failures in jurisdiction. This was a deliberate act to compel the judge to sacrifice his integrity.
– Judge Haaz did not oblige their manipulation.
– Judge Coonahan did not oblige their manipulation.
– Judge Page scheduled the hearing – in spite of the evidence of the pending appeal on the court record.
A VIOLATION OF PA LAW, RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Judge Page then further ruled while COMPLETELY neglecting the evidence of the defective and void order.
– Angst & Angst had presented no evidence in support of jurisdiction, or countering the evidence in the court record of the defect in the order of May 9, 2011. This was a deliberate act to compel the judge to sacrifice his integrity.

JUDGE PAGES ORDER WAS APPEALED AND MOVED FORWARD… THE NEGLECTED ONE STILL PENDING.

In the Appellant Brief it was clearly presented that the May 9, 2011 order was defective and void and that the evidence was presented during the improperly held hearings.

Angst & Angst neglected to address the defective and void order in their Breif, and failed again to counter ANY of the evidence which demonstrated the lack of jurisdiction for the court to issue of May 9, 2011. This was a deliberate act to compel the judges to sacrifice their integrity.

So we have a MEMORANDUM by DONOHUE, J. which neglects the central issue – the defective and void order of May 9, 2011. Neglects to address the denial of due process and the rights of the litigant. OH, and also completely neglects to mention that THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 is based on this matter.

Rule 1.6 is the unconstitutional law which encourages this type of misdirected, disinformed injustice through overwhelming and excessive litigation which results when a lawyer commits a fraud upon the court and attributes it to a client.) and then alleges the information is protected by attorney-client privilege.

The thing is that ALL OF THE DISINFORMATION AND RHETORIC IN THE WORLD is never going to give Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio jurisdiction to issue her defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

FAILURE to address the defective and void order involves all further judges in the conspiracy to commit treason. That is what the crime is called when a judge issues an order without jurisdiction.

The MEMORANDUM by DONOHUE, J. also gets the facts completely wrong. Does that really matter? Not really… BECAUSE the incorrect information is just the disinformation tactic to distract from the fact that they are attempting to enforce a defective and void order issued without jurisidciton…

JUST BECAUSE THE JUDICIARY IGNORES THE LACK OF JURISDICTION does not provide proper jurisdiction. The fly in their disinformation.

Sadly, I filed out of necessity, not any intention to embarass the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. They panel, Donohue, Wecht, and Platt have sacrificed their integrity without provocation.

It’s a simple procedure. It was not followed – the reasons being totally malicious and vile – Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio wanted to be a monster.

The problem is, in order for the judge to get away with being a monster, they have to follow procedures.

Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio failed – – perhaps she has a touch of the Downs.

Forcing me to rewrite the terror which I have lived through since 2007 in repeated filings which are ignored is just cruelty. An inescapable cruelty because if I fail to meet their deadlines (and I have not) the facts don’t matter.

2014
10.28

Lou-Barletta

The Founding Fathers set to “form a more perfect union’. The first thing on their list was a necessity because the other parts build upon that essential base.

1. ESTABLISH JUSTICE

JUSTICE has been undermined by the deception of the American Bar Association.

Ask yourself about the other parts?

2) DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

The recent events in Ferguson, MO. Over 40 million foreclosure – even when based on fraud and robosigned documents. THE DO NOTHING CONGRESS. The Occupy Movement being ejected from every city nationwide. Disinformation and divisive tactics in all media prevent an informed population.

3) COMMON DEFENSE

The Militarization of local police departments places WE THE PEOPLE in peril. Armies out fighting for what exactly? Imaginary threats? Which our government is arming so that they will have someone to attack next month?

4) GENERAL WELFARE

The Ebola scare tactics. People are NOT so stupid or selfish to risk catastrophe by jumping on planbes and cruise ships when they have been exposed to ebola. THAT IS NOT HUMAN NATURE. THAT IS A SCARE TACTIC.

5) BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY

American Liberty has been at risk. Our National Landmarks are held hostage behind barracades and overwhelming security. They are concealed and hidden and obstructed.

The first step in restoring a MORE PERFECT UNION is to once again ESTABLISH JUSTICE. Once that problem is addressed, the preamble goes on….

“…Ensure Domestic Tranquility, Provide for the Common Defense, Promote the General Welfare and Secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity…”

2014
10.27

After Watergate, the legal profession looked somewhat foolish because the lawyers did not understand who they represented, who they worked for and who they thought they were committing crimes on behalf of. As a result, several went to jail. The American Bar Association realized they had a problem. An ethics problem…. or lack of ethics problem.

The ABA set out to fix their ethics problem by codifying (MAKING LAW) of their Code of Conduct. To sell the concept, they called it ‘ethics’, BUT, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct are not ethical or moral. They are not even lawful. They ARE unconstitutional.

Previously, it was ‘code’ without legal teeth to enforce it. AS LAW, there was an aggressively enforced mandated for non-disclosure… which even went as far as preventing lawyers (District Attorneys, Attorneys general, US Attorneys) from prosecuting crimes. Everything pointed to ONE RULE enacted in every state which controlled the state and federal governments involvement, and denied the constitutional rights of the people who likely felt violated but never understood what happened to them or why. They made the ‘discretionary’ decision, into a mandate of non-disclosure. The difference between code and LAW.

Taking the Canons which had been practiced for hundreds of years, and merging them with the Code Of Conduct was the responsibility of the Kutak Commission. It took years to accomplish, but in the EARLY 80’S, the Model Rules of professional Conduct were presented to the American Bar Association Conference of Delegates – the ABA’s pretend government.

At the loud, vocal, open insistence of over 2/3 of the Conference, the lawyers decided to make fraud legal. They called it ethical. While they focused on protecting their ‘client fraud’, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information also prevented disclosure in a far broader spectrum of incidences.

THIS IS WELL DOCUMENTED. THEY DID IT ANYWAY.
On Ethics and Expediency: The ABA’s Dubious Vote on Disclosure of Client Fraud by Charles E. Lundberg March-April 1983

THE ABA MADE FRAUD LEGAL AND CALL IT ETHICAL… but only for lawyers, and their clients… without any disclosure of who was responsible for the fraud. The standard exceptions demonstrate a sociopathic and self-indulgent psychosis.

1. Where the victim would be killed, the lawyer had ‘discretion’ to reveal the information. Sadistically keeping a victim on the line for further frauds. (I call this INTENT TO CAUSE SUICIDE.)
– or –
2. Where the lawyer was not compensated for his ‘work’.

The ABA then proceeded to have each state supreme court enact their Model Rules into LAW. Starting in 1984 in New Jersey through 2009 in Maine, Fraud became legal Disclosure of the truth became illegal. Rule 1.6 was aggressively enforced by the state Supreme courts.

The states saw it for what it was AND ENACTED IT INTO LAW ANYWAY. With occasional exceptions added, but none which made the LAW ethical, moral or constitutional. How could they make fraud ethical? legal? As code it was discretionary – the good ole boy network – but as LAW everything changed.

Calling it Attorney Client privilege, lawyers would assert it and giggle through millions of foreclosures while neglecting the FACT that the constitutional rights of the innocent victim had been denied, and prevented from any recourse. Those who survived were left destitute, homeless and suicidal.
The-First-Rule-is-fight-club-8474492-600-759
Rule 1.6 makes it ILLEGAL for a lawyer to disclose what happened.

Additionally, anyone addressing the unconstitutional affect on their rights, would have to pursue it through the judiciary, who enacted the unconstitutional law, who protected their ‘integrity’, whose shameful failure would allow and destroy millions in foreclosures, and thousands in Kids For Cash.

There are not many terrorized souls who have the wherewithal to find and prove the violation of their Constitutional Rights.

It’s not easy to live, let alone litigate when you have NO RIGHTS, NO PROTECTION OF THE LAW., AND NO ESCAPE. The header of the web site indicates the situation where someone has lost their constitutionally protected rights.

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 HELPED… NO ONE COULD HELP.

The only difference. They pressed for a suicide that I could not deliver. As a result, I found the needle in the haystack of injustice. The subsequent response of the judiciary demonstrates their loss of judicial independence. Further demonstrating the corruption of EVERY state and federal judiciary. They conceal that they had allowed themselves to become UNDONE.

A problem such as this could be resolved within minutes when the public learned what had occurred…

The media black out of the story demonstrates a very strong controlling power by the ABA. Fraud is legal for lawyers, and that is a tool they use to prevent their exposure.

The US Constitution is stronger. JUSTICE IS COMING.


yes i know that is jennifer carpenterKATHLEEN KANE. My patience with your inaction is running thin. Do your job.

There is not one government official doing anything to preserve, protect, support, defend, or enforce the US Constitution.

Why bother to take an oath if you are mandated to ignore it? MMM YEA… Lawyers are allowed to commit fraud.

Follow your oath, or RESIGN.

2014
10.21

Part of the Bibliography in the next filing – this about 50% of the documents studied for the information presented on this site.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following journal articles, documents and collateral information are presented as reference resources which have contributed to the review, study and presentation within this document.

The documents include demonstrations of the intentional carelessness and deception, and also the tactics of disinformation which conceal their actions from within and without.

( FYI, this is the difference between following the scripts into corruption… and understanding the law… and recognizing the perversion which undermined the judiciary. )

JUSTICE IS COMING.

If you want to do something evil, do it inside something boring… INDEED.


PROFESSIONAL SECRECY AND ITS EXCEPTIONS: Spaulding V. Zimmerman Revisited
Roger C. Cramton and Lori P. Knowles, 83 Minn. L. Rev. 63 (1998)
Download

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER: The Three Hardest Questions
Monroe H. Freedman, 64 Mich. L. Rev. 1469 (1966)
Download

WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT ETHICS: A Critical View of the Model Rules
Stephen Gillers, , 46 Ohio St. L.J. 243 (1985)
Download

RECTIFICATION OF CLIENT FRAUD: Death and Revival of a Professional Norm
Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., 33 Emory L.J. 271 (1984)
Download

ON LEARNING OF A CORPORATE CLIENT’S CRIME OR FRAUD
Junious Hoffman, 3 Bus. Law. 1389 (1978)
Download

THE LAW BETWEEN THE BAR AND THE STATE
Susan P. Koniak, 70 N.C.L. Rev. 1389 (1992)
Download

THE CENTRAL MORAL TRADITION OF LAWYERING
Robert P. Lawry, 19 Hofstra L. Rev. 311 (1990)
Download

CONFIDENTIALITY AND THE DANGEROUS PATIENT: Implications of Tarasoff for Psychiatrists and Lawyers
Vanessa Merton, 31 Emory L. Rev. 263 (1982)
Download

THE LAWYER’S ALLEGIANCE: Priorities Regarding Confidentiality
R.W. Nahstoll, 41 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 421 (1984)
Download

THE FUTURE CRIME OR TORT EXCEPTION TO COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGES
Harvard Note, 77 Harv. L. Rev. 730 (1964)
Download

THE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND THE NEW MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Blowing the Whistle and Waving the Red Flag
Ronald R. Rotunda, 63 Ore. L. Rev. 455 (1984)
Download

PROFESSIONALISM AS BAR POLITICS: The Making of the Rules of Professional Conduct
Ted Schneyer, 14 Law & Social Inquiry 677 (1989)
Download

THE LAWYER AS SUPEREGO: Disclosure of Client Confidences to Prevent Harm
Harry I. Subin, 70 Iowa L. Rev. 1091 (1985)
Download

CLIENT CONFIDENCE AND THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY: Too Little Consensus and Too Much Confusion
Harris Weinstein, 35 S. Texas L .Rev. 727 (1994)
Download

REVISING THE ETHICAL RULES OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY: Towards a New Discretionary Rule
Limor Zer-Gutman, 45 Loyola L. Rev. 669, 681 (1999)
Download

SCHAFER’S DILEMMA: Client Confidentiality vs. Judicial Integrity — A Very Different Proposal for the Revision of Model Rule 1.6
LaRue T. Hosmer and Daniel C. Powell, 49 Loyola L. Rev. 405-469 (2003)
Download

THE GEORGETOWN PROPOSALS
Harvey J. Pitt, 36 Bus. Law. 1831 (1981).
Download

THE KAYE SCHOLER AFFAIR: The Lawyer’s Duty of Candor and the Bar’s Temptations of Evasion and Apology
William L. Simon, 23 Law & Soc. Inquiry 243 (Spring, 1998)
Download

RETHINKING CONFIDENTIALITY II: Is Confidentiality Constitutional?
Fred C. Zacharias, 75 Iowa L. Rev 601 (March. 1990)
Download

RETHINKING CONFIDENTIALITY
Fred C. Zacharias, 74 Iowa L. Rev. 351 (January 1989)
Download

WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION: INTERIM FORMAL ETHICS OPINION Re: The Effect of the SEC’s Sarbanes-Oxley Regulations on Washington Attorneys’ Obligations Under the RPCs
Approved by Board of Governors July 26, 2003
Download

THE CONCEPT OF A RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS
Charles W. Wolfram, 1 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 199 1987-1`988
Download

PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATOR’S MUNICIPAL DESKBOOK, Third Edition (2006)
Download

WORLD JUSTICE PROJECT INDEX REPORT 2012
Download

U.S. 7TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS
IN RE A WITNESS, 288 F. 3d 289 (7th Cir. 2002)
Decided April 23, 2002
Download

WISCONSIN RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR ATTORNEYS
November 14, 2001
Download

WHOSE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT SHOULD GOVERN LAWYERS IN FEDERAL COURT AND HOW SHOULD THE RULES BE CREATED
Bruce A. Green, 64 Geo. Wash L. Rev. 460 (1995-1996)
Download

WHO ARE CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF – On the Effective Use Of Resources in Pennsylvania
Stephen J. McEwen, Jr – Court Review 1998
Download

WHEN CANARIES WON;T SING: The Failure of the Attorney Self-Reporting System in the “Cash For Kids” Scheme
Sarah L. Primrose, 36 J. Legal Prof. 139 (2011)
Download

WATCHING THE HENHOUSE: Judicial Rulemaking and Judicial Review
Carrie Leonetti, 91 Neb. L. Rev (2013)
Download

WASHINGTON STATE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Adopted July 10, 2006 – Effective September 1, 2006
Download

WANT TO TAKE MY HOME? A Tale of David, the Homeowner, versus Goliath, the Bank
Eastburn & Gray, P.C. (2012)
Download

MAKING LAWYERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TRUTH: The Influence of Marvin Frankel’s Proposal for Reforming the Adversary System
Daniel Walfish, J.D. 2004 Yale Law School
Download

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, United States of America v. John Doe PRECEDENTIAL, October 25, 2005
Download

TWENTY­FIVE WAYS TO SUPPRESS TRUTH: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)
H. Michael Sweeney (2000) www.proparanoid.com
Download

Truth in Lawyering Act (“TILA”) – (Washington State) December 18, 2001
Download

THE VARYING PARAMETERS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW
John F. Decker, 65 La. L. Rev. (2004)
Download

THE SEPARATE BUT UNEQUAL CONSTITUTION
Adam Lamparello and Charles MacLean, January 2014
Download

THE NEXT STEP IN LEGAL ETHICS: Some Observations About the Proposed Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Robert J. Kutak, 30 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1 (1981)
Download

THE KUTAK MODEL RULES V. THE AMERICAN LAWYER’S CODE OF CONDUCT
Monroe H. Freedman, 26 Vill. L. Rev. 1165 (1981)
Download

THE CLIENT-FRAUD DILEMMA: A NEED FOR CONSENSUS
Kenneth F. Krach, 46 Md. L. Rev. 436 (1987)
Download

COMPARATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF LEGAL STAFF IN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTS
Council of Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeal, (April 2011)
Download

THE LEGALITY OF STATE PROTECTIONIST LAWS AGAINST LEGAL PROCESS OUTSOURCING
Anne J. Lee, J. ON TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH. L Vol. 11 (2013)
Download

“…. IN THE SPIRIT OF PUBLIC SERVICE:” A Blueprint for the Rekindling of Lawyer Professionalism
American Bar Association , Commission on Professionalism, 1986
Download

OVERSTEPPING ETHICAL BOUNDARIES? LIMITATIONS ON STATE EFFORTS TO PROVIDE
ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN FAMILY COURTS
Jessica Dixon Weaver, 82 F ORDHAM L. R EV . 2563 (2014).
Download

VALID RULE DUE PROCESS CHALLENGES: BOND v.
UNITED STATES AND ERIE’S CONSTITUTIONAL SOURCE
Kermit Roosevelt, III,, WILLIAM & MARY LAW REVIEW Vol. 54:987
Download

DISQUALIFYING JUDGES WHEN THEIR IMPARTIALITY MIGHT REASONABLY BE
QUESTIONED : MOVING BEYOND A FAILED STANDARD
Raymond J. McKoski, ARIZONA LAW REVIEW VOL. 56:411 (2014)
Download

IS CONFIDENTIALITY REALLY FOREVER—EVEN IF THE CLIENT DIES OR CEASES TO EXIST?
By Anne Klinefelter and Marc C. Laredo, Volume 40, No. 3 Litigation 47-51 (Spring, 2014)
Download

AGAINST CONFIDENTIALITY
Dru Stevenson ? 2014
Download

THINNING OUT STRUCTURAL THEORY
Garrick B. Pursley, (2014)
Download

THE PARADOX OF ADMINISTRATIVE PREEMPTION
David S. Rubenstein, (2014)
Download

DETERMINING THE PREEMPTIVE EFFECT OF FEDERAL LAW ON STATE STATUTES OF REPOSE
Adam Bain, University of Baltimore Law Review Vol. 43
Download

THE SUPREME COURT ’ S JURISDICTIONAL INFIDELITY
John David Ohlendorf , July 11, 2013
Download

HIDING BEHIND THE CLOAK OF INVISIBILITY : THE SUPREME COURT AND PER CURIAM OPINIONS
Ira P. Robbins, TULANE LAW REVIEW Vol. 86:1197 (2012)
Download

THE RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS AND THE COURTS
1997 Symposium, The Professional Lawyer
Susan Martyn, (1997)
Download

HOW MUCH JUSTICE CAN WE AFFORD?: DEFINING THE COURTS’ ROLES AND DECIDING THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF TRIALS, SETTLEMENT SIGNALS, AND OTHER ELEMENTS NEEDED TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE
John Lande, JOURNAL OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION Vol. 2006
Download

SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY, THE SMITH ACT, AND PROSECUTION FOR RELIGIOUS SPEECH ADVOCATING THE VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT
John Alan Cohan, Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development: Vol. 17: Iss. 2, Article 2. (2003)
Download

SPECULUM JURIS VOLUME 25 PART 2 2011
Nelson Mandela School of Law, Faculty of Law Rhodes University (2011)
Download

VITAE REPUBLICAE – THE LIFE OF THE REPUBLIC – SHERIFF’S
Carson J. Tucker
Download

REVIVING A TRADITION OF SERVICE:
REDEFINING LAWYER PROFESSIONALISM IN THE 21 ST CENTURY
Ronald C. Minkoff, ABA Standing Committee on Professionalism. (2010)
Download

RESTORING CONSTITUTIONAL EQUILIBRIUM
Adam Lamparello, October 2014
Download

RECTIFICATION OF CLIENT FRAUD
Marcia A. Johnson, Director – Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility
Bench & Bar of Minnesota (April 1993)
Download

SECTION 1983 LITIGATION
Martin A. Schwartz and Kathryn R. Urbonya, Federal Judicial Center 2008
RULES VERSUS STANDARDS: An Economic Analysis
Louis Kaplow, DUKE LAW JOURNAL Vol. 42:557
Download

KUTAK COMMISSION
Robert Kutak, 1977 – 1983
Download

“LAWYER AS PUBLIC CITIZEN” – A Futile Attempt to Close Pandora’s Box
Matthew E. Meany, 35 Campbell L. Rev. 119 (2012)
Download

STANDING OF INTERVENOR – Defendants in Public Law Litigation
Matthew I. Hall, 80 Fordham L. Rev. 1539 (2012).
Download

THE RULE OF LAW AS A LAW OF STANDARDS
JAMAL GREENE, 56 U. C HI . L. R EV . 1175, 1175 (1989)
Download

HOW LAWYERS ACT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE
Monroe H. Freedman, 70 Fordham L. Rev. 1717 (2002)
Download

THE FINE PRINT, VOL. 1, NO. 3
Download

Students of the University of Georgia School of Law, Other Law School Publications. Paper 304 (1982)
Download

ATTORNEY PAPERS, HISTORY AND CONFIDENTIALITY: A Proposed Amendment to Model Rule 1.6
Patrick Shilling, 69 Fordham L. Rev. 2741 (2001)
Download

RULES AGAINST RULIFICATION
Michael Coenen, (2013)
Download

CONFLICT AND TRUST BETWEEN ATTORNEY AND CLIENT
Robert A. Burt, Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 796. (1981)
Download

LEGAL ETHICS: Discretion and Utility in Model Rule 1.6
Charles A. Kelbley, Fordham Urban Law Review Vol XIII (1984)
Download

CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION UNDER SECTION 1983 AND THE BIVENS DOCTRINE IN THE OCTOBER 2008 TERM
Martin A. Schwartz, Touro Law Review: Vol. 26: No. 2, Article 9 (2012)
Download

RULE 201. JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS.
PA Code Article II Rule 201
Download

THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
112th Congress, (2013)
Download

FEDERAL USURPATION
FRANKLIN PIERCE , Family Guardian Fellowship (1908)
Download

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE: An Overview of Some of the Federal Statutes That Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities
Charles Doyle, Congressional Research Service 7-5700 (2014)
Download

JUDICIAL SUPREMACY AND NONJUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
Scott E. Gant, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly Vol.24:359 (1997)
Download

HIDING BEHIND THE CLOAK OF INVISIBILITY : The Supreme Court And Per Curiam Opinions
Ira P. Robbins (2012)
Download

TOWARD A HISTORY OF THE LEGALIZATION OF AMERICAN LEGAL ETHICS – II The Modern Era
Charles W. Wolfram, 8 U. Chi. L. Sch. Roundtable 469 (2001)
Download

WHY KENTUCKY SHOULD ADOPT THE ABA’S MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Eugene R. Gaetke, 74 Ky. L.J. 581 (1986)
Download

QUALIFICATIONS OF MONROE H. FREEDMAN AS AN EXPERT WITNESS ON LAWYERS ’ AND JUDGES ’ ETHICS
Monroe H. Freedman, Qualifications 2014
Download

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Intersection And Integration
Martha F. Davis, School of Law Faculty Publications. Paper 162. (2010)
Download

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Intersection And Integration
Martha F. Davis, COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW 42:157 (2011)
Download

GIVING NEW MEANING TO “JUSTICE FOR ALL”: CRAFTING AN EXCEPTION TO ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
Brittney Kern , 2014 M ICH . S T . L. R EV . 149
Download

LAWYER-CLIENT CONFIDENCES: The Model Rules’ Radical Assault on Tradition
Monroe H. Freedman, 68 American Bar Association Journal 428
Download

A CASE FOR INCREASED DISCLOSURE
Deborah Abramovsky, Fordham Urban Law Review Vol XIII (1984)
Download

AGAINST CONFIDENTIALITY
Dru Stevenson , Abstract (2014)
Download

THE SUPREME COURT AS A LEGISLATURE
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr, Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2407
Download

HOW FAR MAY A LAWYER GO IN ASSISTING A CLIENT IN LEGALLY WRONGFUL CONDUCT?
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2402. (1981)
Download

REVISITING THE SECOND RESTATEMENT OF JUDGMENTS: Issue Preclusion and Related Problems
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2404.
Download

RECTIFICATION OF CLIENT FRAUD: Death and Revival of a Professional Norm
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2396. (1984)
Download

PRECLUSION AS TO ISSUES OF LAW: The Legal System’s Interest
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2397. (1984)
Download

RISING ABOVE PRINCIPLE
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2393. (1986)
Download

A LAWYER’S PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2392. (1987)
Download

PROFESSIONALISM: The Deep Theory
Daniel R. Coquillette, North Carolina Law Review 72, (1994): 1271-1278. (1994)
Download

IN PRAISE OF OVERZEALOUS REPRESENTATION- Lying to Judges, Deceiving Third Parties, and Other Ethical Conduct
Monroe H. Freedman, (3 rd ed., 2004) (with Abbe Smith)
Download

FOUR PORTRAITS OF LAW PRACTICE
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2386.
Download

THE FUTURE OF LEGAL ETHICS
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2380.
Download

THE CLIENT FRAUD PROBLEM: A Justinian Quartet
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2370.
Download

STATE SUPREME COURT REGULATION OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2365.
Download

IT’S NOT OVER: Empowering the Different Voice in Legal Academia
Elvia R. Arriola, 29 Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. (2014).
Download

2014
10.17

An attorney may not disclose information which would harm a client… and offend the sacrosanct attorney-client privilege which continues into the beyond after the death of the attorney… WHY IS IT THAT FOR 30 YEARS THE WORLD HAS NEGLECTED TO CALL THE ABA ON THEIR BULLSHIT (quietly made law in every state since 1984.)

I assure you that ‘ACP’ has affected WAY MORE cases in civil and family court, than the criminal cases which the ABA loudly presumes to necessitate the privilege. Where the horseshit ascends to take on constitutional propriety, you just know they are making this stuff up. It is FLAWED to think that the attorney-client privilege is more important than EVERYONE ELSE’s constitutional rights.

Eric Holder is the retiring US Attorney General. Prosecutor, judge, high-powered lawyer representing the President, the NFL, Merck (Pharmaceuticals), Halliburton and big banks…

When Holder was presented for the position of US Attorney General… “Colleagues and admirers see his impressive range of work as a sign of a lawyer who has seen the law from all sides.” TRANSLATION: His former clients just renewed their license to commit fraud without fear of prosecution at state and federal levels.

20111005_FastFuriousTell me again why they fail to acknowledge that ERIC HOLDER can be prevented from prosecuting any of his former clients? … and those who report to him are similarly trapped. As the top lawyer in the DOJ, he cannot reveal any wrongdoing by his department (his client). So the Rule 1.6 ‘law’ made him silent on Fast & Furious. They have big shoulders to take the personal aspersions, while laughing at Americans who don’t see what is right in front of them. They have made it illegal to expose corruption.

That stupid headline allegation was such clear disinformation.
“NOT ONE BANK WAS PROSECUTED DURING THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS” – If you think it was personal, you have little faith in the morality and ethics of humans. It was NOT the lawyer, but ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE which protected the banks.

Once they made Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY into “LAW”. Rule 1.6 prevented any prosecution for the fraud by District Attorneys, Attorneys General and US Attorneys, the entire US DOJ and every government lawyer must follow the very same Rule 1.6 – See McDade-Murtha Amendment.

(Why is everything surrounding Rule 1.6 CORRUPTION BY CONFIDENTIALITY coming out of Pennsylvania – with emphasis on Scranton-Wilkes Barre? I really do not know that answer. I was one breath away from that question almost being answered yesterday. The call disconnected. Not able to reconnect.)

Where lawyers advanced fraudulent and robosigned paperwork, and successfully foreclosed on people – some homeowners did not even have mortgages on the property. Get this, that same attorney-client privilege may have also concealed that ‘there was NO BANK INVOLVED’, just a lawyer who knew his actions would be protected by Rule 1.6 Attorney-Client Privilege. BUT, Rule 1.6 is not called that.

Rule 1.6 is called CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION – it is a very broad application of confidentiality which conceals and protects, the courts, the judges, the lawyers, and possibly their clients too. lipstick-on-a-pig BUT, if you do any reading on the topic, the protection for their clients is moreso the pretty dress on a pig named “INJUSTICE”.

Rule 1.6 is SO CLEARLY STOOPID, that it prevents prosecution where the lawyer (aka prosecutor, DA, Attorney General, US Attorney) has ever represented the ‘accused’. THEY MADE IT A LAW… and the courts enforce it aggressively. They must conceal that the courts were undermined. To protect their judicial integrity… that ship has sailed… and has also been prevented from docking ever again (even when under the name of Reform.)

Ethics Reforms by the American Bar Association… ROFLMAO. The ABA made ethics illegal.

The ABA deliberately removed two fraud provisions from their Rule of Professional Conduct in 1983. The provisions had prevented a fraud from continuing, or ever being rectified… THE LAWYERS REMOVED THE LAW FROM THEIR ‘PROFESSIONAL ETHICS” DELIBERATELY. ON PURPOSE. BY VOTE (est 200-100). IN SPITEFUL DEFIANCE OF THE KUTAK COMMISSION’s documents.

AND NOT ONE LAWYER HAS EVER QUESTIONED THE AFFECT ON THE VICTIM’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Rule 1.6 is responsible for shredding the US Constitution. Well-written and Noted Horse’s ass Monroe Freedman, (Author of In Praise of Overzealous Representation – Lying to Judges, Deceiving Third Parties, and Other Ethical Conduct) always has a lie ready in defiance of ethics, indicated that

“We live in a Surveillance State in a Surveillance World. It is ever-expanding and omnipresent. It can never be removed or restricted, and our Constitution, with its Bill of Rights and separation of powers, has been lost forever.”

EXCUSE ME… Mr. Asshole… You have written about ethics ad vomitum. Are you claiming a victory in that sentence? Or are you a some special kind of new stupid?

CONSIDER the American Bar Association neglected to consider the rights of the innocent victim of their fraud (or their client’s fraud). When their ‘mythical duty’ of attorney-client secrecy stepped all over the rights and liberties secured and protected by the US Constitution… and wasn’t just a trade standard anymore because THEY MADE IT LAW.

Well, their ‘mythical duty’ is repugnant. Not a law. A nullity. Unconstitutional.

While they may have made it ‘legal’ for every lawyer, every judge and every level of law enforcement to conceal their crime, and obstruct justice, and deny constitutional rights.

Abuse of power under color of law – seems that you are not allowed to pretend it is ok to deny a person of their constitutional rights. When you oathed ‘preserve, protect, defend, support, enforce…’ you failed when you IGNORED… the Constituition of the United States.

AND along comes Krautheim and Healy, swinging the US Constitution, where the systemic infiltration of RULE 1.6, has been demonstrated by further acts of obstruction, denial and abuse EVEN IN THEIR ACTUAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE litigation. They demonstrated the loss of the very constitutional rights we filed to address. We didn’t need more evidence… or further failures of ethics and integrity.

Now when you have to turn to those who have committed a federal crime to fix the situation… where do you begin?

1) Expose the Problem and have everyone FIX IT.
2) Prosecute the crime against those same folks – who neglected to fix it when asked previously. NEGLECTED ALOT.
3) File for Civil Damages against the same folks. This must wait until it is fixed. Because SERIOUSLY… you proved it… you have no constitutional rights, no protection of the law, and “Constitution, with its Bill of Rights and separation of powers, has been lost forever.”… courtesy of the American Bar Association.

The Constitution is not LOST. Scan for problems. Fix/Purge. REBOOT!

AMERICA REBOOTED.

References:
OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS CAN NEVER BE RECOVEREDD by Monroe Freedman

In Praise of Overzealous Representation – Lying to Judges, Deceiving Third Parties, and Other Ethical Conduct by Monroe Freedman

2014
10.17

Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace;
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is discord, harmony;
Where there is error, truth;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
And where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, Grant that I may not so much seek
To be consoled as to console;
To be understood as to understand;
To be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive;
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

Kind of an empowering message that has been the basis of my life and my morality… since the days when I started singing in church. Powerful stuff.


What kind of world is this that we are living in where are our loved or hated for the color of our skin?
What kind of emptiness would make you so unkind?
what vein and heartless arrows have poisoned your minds?
What kind of place is this where we have all arrived?
Tell them they’re forgiven. But, tell them that they lie.

What kind of world is this when we dare to place upon the backs of our sisters so we can carry on?
What kind of heart pretends what it feels is true?
I know a love much stronger than the ghosts that follow you.
What kind of fool would judge me by the color of my eyes?
Tell them they’re forgiven. But, tell them that they lie.

Five hundred years of days and sorrows
– maybe selfish love is just too strong –
life only lasts for a moment we’ll turn around one day and be gone
So I cry… tell them they lie
Yea I cry… tell them they lie
Tell them they lie.
Tell them they lie.

do nv dah go hv i

America’s history Revisited: Tell Them They Lie

image3Sadly, in the assembly of this post, I learned of the passing of Priscilla Coolidge. Within the short span of one article, there was tremendous hope from a ‘song’ which had to be one of the earliest I ever learned… to the message that this is nothing new. It is not the first time any government has lied to it’s people. To the sadness of the loss of a ‘Gypsy Queen’ who influenced my life…. for that, I thank you.

2014
10.10

Breakdown of Rule 1.6 Issues – Volume List

– Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct Volume 1
– Improperly Enacted by the state supreme court(s) Volume 2
– Presented by the American Bar Association Volume 3
– Model Rules of Professional Conduct Volume 4
– The Collateral, Indirect and Absolute Denial of Rights Volume 5
– Rights Secured and Protected by the Constitution of the United States Volume 6
– Denying and Preventing Any Protection of the Law Volume 7
– A Litigant who has been the Victim of Fraud Volume 8
– Concealed from Disclosure Volume 9
– All Persons Directly Mandated to Follow the Rules of Professional Conduct Volume 10
– All lawyers, All judges, and All Law Enforcement Volume 11
– Within Each State Volume 13
– Within Each State Government Volume 14
– Within the Federal Government Volume 15
%d bloggers like this: