Authority of the Supreme Court pursuant to ARTICLE V, Section 10(c)
The Rules of Civil Procedure
The General Assembly, by Act of June 21, 1937, P. L. 1982, as amended, 17 P. S. § 61 et seq. (repealed), vested in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania the power to prescribe by general rule the practice and procedure in civil actions for the courts of common pleas. This concept was incorporated into the Constitution of 1968, Article V, Section 10(c) which continued to vest in the Supreme Court:
‘‘. . . the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure, and conduct of all courts . . . if such rules are consistent with Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive right of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of peace, nor suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose. All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions.’’
This Constitutional provision is now implemented by section 1722 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 1722, relating to the adoption of administrative and procedural rules.
Pursuant to such rule making power the Supreme Court appointed a Civil Procedural Rules Committee to assist the Court in the preparation and revision of the Rules. The Rules of Civil Procedure were recommended by the Committee and adopted by the Court. Specific numbers were assigned to the chapters of the rules as they were promulgated pursuant to a general plan.
Section 323 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 323, continues the prior law empowering every court ‘‘to make such rules and orders of court as the interest of justice or the business of the court may require.’’ Rule of Civil Procedure 239 sets forth the limitation that local rules may not be inconsistent with Acts of Assembly or general rules of the Supreme Court.
By an order of the Supreme Court dated December 31, 1968, all rules then in force governing practice and procedure in courts, including the rules of civil procedure, were continued in force under the Constitution of 1968 until suspended, revoked or modified pursuant to Article V, Section 10(c) of that Constitution.
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT – US CONSTITUTION
“… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;…”
The clause also promises that before depriving a citizen of life, liberty or property, government must follow fair procedures. Thus, it is not always enough for the government just to act in accordance with whatever law there may happen to be.
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT – US CONSTITUTION
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Citizens are entitled to have the government observe or offer fair procedures, whether or not those procedures have been provided for in the law on the basis of which it is acting.
Action denying the process that is “due” would be unconstitutional.
Whether provided for in law, or not, actions which deny equal protection of the law would be unconstitutional.
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS
The rule making power of the Supreme Court pursuant to Article V, Section 10(c), provides authority “if such rules are consistent with Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive right of any litigant”.
Where the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure include rules which cause or contribute to a denial of due process and prevent equal protection of the law and fail to offer fair procedures, THOSE RULES ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION OR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
Where those rules abridge and modify the substantive rights of any litigant, the Supreme Court did not, and does not, have authority necessary pursuant to Article V, Section 10(c), to prescribe those rules.
All such laws improperly promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions, and the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.
NO CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW… ever.
The rules enacted by the Supreme Court have not undergone any construction or constitutional review prior to being prescribed.
Once prescribed into law, there exists no method by which the rule can be reviewed to determine if it is constitutional, or not.
A clear conflict of interest prevents the Supreme Court from reviewing the constitutionality of any rule which it has improperly prescribed.
FEDERAL REMEDY PREVENTED
The McDade-Murtha Amendment requires federal law enforcement and legal professionals to adhere to the Rules of Professional Conduct within the jurisdiction they are working/investigating. Passage of the amendment was an act of deception and misdirection. The amendment which was opposed by the US Attorney General at the time and several prior Attorneys General. Then Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, attempted to prevent the vote on the matter by walking out.
Local Rules in each Federal District Court require lawyers and legal professionals to abide the state Rules of Professional Conduct.
AND TO MAKE RESOLUTION NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE… An aggressively enforced mandate of confidentiality.
Confidentiality of Information – Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Where the Rules of Professional Conduct (by cross reference to Rule 1.6) require that legal professionals take no action which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary, legal professional are prevented from bringing the Constitutional Challenge to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Additionally, cross references within EVERY rule to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, undermines any ethics, morality or justice. After removing ‘the fraud provisions’ from the American Bar Association Model Rules, the ABA presented The Rules of Professional Conduct which would permit actions by legal professionals which promote and ignore injustice, while undermining, preventing and obstructing any Constitutional Challenge. The mandate includes non-disclosure of actions even where those actions undermine the judiciary, the legal profession, the Rule of Law, the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information undermines ethics, morality and justice.
The Rules of Professional Conduct are promoted as a minimum ethical standard for lawyers and legal professionals. Sadly, after removal of the fraud provisions by the American Bar Association, the minimum is none.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality is the needle in the haystack of American injustice. It undermines the Judiciary, ignores the Rule of Law, nullifies the Legislature, stifles the Presidency and undermines the US Constitution.
The fix is simple.
However, lawyers are prevented from disclosure AND must protect the integrity of the judiciary. Foolishly, the integrity of the judiciary is protected by sacrificing the integrity of the system of justice and ignoring the Constitutions.
Previous efforts by the Supreme Court to address the problems with their improperly enacted and unconstitutional Confidentiality have left a trail of bread crumbs which serve to expose the scope of the problem and the inability to resolve the issue.
PA Governor may call the Legislature to assemble to suspend Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.
(Lawyers prevent the information from the Governor.)
(Lawyers prevent the information from the Legislature.)
Lawyers are permitted to take no action and remain silent.
Lawyers must abide by the Law until it is No Law, an unconstitutional nullity, OR SUSPENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE pursuant to ARTICLE I Section 12 of the PA Constitution.
Lawyers recognizing the unconstitutional affect may take no action and remain silent without fear of being disciplined for violating the unconstitutional law.
Once the Legislature suspends unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, then…
Lawyers and Judges will then be permitted to discuss, address and resolve the problem.
The laws and reforms enacted by the state Legislatures, and US Congress, will then work as intended, designed and constructed.
Making America Great Again.
Justice is Coming.