Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6

Rule 1.6 - Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct has been enacted into law by the judiciary in every state.
The Rules of Professional Conduct apply to lawyers and legal professionals including judges.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality prevents a lawyer from presenting ‘confidential information’ during a legal proceeding, and excuses the lawyer’s failure to address or counter the information presented by the opposing party.
Where an unrepresented party presents true and factual information to the court, a judge is prevented from including that true and factual information in rulings and opinions where mandated to maintain confidentiality.
Further, the court is prevented from providing any explanation for the omission of true and factual information and testimony.
In ongoing litigation and appeals, any attempt by an unrepresented party to have the court address that true and factual information is similarly omitted and ignored without explanation.
The lawyer on the appeal is limited where the information was not addressed during the hearings - even where that lawyer is responsible to respond to the challenge to the court’s jurisdiction.
True and Factual
“True and factual information’ includes the court docket and record, the Law, a state constitution, and the Constitution of the United States.
“True and factual information” which is neglected is NOT the result of credibility determinations.
The integrity of the court is affected when the judiciary is mandated to injustice without ability to explain.
Quotes
“Judicial independence does not just happen all by itself. It is tremendously hard to create, and easier than most people imagine to destroy.” - Sandra Day O’Connor, Supreme Court of the United States.
Alexander Hamilton remarked that “a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws is essential, because no man can be sure that he may not be tomorrow the victim of a spirit of injustice.”
President Woodrow Wilson wrote, government “keeps it promises, or does not keep them, in its courts. For the individual, therefore,… the struggle for constitutional government is a struggle for good laws, indeed, but also for intelligent, independent, and impartial courts.”
The Founders knew that statutes and constitutions do not protect our judicial independence — people do.
The Real Matter
After over eight years of litigation, it is evident that the Rule 1.6 mandate of confidentiality has obstructed, prevented and denied any justice in Healy v. Healy by the twenty judges on the Montgomery County PA bench who have been involved in the case. (Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Docket 2007-12477)
The Problem
Rule 1.6 prevents any justice in the matter until such time as the judiciary is permitted intelligence, independence and impartiality.
While Rule 1.6 duty of confidentiality is closely related to the attorney-client privilege, it is broader in scope .
mandates confidentiality of information where the information
- would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary,
- would reveal misconduct of their own office,
- would expose individual liability,
- would adversely affect their client.
Where a government attorney’s clients include
- Public
- Government as a whole
- Branch of government in which employed
- Particular agency or department
- Responsible officers who make decisions with an agency or department
It would seem that Rule 1.6 was designed to conceal public corruption, judicial corruption, and injustice. District Attorneys, Prosecutors or Attorneys General were clearly mandated to ignore Kids For Cash, Foreclosures through fraud, and other injustices by pretending they don’t exist… and having lawyers write reports which fail to explain the Rule 1.6 confidentiality which undermined their effort.
It would seems that Rule 1.6 was designed to conceal corruption… BECAUSE IT WAS ENACTED INTO LAW in response to the to prevent judges from being prosecuted for corruption.
The American Bar Association failed to understand that the integrity of the judiciary is not protected by destroying the integrity of the judiciary, undermining judicial authority and usurping the authority of the Executive branch and the Legislature.
OVERVIEW
Where the judiciary enacts an unconstitutional law, there is no ability to review the constitutionality of the law by the legislative or executive branches.
Where the judiciary will not review the constitutionality of their law, People are denied rights protected by the constitution without any possible recourse.
The Challenge
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 was filed in the Eastern District Court in Philadelphia on August 8, 2013. Docket 13-4614. It was not filed in an adversarial manner as the Plaintiff recognized that the Attorneys General, as lawyers mandated to confidentiality, had no lawful way to address the unconstitutional aspects of the law.
(This is the text of the Challenge Document)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Civil Action No. 13-4614

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim
in the name of THE UNITED STATES

v.

KATHLEEN KANE
Pennsylvania Attorney General;
and
The Attorneys General of the United States
COMPLAINT - CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
TERANCE HEALY and TODD M. KRAUTHEIM in the name of THE UNITED STATES file this pleading against KATHLEEN KANE, Pennsylvania Attorney General and the ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES challenging the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Plaintiffs seek to restore the constitutional rights of Pro Se litigants while restoring the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession and deliver to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.
Plaintiffs additionally offer that they are in the extremely unique position to be acting lawfully with proper standing while having a valid cause for relief in the proper forum for the rule to be addressed.
1. PARTIES
PLAINTIFFS
Terance Healy
871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976

Todd M. Krautheim
207 Woodspring Circle
Doylestown, PA 18901

in the name of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEFENDANTS
KATHLEEN KANE
Pennsylvania Attorney General
1600 Strawberry Square, Harrisburg, PA 17120

LUTHER STRANGE
Alabama Attorney General
501 Washington Ave. P.O. Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36130-0152

MICHAEL GERAGHTY
Alaska Attorney General
P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, AK 99811-0300

American Samoa Attorney General
American Samoa Gov’t, Exec. Ofc. Bldg,
Utulei, Territory of American Samoa, Pago Pago, AS 96799

TOM HORNE
Arizona Attorney General
1275 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ 85007

DUSTIN MCDANIEL
Arkansas Attorney General
323 Center St., Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201-2610

KAMALA HARRIS
California Attorney General
1300 I St., Ste. 1740, Sacramento, CA 95814

JOHN SUTHERS
Colorado Attorney General
Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor, Denver, CO 80203

GEORGE JEPSEN
Connecticut Attorney General
55 Elm St., Hartford, CT 06106

JOSEPH R. “BEAU” BIDEN, III
Delaware Attorney General
Carvel State Office Bldg., 820 N. French St., Wilmington, DE 19801

IRVIN NATHAN
District of Columbia Attorney General
441 4th Street, NW, Suite 1100S, Washington, DC 20001

PAM BONDI
Florida Attorney General
The Capitol, PL 01, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

SAM OLENS
Georgia Attorney General
40 Capitol Square, SW, Atlanta, GA 30334-1300

LENNY RAPADAS
Guam Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General,
ITC Building, 590 S. Marine Corps Dr, Ste. 706, Tamuning, Guam 96913

DAVID LOUIE
Hawaii Attorney General
425 Queen St., Honolulu, HI 96813

LAWRENCE WASDEN
Idaho Attorney General
Statehouse, Boise, ID 83720-1000

LISA MADIGAN
Illinois Attorney General
James R. Thompson Ctr., 100 W. Randolph St., Chicago, IL 60601

GREG ZOELLER
Indiana Attorney General
Indiana Government Center South
302 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204

TOM MILLER
Iowa Attorney General
Hoover State Office Bldg., 1305 E. Walnut, Des Moines, IA 50319

DEREK SCHMIDT
Kansas Attorney General
120 S.W. 10th Ave., 2nd Fl., Topeka, KS 66612-1597

JACK CONWAY
Kentucky Attorney General
700 Capitol Avenue, Capitol Building, Suite 118, Frankfort, KY 40601

JAMES D. “BUDDY” CALDWELL
Louisiana Attorney General
P.O. Box 94095, Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4095

JANET T. MILLS
Maine Attorney General
State House Station 6, Augusta, ME 04333

DOUGLAS F. GANSLER
Maryland Attorney General
200 St. Paul Place, Baltimore, MD 21202-2202

MARTHA COAKLEY
Massachusetts Attorney General
1 Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108-1698

BILL SCHUETTE
Michigan Attorney General
P.O.Box 30212, 525 W. Ottawa St., Lansing, MI 48909-0212

LORI SWANSON
Minnesota Attorney General
State Capitol, Ste. 102, St. Paul, MN 55155

JIM HOOD
Mississippi Attorney General
Department of Justice, P.O. Box 220, Jackson, MS 39205

CHRIS KOSTER
Missouri Attorney General
Supreme Ct. Bldg., 207 W. High St., Jefferson City, MO 65101

TIM FOX
Montana Attorney General
Justice Bldg., 215 N. Sanders, Helena, MT 59620-1401

JON BRUNING
Nebraska Attorney General
State Capitol, P.O.Box 98920, Lincoln, NE 68509-8920

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
Nevada Attorney General
Old Supreme Ct. Bldg., 100 N. Carson St., Carson City, NV 89701

JOSEPH A. FOSTER
New Hampshire Attorney General
33 Capitol St., Concord, NH 03301

JOHN JAY HOFFMAN
New Jersey Attorney General
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex,
25 Market Street P.O. Box 080 Trenton, NJ 08625

GARY KING
New Mexico Attorney General
P.O. Drawer 1508, Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508

ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN
New York Attorney General
Dept. of Law - The Capitol, 2nd fl., Albany, NY 12224

ROY COOPER
North Carolina Attorney General
Dept. of Justice, P.O.Box 629, Raleigh, NC 27602-0629

WAYNE STENEHJEM
North Dakota Attorney General
State Capitol, 600 E. Boulevard Ave., Bismarck, ND 58505-0040

JOEY PATRICK SAN NICOLAS
Northern Mariana Islands Attorney General
Administration Building, P.O. Box 10007, Saipan MP 96950-8907

MIKE DEWINE
Ohio Attorney General
State Office Tower, 30 E. Broad St., Columbus, OH 43266-0410

SCOTT PRUITT
Oklahoma Attorney General
313 NE 21st Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73105

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM
Oregon Attorney General
Justice Bldg., 1162 Court St., NE, Salem, OR 97301

LUIS SÁNCHEZ BETANCES
Puerto Rico Attorney General
PO Box 902192, San Juan, PR 00902-0192

PETER KILMARTIN
Rhode Island Attorney General
150 S. Main St., Providence, RI 02903

ALAN WILSON
South Carolina Attorney General
Rembert C. Dennis Office Bldg., P.O.Box 11549, Columbia, SC 29211-1549

MARTY J. JACKLEY
South Dakota Attorney General
1302 East Highway 14, Suite 1, Pierre, SD 57501-8501

ROBERT E. COOPER, JR.
Tennessee Attorney General
425 5th Avenue North, Nashville, TN 37243

GREG ABBOTT
Texas Attorney General
Capitol Station, P.O.Box 12548, Austin, TX 78711-2548

JOHN SWALLOW
Utah Attorney General
State Capitol, Rm. 236, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0810

WILLIAM H. SORRELL
Vermont Attorney General
109 State St., Montpelier, VT 05609-1001

VINCENT FRAZER
Virgin Islands Attorney General
Dept. of Justice, G.E.R.S. Complex
488-50C Kronprinsdens Gade, St. Thomas, VI 00802

KEN CUCCINELLI
Virginia Attorney General
900 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219

BOB FERGUSON
Washington Attorney General
1125 Washington St. SE, PO Box 40100, Olympia, WA 98504-0100

PATRICK MORRISEY
West Virginia Attorney General
State Capitol, 1900 Kanawha Blvd. , E., Charleston, WV 25305

J.B. VAN HOLLEN
Wisconsin Attorney General
Wisconsin Department of Justice,
State Capitol, Room 114 East P. O. Box 7857, Madison, WI 53707-7857

PETER K. MICHAEL
Wyoming Attorney General
State Capitol Bldg., Cheyenne, WY 82002
2. JURISDICTION
- The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under, this being an action:
- authorized by law to challenge the constitutionality of State law;
- to redress the deprivation under State law, statute ordinance regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States which provides for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;
- seeking relief providing for the protection of civil rights,
- brought on behalf of the United States.
3. VENUE
- The Venue is properly placed in The United States District Court of The Eastern District of Pennsylvania for civil action;
- where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred;
- where plaintiffs are residents of the judicial district;
- where defendant is an officer of the state acting in official capacity or under color of legal authority.
4. SERVICE
- This Complaint - Constitutional Challenge is served on the state attorneys general as a state statute is questioned—either by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.
5. STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct as the rule causes the complete denial of constitutionally protected rights while subverting justice and corrupting the judiciary.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Plaintiffs are NOT petitioning this Honorable Court regarding their legal matters currently before the State court.
The actual information about their cases is provided to demonstrate the necessity of this challenge.
For the purposes of this filing, any discussion/presentation of this information may be considered hypothetical as this court does not have jurisdiction in the State matter.
Do NOT be distracted. Do NOT be dismissive. Do NOT underestimate the Plaintiff.
The Pro Se Plaintiffs are fully aware of the CONSTITUTIONAL case being presented, and the necessity for it to be addressed in this forum at this time. We pray this Honorable Court will permit the factual situation where constitutionally protected rights have been usurped and undermined be presented.

To demonstrate the unconstitutional aspect, the Plaintiff presents their cases:
- Terance Healy A divorce action commenced in Family Court
- Todd M. Krautheim A foreclosure action commenced in Civil Court
CASE OF PLAINTIFF, TERANCE HEALY
6. HEALY v. HEALY is a divorce action which has been in the courts since May 2007.
7. The matter has involved 18 judges from the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas with over 400 docket entries.
8. An Appeal filed in August 2011 was ignored, neglected by the Prothonotary and not forwarded to the Superior Court.
9. An Appeal filed in May 2013 is currently before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
10. The lower court has commenced a series of obstructive acts to prevent the Appeal
a. acting without jurisdiction,
b. abuse of power - deliberate issuance of void orders,
c. abuse of power - intimidation to prevent court reporters from producing transcripts for the Appeal,
d. conspiracy - prothonotary has failed to forward all documents and necessary exhibits to the Superior Court.
11. When Rule 1.6 is applied to the above injustices, they are lawful and a required necessity as they protect the integrity and reputation of the judiciary.
12. From the perspective of the Pro Se litigant constitutionally protect rights have been usurped.
13. A Motion to Compel the Production of Documents is pending with the Superior Court.
14. The Rules of Appellate Procedure require the complete court record to be transmitted to the Superior Court.
15. The complete court record is a necessity for proper review of the Appeal by the Superior Court.
16. Rule 1.6 lawfully excuses the failure to transmit the court record, even when Ordered by the Superior Court.
17. Rule 1.6 lawfully excuses the Superior Court from compelling the production of the court record.
18. Rule 1.6 lawfully excuses the lower court failure to follow an order compelling production of the court record.
19. Rule 1.6 lawfully undermines the production of the complete court record, and further nullifies the authority of the Superior Court.
20. Rule 1.6 lawfully obstructs the production of the court record.
21. Rule 1.6 lawfully nullifies the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
22. The Pro Se litigant has no recourse with the Superior Court.
23. The Pro Se litigant has no recourse through the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
( NOTE: This is the point where the litigation in this matter is currently. )
SUPREME COURT MANDAMUS PETITION
24. The Pro Se litigant could prepare and deliver a Mandamus Petition to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to compel the production of the court record.
25. Rule 1.6 lawfully excuses the failure to transmit the court record when ordered by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
26. Rule 1.6 lawfully excuses the Supreme Court from enforcing a Mandamus Order compelling the production of the court record.
27. Rule 1.6 lawfully prevents the Supreme Court from issuing a Mandamus Order.
28. Rule 1.6 lawfully undermines any action by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
29. Rule 1.6 lawfully and effectively nullified
Pennsylvania Law,
The Rules of Appellate Procedure,
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania,
and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
JUDICIAL REACTION
30. Rule 1.6 lawfully undermines the judiciary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
31. Rule 1.6 lawfully destroys the integrity and reputation of the judges.
32. The judiciary is clearly placed into a moral and ethical situation where saving the integrity and reputation of the judiciary is more important to society than justice for a Pro Se litigant.
33. Rule 1.6 provides the law to support their decisions which they cannot in good conscience defend or explain.
34. The Pro Se litigant feels victimized because the Pro Se litigant has been victimized without reason or explanation. .
35. The judge has likely failed to recognize that the Pro Se litigant before his court has lost ALL of their legal rights.
36. The judges actions further prevent recognition of the loss of the Pro Se litigants rights.
JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD
37. Rule 1.6 lawfully prevents the investigation, action, or response by the Judicial Conduct Board to any complaint by a Pro Se Litigant.
38. Complaints with the Judicial Conduct Board when undeniable, documented misconduct was discovered were not addressed.
39. Rule 1.6 permits complaints to be dismissed without explanation.
DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
40. Rule 1.6 lawfully prevents the investigation, action, or response by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania.
41. Complaints with the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania when undeniable, documented misconduct was discovered were not addressed.
42. Rule 1.6 permits complaints to be dismissed without explanation.
THE LAW OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
43. Rule 1.6 indirectly denies a Pro Se litigant of the protection of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and further prevents any recourse to address the loss of civil rights.
( It became necessary for me to find out exactly where I lost my legal rights )
UP TO THIS POINT IN THIS DOCUMENT I HAVE USED THE PHRASE “RULE 1.6”.
I HAVE DONE SO WITH NECESSITY, A PRO SE LITIGANT REALIZES EVERY WORD IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO BE IGNORED.
RULE 1.6 REFERS TO
“CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT - RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION” THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
MY REVIEW OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
44. I reviewed the CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and the effect of the rule for my own understanding.
45. Reducing the code to the most basic statements returned four reasonable phrases which were logical, ethical and reasonable.
Lawyers are required and responsible to report all misconduct; (The Code)
- unless it affected the integrity of the judicial system; (Rule 1.6 )
- unless it was self-incriminating; (Rule 1.6 )
- unless it adversely affected the client. (Rule 1.6 )
46. Each phrase could support it’s logical, ethical and reasonable existence.
47. The first phrase actually started on very high ground, but the combined effect was empty as there are no other kinds of misconduct..
MY REVIEW OF MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
48. I reviewed my experience and the lawfulness of everyone’s actions and came up with the practical simplified rule as it applied to my case.
Lawyers will take no action which reveals the misconduct of lawyers and judges.
Judges will take no action which reveals the misconduct of lawyers and judges.
49. The Code of Professional Conduct supported my two sentence review, when applied the excuse for the action, or in-action, always pointed to Rule 1.6.
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE LEGISLATURE
50. Rule 1.6 legally prohibits correction as any effort to correct it would not be lawful.
51. The State Legislature is similarly unable to act to suspend the rule, modify the rule, or adjust the rule.
52. Rule 1.6 lawfully and effectively undermined The Pennsylvania State Legislature.
53. The Rule has a built in “self defense” mechanism which prevents lawful actions to fix the law.
54. Anyone who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct is lawfully prevented from lawfully taking any action to address this problem.
55. As soon as the law was enacted it was untouchable
THE PROBLEM IS MINE TO FIX
56. Rule 1.6 was my problem. It needed to be fixed.
57. Upon realization that the legislature could not lawfully take action to address Rule 1.6, the Plaintiffs decided to go to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:
- to demonstrate the problem,
- to show the necessity of the solution,
- to seek out and meet the author,
- to request an immediate change.
58. Anyone who could take any action would recognize that their efforts were going to expose misconduct, and as such, they could not lawfully make the change.
59. In order to be lawful, Plaintiff’s efforts were going to require precision.
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
60. Defendant, Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General, refused to meet with the Plaintiffs.
61. Plaintiffs proceeded to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania.
62. Paul J. Killion, Chief Disciplinary Counsel was not in the office and unavailable to schedule a meeting.
63. The Plaintiffs left the message of their experience and the necessary resolution in hopes of finding the proper person with whom they could meet.
64. Plaintiff’s proceeded to the RULES department seeking and receiving guidance on how to properly format a document requesting a change to a rule.
65. Plaintiff’s were informed that Rule 1.6 was not part of that office’s responsibility.
66. Plaintiff’s proceeded to the Judicial Conduct Board.
67. Robert A. Graci, Chief Counsel, was not in the office and unavailable to schedule a meeting.
68. The Plaintiffs left the message of their experience and the necessary resolution in hopes of finding the proper person with whom they could meet.
THE OVERALL AFFECT OF RULE 1.6
69. Rule 1.6 is obstructing justice, denying justice, preventing access to the courts, denying civil rights, denying constitutional rights and constitutionally protected liberties.
70. Rule 1.6 protects the integrity of the judiciary by sacrificing the integrity of the judiciary.
71. Rule 1.6 protects the reputation of the legal profession by sacrificing the reputation of lawyers.
72. Rule 1.6 has lawfully provided the opportunity to deny the rights of Pro Se litigants.
73. EVERY Pro Se litigant IS NOT SUBJECTED to the loss of civil and constitutional rights.
74. RULE 1.6 DOES NOT MANDATE the denial of the rights of Pro Se litigants.
75. RULE 1.6 allows, endorses, and conceals the denial of the rights of “SELECTED” Pro Se litigants.
CRITERIA FOR LOSS OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS
76. ALL citizens of the United States are AT RISK of being affected by this failure in the legal system.
77. ALL litigants in state courts are AT RISK of being affected by this failure in the legal system.
78. The loss of rights is not evident until the litigant attempts to assert their ‘lost’ rights, at which point the loss is absolute, undeniable, and impossible to address with anyone within the judiciary, or at any level of government, as the judicial and legislative branches are legally prevented from acting to correct Rule 1.6.
79. Certain ordinary criteria must be met to cause the potential for loss.
1. There must be a judicial error, or misconduct, of any degree.
2. One litigant files to proceed Pro Se while the other is represented.
80. It is not important which event occurs first, or at what point in the legal matter one party moves to proceed Pro Se..
81. Once the criteria are met, the Pro Se litigant is as the extreme disadvantage as every failure by the represented party is excused; every opportunity to address it is ignored, denied or prevented.
82. All rules, laws, procedures, orders and due process can be ignored leaving the Pro Se litigant with no recourse.
83. The Code of Professional Conduct (Rule 1.6) can be invoked to protect the failures of the lawyers and the judiciary effortlessly, but the extreme force undermines the Constitutionally protected rights of the Pro Se victim.
84. This risk for loss of rights is ONLY experienced by a Pro Se litigant.
85. It is incomprehensible that a citizen of the United States who has committed no crime can lose everything.
86. The potential ability of a lawyer INTENTIONALLY committing or causing an act of misconduct which triggers the loss of constitutionally protect rights when facing a Pro Se litigant creates a situation which would demand strict actions regarding any misconduct.
87. An attorney facing a Pro Se opponent does not require full knowledge of how this situation occurs to trigger an act of misconduct and undermine their adversary’s case.
88. An attorney who committed repeated acts of misconduct would clearly be demonstrating their knowledge of the power of the action, and the failure to realize the redundancy of their repeated misconducts being unnecessary.
89. Plaintiff, Terance Healy, offers the series of acts of extreme and deliberate attorney misconduct on the court record, in the court docket, available in the transcripts of hearings in the matter during hearings in February 2013 which were held improperly during the pendancy of an ignored appeal to seek enforcement of a void order issued during the pendancy of that ignored appeal, where that void order was based on a prior void order, which was further based on a void order for equitable distribution which was based on a void and defective divorce decree.
90. The subsequent Order issued in that matter being Appeal to the Superior Court and described on the docket as:
“In an action to enforce an order where the court lacked jurisdiction, the court failed to address the lack of jurisdiction to deny, obstruct and conceal prior jurisdiction issues and failures during the pendancy of an Appeal.”
91. As the misconduct used to trigger the loss of rights for Plaintiff Terance Healy (Pro Se Defendant /Appellant) created a loss of jurisdiction, the Defendant was without rights but not without recourse until the appeals court became affected by the case.
92. When the authority of the Appeals court was impacted, Plaintiff Terance Healy would have standing and a cause for relief to present his case to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania where a Petition for Mandamus action could lawfully be ordered and lawfully be ignored.
ACTING LAWFULLY, WITH PROPER STANDING, WITH VALID CAUSE FOR RELIEF
93. Plaintiff, Terance Healy, hereby asserts and presents the as evidence of proper standing the aforementioned true and factual circumstances and actions before
The Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Norristown, Pennsylvania
Docket #2007-12477
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Docket # 1330 EDA 2013
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Docket # (Filing Concurrent with this Constitutional Challenge)
94. Plaintiff, Terance Healy, asserts and presents as a proper cause for relief the aforementioned true and factual circumstances and actions to The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
CASE OF PLAINTIFF, TODD M. KRAUTHEIM
95. BANK OF AMERICA, National Association v. TODD M. KRAUTHEIM is a foreclosure action which has been in the courts since January 2011.
96. The matter has involved 4 judges from the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas with over 100 docket entries.
97. A Judgment entered in May 2011 was unknown to the Defendant until November 2012.
98. After a hearing where documented acts of misconduct were presented, the Court recognized the standard had been met for a “petition to strike” and ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment be stricken.
99. The failure of service to the defendant was excused by the court. This is evident and admitted and documented on the record by the attorneys for the plaintiff.
100. An act of fraud relating to the transfer of the mortgage for the property created the misconduct necessary under Rule 1.6 to undermine the Pro Se defendant in the matter.
101. Efforts to expose, address or resolve the matter have been hindered as any effort to resolve will expose the fraudulent title transfer.
102. Plaintiffs subsequent submission of another fraudulent title continue this hindrance of preventing resolution and providing them the opportunity to assert Rule 1.6
- in their defense, or
- in the defense of their client, or
- in the defense of the judge who signed the initial judgement.
103. In this matter, any effort to proceed to a resolution is prevented as the assertion of Rule 1.6 prevents any discussion of the misconduct, or any action which addresses the misconduct.
104. The matter could eventually escalate to a higher court where the same Rule 1.6 would prevent any discussion of the misconduct, or any action which addressed the misconduct.
ACTING LAWFULLY, WITH PROPER STANDING, WITH A VALID CAUSE FOR RELIEF
105. Plaintiff, Todd M. Krautheim, hereby asserts and presents as evidence of proper standing the aforementioned true and factual circumstances and actions before
The Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Doylestown, Pennsylvania
Docket # 2011-00193
106. Plaintiff, Todd M. Krautheim, asserts and presents as a proper cause for relief the aforementioned true and factual circumstances and actions to The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
A GREAT RESPONSIBILITY
107. Plaintiffs have filed this Constitutional Challenge to Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General, and the Attorneys General of the United States of America as Rule 1.6 appears to have been made law in each state and territory.
108. Attorneys General in States where Rule 1.6 has not been enacted into law, are ON NOTICE of this Constitutional Challenge and the impact the Rule can have on the citizens they are sworn to protect.
109. The exact title “Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information” appears in the laws of States, other than Pennsylvania, indicating the potential for inadvertent loss of civil rights exists for the people of those States.
110. Additionally, Plaintiffs recognize the existing and potential worldwide scope of this rule of law, and as citizens uniquely positioned to act lawfully on behalf of the people of the world, assert their lawful proper standing, with cause for relief upon the International Court of Justice to take lawful action to restore the rights or people everywhere.
DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS
111. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information causes an denial of the constitutionally protected right to petition the Government for redress of grievances. (First Amendment)
112. Rule 1.6 causes a denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law. (Fifth Amendment)
113. Rule 1.6 causes a denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law by a State. (Fourteenth Amendment)
114. The US Constitution is the absolute supreme law of the land.
115. Federal laws are also the supreme law of the land if they do not violate the Constitution.
116. Treaties cannot violate the US Constitution. If they do, they are not valid treaties.
117. State legislatures and State courts are bound by the US Constitution, federal laws and federal treaties.
118. State constitutions cannot violate the US Constitution.
119. State laws cannot conflict or overrule federal laws.
120. Rule 1.6 denies a Pro Se litigant of an opportunity to petition the government for redress of grievances; denies a Pro Se litigant of life, liberty and/or property without due process of law; causes a denial of constitutionally protected rights by the State and as such is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
OBSTACLES TO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
121. Plaintiffs assert and allege that any obstacles to the presentation, acceptance and consideration of this Complaint - Constitutional Challenge are unconstitutional
-based on the Plaintiffs constitutionally protected right to petition the Government for redress of grievances;
-based on the Plaintiffs constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law;
-based on the Plaintiffs constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law by a State.
122. Plaintiffs assert and allege that any defense by the Defendants against this Complaint - Constitutional Challenge, unless directed at
- the Plaintiff’s lawful position to file this claim;
- the Plaintiff’s demonstrating a valid cause for relief;
- the Plaintiff’s petitioning in the proper forum for this matter to be addressed
is an action which is unconstitutional in that it causes
- a denial of a constitutionally protected right to petition the Government for redress of grievances;
- a denial of life, liberty or property without due process of law;
- a denial of life liberty or property without due process of law by a State.
123. Plaintiffs are under no obligations under the challenged Rule 1.6 as they are not bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct placing them in the unique position of being lawfully able to present this matter to the Honorable Court..
124. Defendant, Kathleen Kane, and the Attorneys General, are bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 1.6 and as such are limited in the actions which they are permitted to take in defense of this challenge as any action could or would be a violation of Rule 1.6. - the constitutionality of which is in question.
Plaintiffs, Terance Healy and Todd M. Krautheim, on behalf of Mark McBride, Helene Finno, Darren Moyer, Karen Baxter Randall, Michael LaBate and the People of the United States of America hereby present for the consideration and review to this Honorable Court their Complaint - Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Code of Professional Conduct.
Terance Healy
Warrington, PA

Todd M. Krautheim
Doylestown, PA

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu