Governor Thomas Wolf September 23, 2019

The General Assembly of Pennsylvania

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Crisis within the Judicial Branch

Actions which affect the Pennsylvania Judiciary are NOT the lawful or constitutional actions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, they are the actions of the lawyers which have undermined the judiciary at every level. Your attention is a necessity.

The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is dedicated to protecting the public, maintaining the integrity of the legal profession, and safeguarding the reputation of the courts.

The statement contradicts a group of people who proposed to violate a litigants constitutional rights, undermine their protection of the Law, usurp the exclusive responsibility of the General Assembly to indicate the jurisdiction of the Courts, and destroy the integrity of the courts. That is one secret which should no longer be kept.

Taking issue with Rule 1.4 and all of the other Rules put into place to prevent the exposure and correction while concealing the conspiracy behind unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

The constitutionality of the Rules enacted by the Judiciary is a necessity to any Rule being proposed and promulgated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. BUT, who reviews the constitutionality of these Rules? The Supreme Court would clearly have a conflict of interest. NO ONE CHECKS.

The jurisdiction of the Courts is the exclusive responsibility of the General Assembly. This is specifically restated in Article V Section 10. Rules are not permitted to usurp that authority.

BUT, there is no review of the jurisdiction of the Courts by the General Assembly. The General Assembly replies to inquiries by indicating they ‘do not get involved in issues which involve the judiciary.’ The General Assembly IGNORES.

When the Courts act without jurisdiction, they do so without authority, the orders are a nullity and there is no necessity to abide their instructions. BUT, there is no review of proper jurisdiction by those who are directed to enforce the Orders. Nobody checks. Enforcement is more aggressive when the court lacks (lacked) jurisdiction. Those who enforce orders which lack jurisdiction become a party to the crime. There is no incentive to check for jurisdiction when you may discover you have been used in the commission of a crime.

“Rules or court orders governing litigation may provide that information supplied to a lawyer may not be disclosed to the client.”

The line added to Rule 1.4 falls based on those simple obvious and immediate procedural issues. Unconstitutional, Improperly enacted, and affecting Jurisdiction. A recent amendment to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality would prevents disclosure to the client by only allowing information to be exchanged with the client “to comply with other law or court order.”

How did it get to the point where it is days from going into effect and not one lawyer has indicated the problems? Broadly, Rule 1.6 requires non-disclosure where information adversely affects the integrity of the Court.

Rule 1.6 failed to stop those who put it forward and presented it to the Supreme Court of PA. It has stopped every attorney since. Further, it silenced any discussion in the subsequent rules which were enacted to prevent exposure of improperly enacted and unconstitutional Rule 1.6. Those subsequent Rules, and amendments, serve to obstruct justice and deny the Rule of Law. Unconstitutional Rules enacted to conceal an unconstitutional Rule. Review of the history of those rules, amendments and additions leads indirectly back to Rule 1.6.

I have already been a victim of the Rules which go into effect in a few weeks. No Law. No Rights. No explanations. Two Counties. Hundreds of lawyers. Injustice, where the court was without jurisdiction. Nobody checked. Judicial overreach. Abuses continued. Obstruction of Justice is barely the beginning of the litany of crimes to which I have been subjected and survived. I have persevered.

I believe the current amendments clearly seek to prevent people from prevailing or escaping. When you have no protection of the law, you can be victimized repeatedly. Without rights, you may survive but you can never prevail. I persevere.

The Rules, and specifically the recent amendments, indicate an awareness and response to the litigation which has involved me and affected my life, liberty and any happiness since 2007. I am well documented on the court record and the internet. Yes, you have likely heard from me before. I have turned to everyone, including foreign leaders. I WAS NOT BEING IGNORED. Events and Actions were CONFIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT TO NON-DISCLOSURE.

One who tried to help discovered the retaliation, corruption and determination to continue the corruption which has undermined the judiciary, the Rule of Law and the US Constitution. Those ‘secret orders from unidentified courts’ preventing the Attorney General from the duties and responsibilities of the Office of Attorney General also lacked jurisdiction and support of any law.

Lawyers were Ordered to not disclose information. The client knew already. Public disclosure was prevented where the presentation of the information was additionally ordered to NOT be presented to the Court.

Injustice and Lies do not protect the integrity of the Judiciary. Injustice and Lies conceal the corruption of the judiciary undermined by their own confidentiality.

These improperly enacted and unconstitutional Rules contradict many, if not all, of the principles which serve to protect the dignity and honor of the judiciary and the legal profession.

“Obstructive conduct impedes the fundamental goal of resolving disputes in a rational, peaceful and efficient manner.” Judicial Code of Civility 99.1 Preamble

§99.2 A Judge’s Duties to Lawyers and Other Judges.

A judge should show respect, courtesy and patience to the lawyers, parties and all participants in the legal process by treating all with civility. A judge should refrain from acting upon or manifesting racial, gender or other bias or prejudice toward any participant in the legal process. A judge should not employ hostile or demeaning words in opinions or in written or oral communications with lawyers, parties or witnesses. A judge should ensure that disputes are resolved in a prompt and efficient manner and give all issues in controversy deliberate, informed and impartial analysis and explain, when appropriate, the reasons for the decision of the court. A judge should allow the lawyers to present proper arguments and to make a complete and accurate record. A judge should recognize that the conciliation process is an integral part of litigation and thus should protect all confidences and remain unbiased with respect to conciliation communications.

§99.3. The Lawyer’s Duties to the Court and to Other Lawyers. A lawyer should act in a manner consistent with the fair, efficient and humane system of justice and treat all participants in the legal process in a civil, professional and courteous manner at all times. These principles apply to the lawyer’s conduct in the courtroom, in office practice and in the course of litigation. A lawyer should not engage in any conduct that diminishes the dignity or decorum of the courtroom. A lawyer should refrain from acting upon or manifesting racial, gender or other bias or prejudice toward any participant in the legal process. A lawyer should not misrepresent, mischaracterize, misquote or miscite facts or authorities in any oral or written communication to the court. A lawyer should avoid ex parte communications with the court, including the judge’s staff, on pending matters in person, by telephone or in letters and other forms of written communication unless authorized. Communication with the judge on any matter pending before the judge, without notice to opposing counsel, is strictly prohibited. A lawyer should strive to protect the dignity and independence of the judiciary, particularly from unjust criticism and attack. A lawyer should be cognizant of the standing of the legal profession and should bring these principles to the attention of other lawyers when appropriate.

The principles listed are NOT Rules NOR Laws, NOR Enforced. They exist to be referenced. They are self-serving suggestions about the system used when admonishing a judge or lawyer involved in a real disciplinary matter.

Trust and esteem in the judiciary is a necessity. Yet, within these rules capable of repetition and damage while evading review, there exists a blatant disregard for the Public Trust which prevents the judiciary from rising to address their problem. Perhaps the judiciary is less concerned with a problem where ennui and acceptance demonstrates there can be no attack against an integrity which only exists in principles.

The authority of the court has been usurped. Those responsible extend their reach to further usurp the authority of the General Assembly.

The reality of retaliatory actions which threaten the members of the General Assembly has been demonstrated when they used these improper and unconstitutional Rules to remove the elected Pennsylvania Attorney General. The General Assembly neglected to address the rules affecting the jurisdiction of the courts.

The farce of a trial where a litigant is prevented from presenting information demonstrating their innocence, and the identifying the fraud of those who are responsible.

At that time, every lawyer was not being silenced by Rule 1.4. However, nondisclosure was Ordered for those in the Office of the Attorney General, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Montgomery County District Attorneys Office, the Montgomery County Courts and the teams of lawyers representing the defendant. A common pleas court judge succesfully unrang a bell.

The federal courts had indicated ‘to unring a bell’ was an impossibility in a matter which brought another litigant to Montgomery County. A defendant prevented from information by lawyers. Prevented from many aspects of his defense. Prevented from raising issues relating to the allegations and the charges. Jurisdiction was demonstrated to have been affected. Those changes were also ignored.

My experience was the same. Same Courts. Same judges. Same lack of jurisdiction. Same failure to address issues. Mine has been relentless and unending. It had taken years to realize that those who failed to communicate or address any issues were not negligent or ineffective or absent minded or stupid or involved in a personal conspiracy against me.

It was non-disclosure. It was Confidentiality. Once triggered, it terrified them.

Permit me to start with the Ridiculous notion you present in these recent Rules. Application of Rule 1.6 to Rule 1.4 [Comment 7, last sentence.]

A Court may order a Lawyer to withhold information from his client.

Which Court? Jurisdiction question. Requires the General Assembly.

There is no indication that such an Order from a Magisterial Court is any less applicable than one from the Supreme Court.

What if Orders from two judges silence both sides involved in litigation.

Clearly ex parte ? The client is not aware of the secreted proceedings, if any, which bring about this failure to communicate or provide ‘zealous representation’.

Exculpatory Information? Not excluded from the new rule’s non-disclosure Order.

Information Necessary for Defense? Not excluded from the new rule’s non-disclosure Order.

Many of these factors create a valid reason for appeal of any order in any case where such a farce has occurred, or may have been perpetrated and concealed, by those trusted persons representing them and the ones trusted by the People to maintain the integrity of the courts. “Sneaky” is not a word often associated with integrity.

This determined and obvious unconstitutional rulemaking is a violation of the Public Trust which could potentially throw open the doors of every cell block in Pennsylvania. This would involve considerably further reviewed than the smaller segment of the prison population which, despite the overly loud objections of Prosecuting attorneys at having their efforts reviewed, had been reviewed by the Governor.

The Governor’s review was clearly an evaluation to determine if one provision of Rule 1.6 had deliberately and intentionally not been triggered so as to avoid a disclosure. Death Penalty cases.

Injustice could be concealed pursuant to Rule 1.6 unless it would result in a person’s death. Placing a person on death row to live out there natural days would not trigger the exception. However, an imminent execution would trigger the opportunity for disclosure. There seems no haste to execute prisoners in Pennsylvania. Why had no one been executed?

Assigning lawyers to conduct the Governor’s review provided the necessary ‘discretion’ which avoided any potential revelations. Lawyers obligated by Rule 1.6 could not reveal the problem.

Any suggestion that fear of such an occurrence is a valid reason for creating these new Rules shows a tremendous logical failure to recognize that it was the improperly enacted and unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information which created and IGNORED those prior injustices. The removal of the fraud provisions demonstrated the informed intent of those who put that rules forward to each state Supreme Court. Failure to recognize the aggressive enforcement of Rule 1.6 would

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

A Constitutional Challenge had been filed in Federal Court in August 2013 and served upon every state Attorney General. Each defaulted and failed to respond, a coordinated effort by each state. The federal court had neglected to put the question of the constitutionality to each state. The federal court had neglected to serve the US Attorney General. After the deadline for responses had passed, Letters were served upon each state Attorney General to confirm that it was their intention to default. None replied.

After the deadlines had passed, without offering explanation nor excuse, and without making any case to justify an extension of the deadline, a response arrived improperly filed electronically. The relevant issues were neglected. This was the monkey wrench through which the Federal Courts subsequently dismissed the matter while failing to address any of the omissions and neglect to adhere to the procedural rules.

On Appeal, the matter was not presented by the court staff to the Third Circuit Justices. The Third Circuit would have carefully addressed the issues involved in the appeal. Yet, the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct forbade the court from addressing the issue. The unconstitutional Rule mandated non-disclosure. This included non-disclosure that the Rule was indeed unconstitutional. Additional provisions excused the fraud in the furtherance of non-disclosure. However, Rule 1.6 was exposed and had fallen. The non-disclosure mandate had interfered with the matter from the start. The failure to address the primary issue involved in the appeal demonstrated the court was under the mandate. The McDade Murtha Law had not passed. Instead it became a single sentence in a huge appropriations bill. Preventing the federal government from acting, and further causing the current environment in Washington where lawyers lies are excused everywhere except before the US Congress.

These actions which affect the Pennsylvania Judiciary are NOT the actions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, they are the actions of the lawyers which have undermined the judiciary and controlled the courts since 1987. Their act of sedition held confidential while their control of the judiciary has leveraged a broad overreach into all areas of government and public and private lives.

Without your action there remains only one method to remove these unconstitutional rules. The Kings Bench jurisdiction and the exception regarding present rules would requires Supreme Court approval. The court has thwarted all attempts to save them from themselves.

|

This demands your immediate attention.

Terance Healy

