2016
06.12

JUSTICE IS COMING…. Tomorrow. 10 AM HARRISBURG. PCNTV.compcntv

The Senate will be hearing from Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane and Bruce Castor.



On the surface…
IS THE EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES CONSTITUTIONAL. The Senate will begin discussions by meeting with Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane and Bruce Castor on Monday 6/13 at 10am.

On Tuesday April 12, 2016, The Pennsylvania House of Representatives voted 180 – 15 passing the Bill along for the PA Senate.

BUT, Just below the surface…
1. The bill changes the period for a victim to report the crime from 30 years old to 50 years old. It will be retroactive.

2. The bill permits cases against the Commonwealth of PA involving “gross negligence” – prosecuting the prosecutors who ignored the cases, criminally and civilly.

3. The REMEDY CLAUSE.
Article I, Section 11 establishes a fundamental right that “every man for an injury done him in his or her lands, good, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.”

The remedies clause is meant to protect the rights of those injured not those who caused the injury.

Where a persons constitutional right to a remedy is denied or prevented, the law which permits the denial of a constitutional right is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

“For the past thirty years or so, however, open-courts clauses have appeared most often in less lofty settings, as part of an ongoing debate about the need for and propriety of a recent spate of statutory changes in state tort law, and the resulting avalanche of state constitutional litigation.”

“This debate is extremely heated. It is replete with dire warnings about legal Armageddon and full measures of fire and brimstone—in part because very important principles are involved, and because many of those principles are unique to state constitutional law.”
FROM COURTS TO BE OPEN by Donald Marritz

4. RULE 1.6 CONNECTION
Just over thirty years ago (1984 New Jersey – 2009 Maine), the American Bar Association began their effort to have each state supreme court enact their Model Rules of Professional Conduct which includes Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information. Rule 1.6 is collaterally unconstitutional in that it can conceal and prevent a victims from ANY resolution where their constitutional rights are denied and including the denial and prevention equal protection under the law. The mandated silence of the lawyers and judiciary eventually runs out the statute of limitations and the victim is left with no recourse, recovery or remedy EVER.

5. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Over the weekend, the Catholic Churches in Pennsylvania made announcements to their parishioners to contact their legislators and tell them to block the Bill from becoming law. The churches have NOW suggested that they can correct the problem.

The ridiculous notion that the churches expect TRUST becomes more and more absurd when those churches are now lobbying to prevent a law which could address the wrongdoing and remedy the situation.

The suggestion that the catholic church will go broke is unfounded. The churches are misinforming their parishioners to manipulate them. Many people walked out of the masses in disgust.

6. PORNGATE Email.
The PORNgate scandal provided a way for Special Attorney General Doug Gansler to review the email exchanges between the Office of the Attorney General and everyone. The pornography and misogynist emails were shocking. HOWEVER, MORE SHOCKING WILL BE THE EMAIL DOCUMENTS WHICH DEMONSTRATE A DELIBERATE CORRUPTION, OBSTRUCTION AND DENIAL OF JUSTICE, AND LAWLESSNESS WITHIN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE JUDICIARY.

If the statute of limitations prevents some prosecutions, the victim will see relief from continued harassment, intrusive surveillance and terror involved in the efforts which have permitted enabled and in some cases ‘required’ the injustice to continue.

Justice is coming. I pray ( and expect ) that the constitutional crisis in the United States will be revealed and the remedy commenced.

The FULL TEXT OF THE BILL Bear in mind this Bill amends other laws and the document includes only the changes.

kane6

2016
05.10

This is the response to a Letter from Pietro J. D’Angelo dated May 5, 2016.


Disinformation techniques such as misquotes and cleverly crafted compound sentences are often used to neglect the failure to address any issue and to displace responsibility. It causes further chaos – UNNECESSARILY.

It is necessary to address each incorrect statement or aspect, because the disinformation will be used to support future misstatements. It can be overwhelming to address every aspect.

Why neglect every issue documented already?
You are being ignored with specificity. THE ANSWERS ARE BEING CONCEALED. Explanations are not available or offered. Where the questions are clear and reasonable, the inability to get ANY answers indicates Rule 1.6 has been triggered. Confidentiality and non-disclosure will prevent resolution.

May 9, 2016

Pietro J. D’Angelo
Office of the Public Defender
Montgomery County Courthouse
P.O. Box 311
Norristown, PA 19404-0311

Dear Mr. D’Angelo,

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 5, 2016. Clearly, my statements in the opening paragraphs of my letter to you on May 1, 2016 were accurate. You neglected to address ANY issue addressed in the 3 page letter. Your letter is quite focused and erroneously suggests the it is I who is preventing the matter from resolution.

It is simplest to address the misstatements in your letter a line at a time.

“As you know, I have been appointed to represent you because you were deemed incompetent to stand trial.”

I do not know this. On January 27, 2016, there was no hearing. There was no competency hearing. There was no testimony. There were no witnesses. A Report by Dr. O’Brien did NOT YET EXIST.

The non-existent report was based on an examination which was not conducted in accordance with the law. That non-existent report was also not provided to the Court in accordance with the schedule required by law. The non-existent report was also not provided for review prior to a competency hearing.

The failure to adhere to the Law regarding conducting the examination and the schedule by which the report must be provided to the Court and the parties creates conditions under which the report would NOT BE ADMISSABLE as evidence.

Perhaps this is among the underlying reasons that a real hearing was not conducted on January 27, 2016.
– Instead, you met with Judge Carpenter and the Assistant District Attorney in the judge’s chambers while I sat in the courtroom..
– Special Prosecutor Thomas Carluccio was also in the courtroom and in the judges’ chambers at the time of this ‘hearing’.
– The document which indicates your assignment is a Call of the Trial List order which reads as follows:

“PUBLIC DEFENDER IS APPOINTED AS DEFENDANT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE INCOMPETENT.”

On January 27, 2016, as there had been no hearing, testimony or evidence, and the ADA had indicated that the examination report was STILL NOT available, the Court lacked jurisdiction to reach any determination regarding competency.

A NOTICE OF APPEAL was filed on January 29, 2016 and indicated that the “Order of January 27, 2016” was not yet available. The Order was not filed with the Clerk of Courts until February 9, 2016.

The NOTICE OF APPEAL was accepted by the Clerk of Courts as your appearance in the matter had not yet been filed. You filed your appearance in the matter on February 23, 2016. I have since been prevented from filing documents with the Clerk of Courts.

We have only met three times and only for a few minutes each time. On January 27, 2016, I expressed a willingness to work with you as long as I did not feel that I was being sabotaged. I also indicated that the matter from my perspective was well documented on the court record and would gladly explain anything which was unclear.

I have great concerns that as my legal representative, you failed to OBJECT to the failure to follow procedure; the neglect to follow due process; the failure to conduct a hearing where issues could be presented to the Court and addressed; and you didn’t challenge the inadmissibility of the non-existent report.

You permitted my right to equal protection of the Law and my rights protected by the US Constitution to be ignored with extreme prejudice. This is not the zealous representation which is expected of an attorney. I have provided you with the necessary information supported by law. It seems that you are participating in the chaos and furthering the injustice. .

You have failed to address the intentional negligence and failure of the District Attorney to follow the Law, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and abide by the Constitutions of Pennsylvania and the United States. Surely, your are not extending a professional courtesy to ignore the incompetence of the Assistant District Attorney..

The Order appointing you to represent me is defective and void. It was issued without proper jurisdiction.

Back to your letter:

“You expressed to me on many occasions that you are competent and would like to proceed to trial pro se.”

I am competent, knowledgeable and aware. I take the matter very seriously.

I have never indicated a desire to proceed to trial pro se. Quite the contrary, as I have stated in documents filed with the court, I would much rather be zealously represented by a defense attorney who has courtroom experience and access to a library of legal information and a staff to prepare the documents for Court.

The inability to be represented by counsel is affected by an improperly enacted and collaterally unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information. Rule 1.6 causes the complete and absolute denial of any protection of the law and all constitutionally protected rights are ignored. This has been indicated and demonstrated in the preceding paragraphs and statements filed with the Court.

“In order to meet your desire, I scheduled an evaluation with Dr. Nell for 5/3/16. You decided not to appear for the evaluation.”

Again, it is not my desire to proceed to trial pro se.

You failed to challenge the admissibility of the O’Brien Report. The report dated February 5, 2016 was delivered months later than permitted by law. You failed to challenge it where the report was the basis for your assignment to the case. The report didn’t exist when the Court made that determination and you failed to challenge that also.

The conclusion of the report is logically flawed, unsubstantiated, and personally offensive. Dr. O’Brien was contracted by the District Attorney with the purpose to support their allegation of incompetence. Additionally, after January 27, 2016, the conclusion and finding of the report was necessary to support the pre-mature finding of the Court.

On March 30, 2016, I indicated to you that Dr. Rocio Nell would have a considerable conflict of interest in this matter. I suggested we meet and go over the issues.

Instead, you filed a document with the court without my knowledge seeking an Order for the examination by Dr Nell. You failed to consider the issues which presented Dr. Nell with the conflict of interest. You neglected to consult with me. You failed to provide me with a copy of the document you filed with the Court. Your office refused to provide the document to me as well. The Clerk of Courts did not have any record of the document on the Court Docket.

“If she found you competent, we would have a competency hearing to determine your competency. If the judge found you to be competent, your case would proceed to trial.”

As someone who has just read the experience on the preceeding pages, the belief that an actual competency hearing would occur is unfounded, unsupported and ridiculous. A hearing to challenge the conclusion of the O’Brien report is not necessary. The report is not admissible because of the defects in the examination process and the failure to deliver the report to the Court within the time permitted by law.

You have not challenged the admissibility of the O’Brien Report where it’s inadmissibility is substantiated by very specific Laws.

The relevance of a contradictory conclusion from another professional indicates a logical fallacy. Where Dr. O’Brien was contracted by the County, and Dr. Nell is employed by the County, their obligation is not to myself or to the truth or to the Court. The contractor is obligated to the person who has contracted them or is paying for their service.

“It would be highly unlikely to prevail at a competency hearing with the only expert concluding you are incompetent. That is your current situation since we do not have a contrary evaluation.”

“Your case can not move forward as long as you are considered incompetent to stand trial. If you would like me to try to reschedule the evaluation, please let me know.”

That being the case, perhaps your attention would be better focused on Motions to Dismiss with prejudice for failure to follow the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Law, the Constitutions while I am prevented from filing statements and motions with the Court with your appearance on the record. It is also affecting and hindering the Appeals in this matter.

The criminal complaint is based on a protected freedom of speech and the constitutional ability to contact the government to resolve matters which require their attention. The letter which is the purported threat was written to Governor Tom Wolf, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, and the Representatives and Senators of the General Assembly.

There is no graceful exit for the District Attorney. The complaint is clearly a vindictive and retaliatory action by a protected ADA permitted to undermine my rights and ignore the law. The District Attorney has failed to address the deliberate lawlessness, the fraud and forgeries, and the abuse of authority under color of law.

The independence of the judiciary is clearly in question, unless Judge Carpenter is unaware of the series of documents bearing a rubber stamped image of his name. The deliberate negligence of the ADA has caused a lack of jurisdiction for the Court. It was agreed that the elements necessary for jurisdiction were to have been documented by the ADA in October. The ADA ignored and the District Attorney is powerless to publicly address the corruption within his office and negligent in his responsibilities to the rule of law and professional ethics of the staff employed by the District Attorneys Office.

Meanwhile, their witnesses have profited from their fraudulent conveyance through the title insurance ($ 400,000) and another large loan ($ 375,000) using my house as collateral.

Please let me know when you are available to meet to discuss the case. This is me letting you know.

Thank You.

disinformation

2016
05.06

When an entire County judiciary perpetrates a farce over 10 years which demonstrates their complete corruption and lack of independence and causes the annihilation of a man’s family and every aspect of his life. WHY DOES THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALSO PROSECUTE THEIR VICTIM?

Answer: Because he survived. Because he documented their injustice and cruelty.

WHY DOES THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALSO PROSECUTE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL?

Answer: Because Kathleen Kane knows what they have done to an innocent man, and what they will continue to do to him.

Since prevented from filing documents with the Court to address their farce, I am left with the alternative – THE LAWFUL & CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED DIRECT COMMUNICATION to the Court and those involved.

May 6, 2016 Documents

May 5, 2016 Documents

Chx8L6nXEAABOKZ

2016
05.03

Pietro J. D’Angelo
Office of the Public Defender
Montgomery County Courthouse
P.O. Box 311
Norristown, PA 19404-0311

Dear Mr. D’Angelo,

Calls, letters, faxes and documents left for your attention at the Office of the Public Defender have continued to go without any response. The failure to communicate is contrary to effective representation in the matter before the court.

I take the matter before the Court very seriously. I have communicated by filing statements before each proceeding. Unfortunately, there is no method by which I can motivate your activity. While you have been silent, I have provided information which is relevant and necessary for my defense.

Statement of Defendant on March 30, 2016
[ PDF Document contains 108 pages (17.3 MB) ]

I would prefer to NOT BE REPRESENTED as your obligations pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct prevent a zealous representation and prevent open communication regarding the case.

Your assignment to the matter has effectively undermined my efforts to communicate and/or file documents with the Court. The ‘order’ by which you have been ‘assigned’ to my case is defective and void for lack of jurisdiction and other procedural issues. The ‘order’ has been appealed to the Superior Court. There are currently three (3) interlocutory appeals filed in this matter with the Superior Court.

Similarly, the District Attorney clearly finds no necessity or obligation to adhere to the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Law or respect rights which are protected by the PA Constitution and the US Constitution.

The ‘order’ dated April 7, 2016 demonstrates the complete disregard for communication. I recognize that you are ignoring the information I have provided. It is clear that you do not intend to permit me to participate or communicate regarding my defense in any way.

Perhaps, your neglect obfuscates the knowledge that your assignment is defective and void. This is further supported by the delay in filing your appearance in the matter.

On March 30, 2016, I informed you that Dr. Rocio Nell would have several issues which create a conflict of interest for her. This information has been ignored.

You filed a document on my behalf without any communication requesting an examination by Dr Nell. I have been unable to obtain the petition you filed with the Court. The clerk indicated that he could not provide the petition or any other documents which are listed in the system but WHICH DO NOT APPEAR on the Court Docket.

An ‘order’ dated April 7, 2016 resulted. The ‘order’ indicates you served that ‘order’ to my address on April 6, 2016. [ The day before? ] The docket indicates that ‘order’ was received by the Clerk of Courts on April 14, 2016.

I traveled to the Courthouse on April 20, 2016 to meet you and to obtain copies of the ‘order’ which had appeared on the docket without any petition filed with the Court. You were unavailable. You did not contact me to follow up.

I was provided the ‘order’ which, aside from the immediate discrepancies regarding the date/time stamps, was carelessly prepared, improperly captioned, not supported by Law, and contained a rubber stamped signature. There was no way to certify its authenticity. This was confirmed by the Clerk.

The Clerk of Courts would not accept a fourth (4) NOTICE OF APPEAL regarding this ‘order’ of April 7, 2016 because the docket reflects your appearance filed on February 23, 2016.

Directly relating to Dr. Nell’s conflict of interest is a matter from 2007 where the same police officer involved in the current matter had falsified documents. Since 2007, repeated requests for Police Reports and other documents have been denied citing an ‘ongoing investigation’. That ‘ongoing investigation’ has never been addressed, or resolved. Reports have never been made available. The matter involves civil and constitutional rights violations by the police officer and failure to follow the Law. Actions by MCES in 2007, and subsequently, have neglected to adhere to Pennsylvania Law. MCES acted without regard for the law and my individual civil rights.

Additionally affecting subsequent criminal complaints, attempts to obtain police reports have been met with the same response. ‘Ongoing Investigations’ which have never been explained, resolved or prosecuted.

The ‘Information’ provided by the District Attorney in this matter also failed to include these documents. The DA has failed to address the missing ‘information’.

Where an investigation has failed to result in prosecution, the Office of the District Attorney will secure their investigative materials using grand jury seals and associated confidentiality. These actions are presumed to prevent an investigated individual from being adversely affected by the failed investigation.

Where a failed investigation has affected an individual, law enforcement confidentiality efforts can create a situation where the individual is victimized, denied protection of the Law, and prevented any recourse or resolution. Collateral crimes which could expose sealed materials are ignored.

Abuse of authority or public corruption could also lead to a ‘failed investigation’ and the sealing of related materials.

In recent years, the aggressive efforts of the Montgomery County District Attorney with regard to grand jury secrecy have attacked Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane. As owner of the CHRIA data, the Attorney General would have access to all investigative materials, AND visibility to information should it have been improperly sealed behind grand jury secrecy to conceal corruption or abuse.

A meeting on the MCES property with Dr. Nell would require a level of trust which does not exist and one which I can ill afford to extend. The challenge to my competence is unfounded and baseless. The issues are well documented. I understand the legal proceedings.

I recognize the deliberate and intentional efforts by the District Attorney which neglect to follow the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Rule of Law, while ignoring Constitutional rights.

I am unable to prevent the continued abuse of power and obstruction of justice involved in this vindictive and retaliatory prosecution by the Montgomery County District Attorney. The manipulative and abusive tactics demonstrated by the prosecutor are contrary to established law and procedure. I cannot endorse or capitulate to the efforts which deny my rights and seek to prevent any participation in my own defense.

The failure of the Court to address ANY AND EVERY procedural violation by the prosecutor remains unexplained. There is nothing that a victim of retaliatory and vindictive prosecution without ‘rules’ can do except survive and attempt to address the issues with sincerity and in a respectful manner.

The actions of the District Attorney were initiated when the victim of a fraud, the Defendant, reported the crime to the Pennsylvania Attorney General and the Governor.

The District Attorney has chosen to aggressively prosecute the victim of a fraudulent conveyance where neglecting to prosecute the perpetrators of the fraud. The failure of the DA to prosecute does not validate the fraud which has occurred. Efforts which prevent lawful resolution in a timely manner seem determined to run out a statute of limitations for the crime. However, the fraudulent conveyance has resulted in an invalid deed which cannot become valid by ignoring the crimes involved

The validity of the ‘order’ of April 7, 2016 cannot be determined where the issues which affect its validity remain ignored. I will not be complicit in the efforts, purportedly executed on my behalf, which place my security and liberty at risk.

I welcome any opportunity to address the issues which will serve to substantiate the lawful dismissal of the criminal complaint with prejudice.

Terance Healy

PDF version

DISTRIBUTION:
Public Defender, Pietro D’Angelo
Montgomery County Sheriff
Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane
Judge Carpenter, Chambers
Judge Furber, Chambers
Judge Demchik-Alloy, Chambers
Pennsylvania Legislature
Media & Internet

ChiqA63WkAAUPxv

2016
04.21

A RULE can be adopted, promulgated, enacted, published, etc… by the PA Supreme Court without ANY REVIEW FOR CONSTITUTIONALITY.
There is no requirement for review in accordance with the PA Constitution.
There is no requirement for review in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

The PA Supreme Court writes their own Rules for rulemaking.
The PA Supreme Court neglected to require any constitutional review in their rulemaking process.

OVER SIMPLIFIED, BUT…
THERE ARE A FEW CONDITIONS TO THE RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has jurisdiction as shall be provided by law. (Article V Section 2c)
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ‘the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts,” …
“if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant…” (Article V Section 10c)

Yet just a few phrases further into Article V Section 10c.
“All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules proscribed under these provisions.” (Article V Section 10c)

A rule must meet the conditions of those initial phrases, the audience and scope of rulemaking authority.
A rule must be consistent with the Constitutions (PA and US) and not affect a litigants rights. BUT, NOBODY CHECKS… because there is no requirement for any review of constitutionality prior to adopting, promulgating, or enforcing a new rule.

Once a ‘RULE’ makes it over those hurdles (and the constitutionality hurdle is entirely ignored), then THAT RULE CAN SUSPEND ANY LAW ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?

If you believed that the professional activities of lawyers and judges seemed to be somewhat lawless and corrupt, RELAX…
The legal profession are part of the Article V Section 10(c) target audience. They have RULES which can make everything they do LAWFUL AND LEGAL provided they do it within the jurisdiction of the Courts – AND PROVIDED THEY IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION(S).

Drunk Driving is outside the jurisdiction of the courts. Lawyers can be prosecuted.
Murder is outside the jurisdiction of the courts. Lawyers can be prosecuted.
Fraudulent Foreclosures are within the jurisdiction of the Courts. Lawyers are protected.
Constitutional Rights are matters within the jurisdiction of the Courts. Lawyers are protected.
False Imprisonment is a result of actions within the jurisdiction of the Courts. Lawyers are protected.

The collateral affect of CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION has undermined laws and constitutional rights of litigants/defendants. Preventing the injustice from being resolved, or even discussed…

For the legal profession, The problem with Confidentiality is Confidential.

* * * * * * * * * *

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY REVIEW SEEMS TO BE MISSING…

Title 201: The Rules of Judicial Administration

Rule 103. Procedure for adoption, filing and publishing rules.

(a) Notice of proposed rulemaking.

(1) Except as provided in subdivision (3), the initial recommendation of a proposed Rule, or proposed Rule amendment (including the explanatory note that is to accompany the Rule) shall be distributed by the proposing Rules Committee to the Pennsylvania Bulletin for publication therein. The publication notification shall contain a statement to the effect that comments regarding the proposed Rule are invited and should be sent directly to the proposing Rules Committee within a specified period of time.

(2) Written comments, suggestions or objections relating to the proposed Rule shall be sent directly to the proposing Rules Committee within a specified number of days after the Rules’ publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, and any such commentary shall be reviewed by the said Committee prior to action on the proposal by the Supreme Court. Any further proposals which are based upon the commentary so received need not be, but may be, published in the manner prescribed herein.

(3) A proposed rule may be promulgated even though it has not been previously distributed and published in the manner required by subdivisions (1) and (2), where exigent circumstances require the immediate adoption of the proposal; or where the proposed amendment is of a typographical or perfunctory nature; or where in the discretion of the Supreme Court such action is otherwise required in the interests of justice or efficient administration.

(b) Rules adopted by Supreme Court.

(1) Rules adopted by the Supreme Court shall be filed in the office of the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court and in the Administrative Office.

(2) After an order adopting a rule has been filed with the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court, the Prothonotary shall forward a certified copy of the order and rule to:

(i) The publisher of the official version of Supreme Court decisions and opinions who shall cause it to be printed in the first available volume of the State Reports.

(ii) The prothonotaries or clerks of all courts which may be affected thereby, and thereupon the order and rule shall be published by such prothonotaries or clerks in the same manner as local rules adopted by such courts.

(iii) The Legislative Reference Bureau for publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

(iv) The Administrative Office.

(c) Rules adopted by other courts and by agencies of the system.

(1) As used in this subdivision, ‘‘rule’’ shall include every rule, administrative order, regulation, directive, policy, custom, usage, form, or order of general application, however labeled or promulgated, which is adopted or enforced by a court, council, committee, board, commission or other agency of the unified judicial system to govern practice or procedure but shall not include a rule of civil, domestic relations, criminal, or juvenile procedure.

(2) Rules shall not be inconsistent with any general rule of the Supreme Court or any Act of Assembly.

(3) When rule under this subdivision corresponds to a statewide rule, the rule shall be given a number that is keyed to the number of the statewide rule.

(4) All rules shall be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin to be effective and enforceable.

(i) The adopting court or agency shall distribute two certified paper copies of the rule and a copy of the rule on a computer diskette or on a CD-ROM that complies with the requirements of 1 Pa. Code§ 13.11(b) to the Legislative Reference Bureau, or agreed upon alternate format, for publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

(ii) The effective date of the rule shall not be less than 30 days after the date of publication of the rule in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

(5) Contemporaneously with publishing the rule in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, the adopting court or agency shall file one certified copy of the rule with the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts. The Administrative Office shall assign a serial number to the rule, and shall note on the rule the serial number and the date of filing. A copy of the rule shall be available for public inspection and copying immediately upon filing.

(6) The rules shall be kept continuously available for public inspection and copying in the office of the prothonotary or clerk of courts of the adopting court. Upon request and payment of reasonable costs of reproduction and mailing, the prothonotary or clerk shall furnish to any person a copy of any rule.

(7) No pleading or other legal paper shall be refused for filing by the prothonotary or clerk of courts based on a requirement of a rule. No case shall be dismissed nor request for relief granted or denied because of failure to comply with a rule. In any case of noncompliance with a rule, the court shall alert the party to the specific provision at issue and provide a reasonable time for the party to comply with the rule.

Official Note

The caption or other words used as a label or designation shall not determine whether something is or establishes a rule; if the definition in paragraph (c)(1) of this rule is satisfied, the matter is a rule regardless of what it may be called. The provisions of this rule also are intended to apply to any amendments to a rule. Nothing in this rule is intended to apply to case-specific orders.

Pursuant to paragraph (c)(1), local rules of civil, domestic relations, criminal, and juvenile procedure are not included within the scope of this rule. The procedures for adopting, filing, and publishing local rules of criminal, juvenile, domestic relations and civil procedure are governed by Rule of Criminal Procedure 105, Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure 121 and 1121, and Rules of Civil Procedure 239, 239.8 and 239.9.

To simplify the use of rules, paragraph (c)(3) requires rules to be given numbers that are keyed to the number of the general rules to which the rules correspond. This requirement is not intended to apply to rules that govern general business of the court or agency and which do not correspond to a statewide rule.

To further facilitate the statewide practice of law and accessibility by the public, the adopting court or agency should post and update its rules on its website.

Paragraph (c)(4) requires the rule to be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin to be effective. Pursuant to 1 Pa. Code § 13.11(b)—(f), any documents that are submitted for publication must be accompanied by a diskette or CD-ROM formatted in MS-DOS, ASCII, Microsoft Word, or WordPerfect. The diskette or CD-ROM must be labeled with the court’s or agency’s name and address and the rule’s computer file name. Section 13.11(e) provides that documents may be accepted in an alternate format if it is requested by the court or agency and agreed upon by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Although under paragraph (c)(4)(ii) a rule shall not be effective until at least 30 days after the date of publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, when a situation arises that requires immediate action, the court or agency may act by specific orders governing particular matters in the interim before an applicable rule becomes effective.

Paragraph (c)(5) requires one copy of the rule to be filed with the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts. When rules are forwarded to the Administrative Office, the adopting court or agency should indicate whether the rules have been distributed to the Legislative Reference Bureau for publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and, if appropriate, submitted to the Criminal, Juvenile, Domestic Relations or Civil Procedural Rules Committees pursuant to their respective rules.

The Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts maintains a website containing local court rules at: http://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/committees/rules-committees/local-rules-for-common-pleas-and-magisterial-district-courts/

The Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts also maintains a website containing all local criminal rules adopted or amended after February 1, 2009, local juvenile rules, and local civil rules adopted pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 239.8 and 239.9 at: http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/localrules/ruleselection.aspx

Source

The provisions of this Rule 103 adopted and effective January 13, 1972; amended and effective May 10, 1973, 3 Pa.B. 921; renumbered from Supreme Court Rule 85 by Order dated March 15, 1972; amended and effective April 21, 1978, 8 Pa.B. 1271; amended October 10, 1979, effective October 20, 1979, 9 Pa.B. 3509; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983, 13 Pa.B. 676; amended February 20, 2001, effective April 1, 2001, 31 Pa.B. 1319; amended May 14, 2013, effective in 30 days, 43 Pa.B. 2988. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (332066) to (332068).

2016
04.20

Scan_20160420
Kathleen Kane
Pennsylvania Attorney General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120

Using every available resource, the Montgomery County District Attorney and the entire Montgomery County judiciary have terrorized my life for ten (10) years, stolen everything I own, compromised my liberty and freedom, and threaten to continue with unrelenting and aggressive malice.

The absolute undeniable denial of ALL civil rights, ALL constitutional rights, ALL human rights, Life and Liberty with NO protection of the law, NO due process or procedure; AND deliberate judicial actions without hearings or evidence to further create chaos and which sabotage my case and attempt to prevent me from addressing the matters personally and defending myself.

A STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT DATED March 30, 2016 has been provided by email and hand delivered previously. The document is also available at
http://work2bdone.com/live/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CCF04152016_0004.pdf
[ PDF Document contains 108 pages (17.3 MB) ]

These are the undisclosed aspects of the efforts which attack the PA Attorney General. The statement/document has been filed as an AMICUS BRIEF with the Clerk of Courts and served to Judge Wendy Demchick-Alloy.

“At the heart of the false allegation is a problem with the deed to the Defendant’s property which persists. The fraudulent conveyance and criminal fraud involved in the transaction/theft is fact. Defective and Void Court Orders issued without jurisdiction cannot become valid. As such, there is no way for the problem to go away, unless the rightful property owner asserting the claim is deceased.”

YES, I am accusing the Montgomery County District Attorney ( Lauren McNulty, Risa Ferman, Kevin Steele, and others) of participating in a conspiracy to deny my rights, obstruct justice and abuse authority under color of law; and additionally participating in a plot which threatens to murder me.

The Montgomery County District Attorney and the Office of the District Attorney clearly have a conflict of interest which prevents investigation and prosecution of themselves or their direct staff.

I am requesting the immediate intervention of the Pennsylvania Attorney General.

Should the Attorney General be prevented, personally or professionally, from taking appropriate action, I request the assignment of a Special Attorney General unencumbered by conflicts of interest; unaffected by secret court orders; and not mandated to any improper Confidentiality, to address the unconstitutional and lawless actions of the Montgomery County District Attorney and staff.

Your immediate attention and response would be appreciated.

Thank You.
Terance Healy
Warrington, PA 18976

PDF Version

DISTRIBUTION: Law Enforcement, PA General Assembly, News Media
(via Twitter, Email, Fax, AND hand delivery where possible.)

2016
04.15

Using every available resource, the Montgomery County District Attorney and the entire Montgomery County judiciary have terrorized my life for ten (10) years, stolen everything I own, compromised my liberty and freedom, and threaten to continue with unrelenting and aggressive malice.

The absolute undeniable denial of ALL civil rights, ALL constitutional rights, ALL human rights, Life and Liberty with NO protection of the law, NO due process or procedure; AND deliberate judicial actions without hearings or evidence to further create chaos and which sabotage my case and attempt to prevent me from addressing the matters.

Statement – March 30, 2016

This is the undisclosed part of the efforts which attack the PA Attorney General. The document has been filed as an AMICUS BRIEF with the Clerk of Courts and served to Judge Wendy Demchick-Alloy.

Please review and act.
Thank You.
Terance Healy

“At the heart of this case is a problem with the deed to the Defendant’s property which persists. The fraudulent conveyance and criminal fraud involved in the transaction/theft is fact. Defective and Void Court Orders issued without jurisdiction cannot become valid. As such, there is no way for the problem to go away, unless the rightful property owner asserting the claim is deceased.”

FermanMcnultyYES, I am accusing the Montgomery County District Attorney ( Lauren McNulty, Risa Ferman, Kevin Steele, and others) of participating in a conspiracy to deny my rights, obstruct justice and abuse authority under color of law; and a plot to murder me.

DISTRIBUTION: Law Enforcement, PA General Assembly, News Media

2016
03.30

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA #3151-15
#MJ-38118-CR-0000096-2015

V Superior Court
#3166 EDA 2015
#3234 EDA 2015
Terance Healy #376 EDA 2016

STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON MARCH 30, 2016

The criminal allegations are unfounded.

I have not previously and do not intend to waive any rights under Pennsylvania Law, the Pennsylvania Constitution or the Constitution of the United States.

I have not signed any Waiver of Counsel. There has been no colloquy. The inability to be represented by counsel is affected by an improperly enacted and collaterally unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

Rule 1.6 causes the complete and absolute denial of any protection of the law and all constitutionally protected rights are ignored.

At the heart of this case is a problem with the deed to the Defendant’s property which persists. The fraudulent conveyance and criminal fraud involved in the transaction/theft is fact. Defective and Void Court Orders issued without jurisdiction cannot become valid. As such, there is no way for the problem to go away, unless the rightful property owner asserting the claim is deceased.

The District Attorney deciding NOT to prosecute the property theft and fraud… does not resolve the issue.

The Court of Common Pleas feigning a lack of jurisdiction to hear the matter,… does not resolve the issue.

The Superior Court Central Legal Staff preventing any judicial review of the lower court jurisdiction… does not resolve the matter.

The District Attorney has acted to prevent investigation/prosecution/resolution by other branches of law enforcement… does not resolve the matter.

The District Attorney concealing a decade of intrusive investigations within a grand jury… does not resolve the issue.

The District Attorney filing criminal charges against the rightful owner may run out a statute of limitations,… BUT does not resolve the issue.

The District Attorney failing to prosecute the fraudulent allegations in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure… does not resolve the issue.

The District Attorney failing to address the detailed documents provisioning, planning and training to kill the Defendant… does not resolve the issue.
The District Attorney actions which undermine and prevent the Court of Common Pleas from proper lawful jurisdiction… does not resolve the issue.

The District Attorney suggesting the Defendant is ‘incompetent’… does not resolve the issue.

The Court of Common Pleas failing to conduct proceedings in accordance with procedures and established law… does not resolve the issue.

The Court of Common Pleas conducting secret proceedings in judge’s chambers while denying the Defendant of any opportunity to respond or defend himself… does not resolve the issue.

(The Defendant had appeared in Court for the hearing as ordered, BUT was not included in or informed of the secret proceeding until it had concluded. Special Prosecutor Thomas Carluccio was also in Court and judge’s chambers and appears to have been included in the secret proceeding.)

The Court of Common Pleas acting without jurisdiction, without testimony and without evidence… does not resolve the issue.

The Court of Common Pleas ignoring the Rule of Law, the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States… does not resolve the issue.

The Court of Common Pleas determining the Defendant to be incompetent based on the verbal statement of the District Attorney who sought the determination;
the District Attorney neglecting to provide the Court Ordered Report (Appeal);
the Report based on a review which was not conducted in accordance with law;
the Report which was not prepared in accordance with the Law;
the Report not delivered timely in accordance with law;
the Report which would be inadmissible because of those deliberate failures;
the Report which was not provided to the Defendant to review;
the Report which has NOT YET BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COURT;
the Report which likely does not exist.

The Court of Common Pleas assigning a Public Defender to sabotage the Defendant’s case;
to undermine three (3) pending appeals to the Superior Court;
to prevent the Defendant from participating in his own defense; and
to prevent the Defendant from any ability to file statements with the Court… does not resolve the issue.

The Public Defender IGNORING the improper proceeding in the judges chambers.

The Public Defender IGNORING the lack of the Report indicating the Defendant as incompetent.

The Public Defender IGNORING the failure to permit the participation of the Defendant.

The Public Defender IGNORING the failure to permit any rebuttal or testimony by the Defendant.

The Public Defender IGNORING the failure of the District Attorney to adhere to the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rule of Law.

The Public Defender IGNORING the denial of the Defendant’s rights protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

The Public Defender IGNORING that the finding of the Defendant to be ‘incompetent’ would also end the criminal prosecution of the incompetent Defendant.

The Public Defender failing to enter his Court Ordered appearance in the matter until a month had passed.

The Public Defender failing to meet with the Defendant.

The Public Defender failing to communicate with the Defendant.

The Public Defender failing to acknowledge or respond to letters from the Defendant.

The Public Defender failing to respond to messages and documents delivered to the Public Defenders Office by the Defendant.

The Public Defender failing to take any actions to address the THREE APPEALS pending with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

The Public Defender failing to contact the Defendant about the proceeding scheduled for March 30, 2016.

The Public Defender failing to prepare the Defendant for the proceeding scheduled for March 30, 2016.

The Public Defender has failed to motion the Court for a dismissal pursuant to the Defendant’s right to a ‘speedy trial’. The Complaint was filed on March 12, 2015. It has been over a year. The District Attorney has failed to prepare the case for trial. All continuances were at the request of the District Attorney. The Defendant was not responsible for any continuances in the matter. As such, the case is subject to immediate dismissal.

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, a criminal defendant must show two things:
1.Deficient performance by Counsel (See Above)
2.Resulting Prejudice, in that but for the deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have differed. (See Above)

The assignment of the Public Defender was done with the intent to sabotage the rights of the Defendant and to hinder and undermine any defense.

Defendant requests the immediate removal of the Court Appointed Public Defender (who had been previously removed after usurping the case in September 2015).

PREPOSTEROUS EFFORTS TO PREVENT APPEAL

The Order of January 27, 2016 is a defective and void order issued without proper jurisdiction.

An Appeal to the Superior Court was filed on January 29, 2016 regarding the Order of January 27, 2016.

The Appeal was filed WITHOUT a copy of the Order which was not provided to the Defendant on January 27, 2016.

The Order of January 27, 2016 was filed on February 9, 2016. After February 9, 2016, the Order of January 27, 2016 was mailed to the Defendant.

Several Weeks Later, the Public Defender entered his appearance in the matter.

On March 9, 2016, Judge Carpenter wrote a Memorandum suggesting the Appeal be quashed based on Hybrid Representation and the order being Interlocutory.

The Memorandum indicates it was sent to Court Administration, the Public Defender and the Defendant on March 8, 2016. The day before it was written?

The Memorandum contains no statement regarding jurisdiction.

The Memorandum neglects to indicate any element which provides for the proper jurisdiction of the Court.

The Memorandum neglects to address the facts of the matter.

The Memorandum neglects to indicate that there was NO HEARING ON THE MATTER.

The Memorandum neglects to indicate that there was NO TESTIMONY ON THE MATTER.

The Memorandum neglects to indicate that there was NO REPORT/NO EVIDENCE which supported the finding of incompetence by the Court.

The Memorandum suggests “Hybrid Representation” prevents the filing of the Appeal by the Defendant on January 29, 2016.
– The Order assigning a Public Defender had not been provided or filed with the Clerk of Courts until February 9, 2016.
– The Public Defender failed to file his appearance in the matter until late February.
– The Order assigning the Public Defender is defective and void.
– The Order assigning the Public Defender lacks proper jurisdiction.
– There was no concurrent representation by the Defendant and the Public Defender

The Memorandum suggests the Appeal is improper because the Order is interlocutory. Interlocutory Orders may be appealed where the orders have significant affect on the rights of the Defendant.

The tremendous bias of Judge Carpenter in the Memorandum dated March 9, 2016 is easily discerned while the motivation to prevent deny and obstruct justice remains unexplained.

The referenced and cited cases in the Memorandum do NOT pertain to similar situations or similar cases.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am being denied protection of the law. My Constitutional rights are being denied and ignored.
I survive. I persevere. I am a Defendant in this matter. I am required to defend.

Terance Healy

ADDENDUM

THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN DENIED THE PROTECTION OF THE RULE OF LAW, AND DENIED CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS SINCE 2007.

The Defendant presents the following document, exhibits and attachments which relate DIRECTLY to the criminal matter immediately before this Honorable Court as evidence to support the statement.

Evidence dating back to the Summer of 2007 is additionally contained in the court records of the following matters:
#2007-12477 Healy v Healy
#2007-32095 Healy v Healy
#2007-32114 Healy v Healy
#104-EDM-2011 Appeal to Superior Court
#1330-EDA-2013 Appeal to Superior Court
#401-MT-2013 Kings Bench Supreme Court
#155-MM-2013 Kings Bench Supreme Court

#13-4614 Eastern District of Pennsylvania – The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
#13-4591 Third Circuit Court of Appeals

#2013-29976 Healy v Miller
#900-EDA-2014 Appeal to Superior Court

Jurisdiction has been challenged. The District Attorney has failed to provide a statement indicating the elements of jurisdiction necessary for the Court to proceed.

Lack of jurisdiction has been greatly exacerbated by the failure of the District Attorney
– to abide the laws of the Commonwealth
– to proceed in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure
– to address or respond when notified and informed of negligence

The lack of jurisdiction, deliberately caused by the District Attorney, has been leveraged by the District Attorney to undermine the authority and independence of the Court.

LOCATION

The purported ‘crime’ did not occur in Montgomery County.

THE PURPORTED THREAT

The Letter to the Governor of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Attorney General.
– The letter was written in Warrington, Bucks County.
– The document was sent by email, Facebook messenger.
– The document was mailed via US Postal Service to Harrisburg
– The document was posted on the internet to a web site which is hosted on a server located in Houston, Texas.
The document written by the Defendant requested law enforcement actions which are part of the responsibilities of the Executive branch. Governor Tom Wolf and Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

The document written by the Defendant requested a review by the General Assembly to address where the Court of Common Pleas had incorrectly indicated a lack of jurisdiction; the incorrect ‘lack of jurisdiction’ which was ‘affirmed’ without ANY review by the Superior Court (Central Legal Staff).

BRIEF HISTORY ( Healy v Miller )

The Common Pleas Court had dismissed an Ejectment Action filed to gain possession of the property – a necessary prerequisite to quiet the title and strike fraudulent documents recorded by the Recorder Of Deeds.

The Court dismissed incorrectly indicating a lack of jurisdiction.
The Court further dismissed ALL Motions to address fraudulent paperwork as ‘moot’.

On Appeal to the Superior Court , the decision was affirmed.
Actions by the Central Legal Staff prevented judicial review of any and every issue related to the Appeal. The Judiciary had effectively removed themselves from the matter.

The Defendant was to have been misdirected into believing there was no recourse to recover his property. Instead, the Defendant recognized that the concealed corruption of the improper affirmed decision had only removed the Judiciary from ANY FURTHER INVOLVEMENT in the matter.

Recourse for the Defendant remained in seeking the Executive branch enforcement of the law through the Governor and the Office of the Attorney General.

Also, the Defendant informed the General Assembly regarding the purported ‘lack of jurisdiction’ which would required their attention to the laws which provide the courts with proper jurisdiction.

Legislative power is vested in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Defendant included the entire Senate and the House of Representatives in the distribution of the letter.

The Defendant was aware that his letter to the Executive and Legislative branches of government would expose a deliberate corruption of the courts by judges and administrative staff in the Judicial branch.

The letter written by the Defendant is specifically protected by Pennsylvania Constitution Article 1 Section 7.

Pennsylvania Constitution Article I Section 7.
Freedom of press and speech; libels.
The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.
The letter was responsibly written to the government seeking assistance.

The letter was not maliciously or negligently made.

The letter relates to the official conduct of officers in public capacity seeking investigation, information and assistance to enforce the law.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

The District Attorney prosecution of the Defendant for an activity which is specifically protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution is improper, and has been brought for the purpose of harassing and terrorizing an individual who has properly and lawfully sought the actions and effort of law enforcement.

The District Attorney had/has failed to prosecute the fraudulent conveyance and related crimes. The District Attorney has offered no explanation or response.

The District Attorney has prevented an investigation commenced by Montgomery County Detectives on the evidence and at the behest of the RECORDER OF DEEDS. The District Attorney has offered no explanation or response.

The District Attorney has also acted to prevent the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation after the RECORDER OF DEEDS had assisted the defendant by making introductions to the proper contacts at the FBI. The District Attorney has offered no explanation or response.

The interference by the District Attorney with other law enforcement agencies extends beyond the criminal affirmance of the current District Attorney and two previous office holders:
– denies the Defendant of life, liberty and freedom;
– prevents equal protection under the law;
– denies constitutional rights;
– conceals and protects direct and documented threats to murder the Defendant;
– permits the Defendant to be further victimized and threatened without recourse.

The prosecution of the Defendant has proceeded without regard for law, process, procedures, or rights. The District Attorney is attempting convert the matter, using chaos and disinformation, leading to an administrative penalty in a fabricated situation beyond the information, control or influence of the Defendant. (IE, Bench Warrant, Arrest, Contempt, Failure to Appear…)

JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of the courts is established by law. Where the law is not followed, the courts are without jurisdiction in the matter.

JURISDICTION – MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COURT

The Magisterial District Court failed to follow the Rule of Law, as indicated in the Rules of Criminal Procedure while IGNORING the rights of the Defendant which are secured by the US Constitution.
A lack of jurisdiction for the Magisterial District Court, challenged and not addressed, is not remedied by the case being held for court by the issuing authority.

The Magisterial Court neglected to follow the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The Magisterial Court ignored rights protected by the US Constitution.

The Magisterial Court lacked jurisdiction to review the matter, or to transfer the matter to the Court of Common Pleas.

JURISDICTION – COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

The Court of Common Pleas failed/fails to follow the Rule of Law, as indicated in the Rules of Criminal procedure while IGNORING the rights of the Defendant which are secured by the US Constitution

The Court of Common Pleas has neglected to follow the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The Court of Common Pleas has ignored rights protected by the US Constitution.

The Court of Common Pleas lacks jurisdiction to review the matter.

JURISDICTION – DEFICIENCIES CAUSED BY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

The Attorney for the Commonwealth has neglected to follow the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The Attorney for the Commonwealth has ignored rights protected by the US Constitution.

Issues have been raised to the attention of the Court and the Attorney for the Commonwealth. There has been no response. The issues remain ignored and unresolved.

THE FAILURE TO ADDRESS “WRONGDOING”

The District Attorney, Risa Ferman and Kevin Steele, have failed to properly supervise or address the lawlessness, corruption and unconstitutional prosecution being conducted and directed by Assistant District Attorney Lauren McNulty.

Responsibility for addressing the ‘wrongdoing’ of the personnel in the Office of the District Attorney is vested exclusively in the District Attorney.

The failure to address the ‘wrongdoing’ of the Assistant District Attorney occurs because of a mandate of confidentiality. There has been no explanation.

As a Government Attorney, The District Attorney, represents
the Public,
the Government as a whole
the Branch of government in which employed
the Particular agency or department
the Responsible officers who make decisions with an agency or department

An attorney-client relationship prevents the District Attorney from exposing, disclosing, correcting, resolving or prosecuting actions by her ‘clients’ without their expressed consent.

Recognizing the mandate of non-disclosure which interferes with the ability of the District Attorney to respond to or take actions to correct the negligence by the attorney for the Commonwealth and personnel employed by Montgomery County;

and

Recognizing the Defendants right to equal protection under the law;

and

Recognizing the Defendants rights are protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States,

WHEREAS, The Defendant proposes and motions for this Honorable Court to require all participants:
– to submit the Rule of Law which substantiates their actions which have been contrary to procedure and law
– to submit the Rule of Law by which their actions require no explanation or justification;
– to submit the Rule of Law which permits concealing conceal actions which deny and prevent the Defendant from the equal protection of the Law, and other constitutionally protected rights;
– to submit any Order of the Court, or Policy, which prevents full disclosure of information.
– to sign a waiver of confidentiality.

WAIVER OF RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION

The Defendant is representing himself. There exists no relationship(s) with any attorney(s) mandated to conceal, prevent or not disclose any information related to the matter currently before the court.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is a broad mandate of non-disclosure which includes the ‘Attorney Client Privilege’. The mandate of non-disclosure for the attorney continues beyond any immediate matters before any court. Then, the Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandate survives in perpetuity.

In the interest of justice in this matter, the Defendant requests that all attorneys for the Commonwealth sign a Waiver of Attorney Client Privilege (Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information).

In the interest of full disclosure; the Defendant requests that all attorneys involved in this matter provide a list of clients with whom they have a prior attorney client relationship which could affect the proceedings and information presented to this court.

Any attorneys prevented from or refusing to sign a waiver; AND/OR failing to indicate and substantiate the reasons which prevent their waiver should be removed from any involvement in the matter.

Any attorneys prevented from or refusing to sign a waiver should document their actions in this matter for review by the judiciary, the parties, and further investigated by an appropriate law enforcement agency or division, if justified.

In the interest of openness, the Defendant requests all Montgomery County personnel involved in the matter sign a Waiver of Attorney Client Privilege (Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information).

Personnel representing the Commonwealth or County refusing to sign a waiver; AND/OR failing to indicate and substantiate the reasons which prevent their waiver should be removed from any involvement in the matter.

Personnel representing the Commonwealth or County refusing to sign a waiver should document their actions in this matter for review by the judiciary, the parties, and further investigated by an appropriate law enforcement agency or division, if justified.

Any rule, procedure, law, order of any court, etc… which denies, prevents or interferes with the constitutionally protected rights of the Defendant are unconstitutional, no law, a nullity which can provide no support for action or defense from prosecution for those actions.

APPEAL – SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF of The Superior Court is positioned to receive all documents and motions when filed; to intercept and prevent any review by the Superior Court judiciary. The prompt action(s) by the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF neither waits for, nor requires, any response(s) from the Attorney for the Commonwealth. There is no explanation or response to inquiries.

The CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF issues unsubstantiated and unsigned Per Curiam documents dismissing motions. There is no evidence which demonstrates the consideration of the matter before the court.

Single sentence unsigned Per Curiam Orders have neglected to properly indicate the motion which is being dismissed. Subsequent Motions seeking identification, clarification or specification are also dismissed.

APPEAL – SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA – THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE

Obstructing justice by denying and preventing access to the Court, the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF is committing constitutional and criminal violations of state and federal laws and constitutions.

The Defendant’s rights which are secured by the Rule of Law, the Pennsylvania Constitition and the Constitution of the United States are denied, prevented, ignored and dismissed leaving the Defendant without recourse. There is no explanation or response to inquiries.

The failure to provide answers or to substantiate actions by reference to a rule, procedure, law or Constitution is deliberate and intentional.

Where the unconstitutional affect(s) – denial of access to the courts, etc… – is(are) clearly demonstrated, the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF neglects to substantiate their unsigned Per Curiam Orders to avoid identifying the rule, procedure, or law which is denying the Defendant of his rights — AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

The CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF is engaging in a conspiracy to deny the constitutional rights of the Defendant. Their actions obstruct, prevent and deny justice leaving the Defendant without any recourse. The CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF further conceals their fraud, injustice and corruption by assigning responsibiltiy for corruption and injustice to the judiciary.

The integrity of the judiciary is essential. The independence of the judiciary is a necessity. When prevented from their responsibilities, the judiciary is effectively held hostage by the corruption of the court staff (Court Administration, Central Legal Staff, …).

APPEAL – SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA – THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW

The judiciary is prevented from addressing the usurpation of their authority pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of information. Improperly enacted as part of the Rules of Professional Conduct, ALL lawyers and legal professionals are mandated to nondisclosure of the unconstitutional law until such time as it is declared unconstitutional.

THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONFIDENTIALITY LAW CANNOT BE ADDRESSED BY LAWYERS AND LEGAL PROFESSIONALS.

THE Rules of Professional Conduct permit efforts by lawyers which prevent exposure of issues which adversely affect the integrity of the court. Those efforts are held confidential pursuant to Rule 1.6

WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO EXPLANATION OR RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information excuses non-disclosure and efforts which prevent disclosure.

Any law which interferes with the rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Any law which interferes with the rights which are secured and protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality causes a collateral denial of rights to the Defendant; prevents the Defendant from access to the courts; and denies the Defendant from equal protection of the Law.

Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional.

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Disciplinary Board dismisses complaints by neglecting the issues reported. Dismissals are written using a variety of deceptive logical fallacies.
– Incredulity
– Fallacious Reasoning
– Ambiguity
– Appeal to Authority
– Strawman

The Disciplinary Board fails to take any actions which could expose the corruption of the judicial branch.

The Disciplinary Board consists of lawyers who are mandated by the improperly enacted and unconstitutional Confidentiality of Information.

The Disciplinary Board prosecutes violations of nondisclosure and Confidentiality.
JUDGE ANN LOKUTA
ATTORNEY GENERAL KATHLEEN KANE

The Disciplinary Board actions usurp the authority of the Judiciary
– denying constitutional rights
– failing to hold hearings
– denying due process of law

The Disciplinary Board seems determined to protect the corrupt system while neglecting to address any efforts which would promote justice.

They fail to follow, or understand, their own RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

GENERAL RULES

Chapter 93 Trial 9301
All procedures, motions and other matters relating to the trial, by jury or otherwise, of any criminal proceeding shall be conducted in the manner, at the times, on the terms and conditions and in the form prescribed by the general rules.

Pennsylvania Constitution Article I Section 9.
Rights of accused in criminal prosecutions.
In all criminal prosecutions the accused hath a right to be heard by himself and his counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and, in prosecutions by indictment or information, a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the vicinage; he cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself, nor can he be deprived of his life, liberty or property, unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land. The use of a suppressed voluntary admission or voluntary confession to impeach the credibility of a person may be permitted and shall not be construed as compelling a person to give evidence against himself.

Pennsylvania Constitution Article I Section 26.
No discrimination by Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right.

PROVIDED BY LAW

The power and authority of the judicial branch (“Jurisdiction”) is provided by the laws enacted by the Legislature.

Where the judiciary fails to adhere to the LAW, the result is a lack of jurisdiction.

The General Assembly is responsible for the Laws which provide for the proper jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch.

The direct relationship between the General Assembly and the Judiciary is clearly demonstrated in the following excerpts. Phrases from the Pennsylvania Constitution Article V The Judiciary:

Section 1. Unified judicial system.
… as may be provided by law …

Section 2. Supreme Court.
… shall have such jurisdiction as shall be provided by law.

Section 3. Superior Court.
… have such jurisdiction as shall be provided by this Constitution or by the General Assembly.

Section 4. Commonwealth Court.
… have such jurisdiction as shall be provided by law.

Section 5. Courts of common pleas.
… as shall be provided by law,…
… be provided by law.

Section 6. Community courts; Philadelphia Municipal Court and Traffic Court.
(a) … jurisdiction shall be as provided by law.
(b) … who under law …
… shall be governed by the general laws …
(c) … the jurisdiction of each shall be as provided by law.

Section 7. Justices of the peace; magisterial districts.
(a) … shall be as provided by law.
(b) The General Assembly shall by law establish …

Section 8. Other courts.
The General Assembly may establish additional courts or divisions of existing courts, as needed, or abolish any statutory court or division thereof.

Section 9. Right of appeal.
… as provided by law…
… as may be provided by law.

Section 10. Judicial administration.
(c) … if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of the 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.

… the General Assembly may by statute provide for …

Section 11. Judicial districts; boundaries.
… shall be changed by the General Assembly only …

Section 12. Qualifications of justices, judges and justices of the peace.
… shall be as provided by law.

Section 16. Compensation and retirement of justices, judges and justices of the peace.
(a) … as provided by law.
… unless by law…
(b) … as shall be provided by law.
Except as provided by law…

ABOUT ARTICLE V SECTION 10(c) SPECIFICALLY

Article V Section 10(c) limits the lawmaking authority of the Judiciary.

“The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts, justices of the peace and all officers serving process or enforcing orders, judgments or decrees of any court or justice of the peace, including the power to provide for assignment and reassignment of classes of actions or classes of appeals among the several courts as the needs of justice shall require, and for admission to the bar and to practice law, and the administration of all courts and supervision of all officers of the Judicial Branch, if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of the 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. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the General Assembly may by statute provide for the manner of testimony of child victims or child material witnesses in criminal proceedings, including the use of videotaped depositions or testimony by closed-circuit television.”

Where the American Bar Association had provided their Model Rules of Professional Conduct to be prescribed into LAW by the Supreme Court (effective April 1, 1988), they included a broad confidentiality mandate which is cross referenced throughout each of the “Rules” which accurately are described as a minimum ethical standard for lawyers. THE MINIMUM IS NO ETHICS.

A collateral affect of the MANDATE of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information causes the denial of a persons constitutional rights and permits those rights to be DENIED AND IGNORED with no opportunity for recourse or resolution. With the loss of their rights, the person then discovers that they have NO PROTECTION under the Rule of Law.

The improperly enacted and unconstitutional CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandates that lawyers and legal professionals conceal information PERMITTING CORRUPTION TO REMAIN UNADDRESSED AND UNPROSECUTED; MANDATING INJUSTICE TO BE IGNORED even at the expense of a persons Constitutional Rights with NO RECOURSE OR OPPORTUNITY FOR REDRESS.

The independence and integrity of the Judiciary are greatly impacted by the non-disclosure mandate, and its subsequent ‘permission’ which excuses and ignores actions which prevent disclosure.

The Judiciary has had the exclusive authority to review ‘Constitutionality’ since Marbury v Madison.

The authority to review the constitutionality of a law enacted by the Judiciary is not designated. Perhaps, it was never thought to be necessary.

THE JUDICIARY ENACTED A MANDATE OF CONFIDENTIALITY which has the collateral impact of voiding the US Constitution, and denying any protection of the Rule of Law to those affected by the non-disclosure mandate without any recourse or opportunity for redress.

Complicating the issue: The MANDATORY NON-DISCLOSURE of this improperly enacted and unconstitutional law (Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information) is required pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

Lawyers and legal professionals are silenced by Rule 1.6 unless and until they recognize the unconstitutional affect and find they have standing to address the issue. It is possible that those lawyers may have been suspended or disbarred by a disciplinary system which is also ‘confidential” pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
Terance Healy, Todd M. Krautheim, on behalf of the United States
v.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane and the Attorneys General of the United States

The Challenge was served to each state Attorney General. The Attorneys General defaulted. Silenced by the Rule 1.6 mandate.

However, The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was then ‘1.6’d’ by lawyers (Court Staff) permitted to conceal their deception, fraud and corruption which prevented the Judiciary from reviewing the matter. The Judiciary silenced and held hostage by their own unconstitutional action.

Until declared unconstitutional, a LAW must be abided. Once unconstitutional it is a nullity, and never was law. An Unconstitutional ‘law’ can provide no protection or defense for those whose actions interfered with the Constitutional Rights of the people.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The McDade Murtha Act was passed federally requiring ALL FEDERAL LAWYERS, INVESTIGATORS AND PROSECUTORS to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct in the jurisdiction in which they were working.

The American Bar Association had rolled out their “Rules” from 1984 (New Jersey) until 2007 (Maine) affecting the larger jurisdictions in the earlier years. The ABA trained their membership to NOT SEE the issue.

American Injustice Ignored became evident, but the lack of efforts by the lawyers and judges mandated to confidentiality prevented the issue from being addressed, exposed, or dealt with while the entire USA noticed the US Constitution was being ignored.

Kids For Cash, Sandusky, the Foreclosure Crisis, Ferguson, Flint, Citizens United …

ABOUT THOSE RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Quickly returning to the Pennsylvania Constitution, it is worth reviewing Article V Section 16, as the Pennsylvania Government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial, has been notified and aware of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 since it was filed in August 2013.

Section 16. Compensation and retirement of justices, judges and justices of the peace.
(b) Justices, judges and justices of the peace shall be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 70 years. Former and retired justices, judges and justices of the peace shall receive such compensation as shall be provided by law. Except as provided by law, no salary, retirement benefit or other compensation, present or deferred, shall be paid to any justice, judge or justice of the peace who, under section 18 or under Article VI, is suspended, removed or barred from holding judicial office for conviction of a felony or misconduct in office or conduct which prejudices the proper administration of justice or brings the judicial office into disrepute.

The conflict of interest is evident.

The failure to accept responsibility and take actions to address the issue “prejudices the proper administration of justice” AND “brings the judicial office into disrepute.”

Revealing Rule 1.6 injustice and corruption which undermines every level of the court would financially affect every judge within the judiciary… but it should.

Ignoring the corruption of the court continues to prejudice the administration of justice…. And it does.

A judiciary failing to take responsibility for their actions affects the entire Commonwealth.

Where the Judiciary have ignored it’s own undoing, The lawyers in the clerks offices have interfered with the administration of justice and the courts.

The clerks have prevented hearings, dismissed petitions; quashed actions unsubstantiated by any proper law.

The clerks have used unsigned per curiam orders which they then purport to be valid orders of the Court.

Those lawyers/clerks are not simply protecting their own self interests.

The lawyers/clerks are not simply protecting the integrity of the judiciary whose authority they have usurped.

By promoting injustice and concealing corruption, the lawyers/clerks are holding the judiciary hostage.

The gatekeeper actions are recently evident in the actions affecting Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

Kane has been prevented from any hearing where she would be permitted to defend herself against the allegations. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality does not permit disclosure until Kane is defending before a court or tribunal.
– Montgomery County has held no hearings where Kane could present a defense.
– The Supreme Court has held no hearings regarding the per curiam license suspension.
– A Supreme Court per curiam order quashed a recent request to reinstate the law license with no opportunity for any hearing on the issue deemed ‘untimely’.
– Montgomery County Court has recently announced a scheduled hearing date in August 2016. This scheduling directly affects and hinders the re-election effort of the Attorney General. The date selected is one year from the date the complaint was filed. The deadline for an individuals right to a ‘speedy trial’

Two Secret Orders from Unidentified court personally prevent Kathleen Kane from the responsibilities of her elected office as Attorney General. (The secret orders relate to the appeals in Healy v Healy and Healy v Miller)

MOTIVATION

American Bar Association affiliated bar associations exist at most every level of the state and federal judiciary , their members include the lawyers/clerks who acting as gatekeepers prevent access to the courts.

American Bar Association and affiliated state bar associations had knowingly presented their unethical Model Rules of Professional Conduct to the Pennsylvania the Supreme Court.

The Constitution requires members of the General Assembly to abstain from votes where there is a conflict of interest.

The Pennsylvania Senators and Representatives actively seeking the premature impeachment of the Attorney General include lawyers.

They are aware and informed of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 and its affect which undermines the Judicial branch impact.

They are aware of the involvement of the Office of the Attorney General investigating the corruption concealed by Rule 1.6 unconstitutional confidentiality.

Their membership in the ABA and affiliated bar associations creates a clear conflict of interest.

To anyone informed of the full affect of Rule 1.6 corruption, the actions of some in the General Assembly are unconstitutional and treasonous.

NATIONWIDE

Now consider again that the American Bar Association rolled out the Rule of Professional Conduct gradually across the entire United States. 1984 New Jersey through 2007 Maine.

Causing a nationwide Constitutional Crisis, the American Bar Association has a clear interest in preventing Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane from being heard in personal or professional capacity.

Non-disclosure and confidentiality have undermined the government of the United States. An unconstitutional law enacted improperly in every state prevents justice, excuses injustice and permits corruption by concealing itself in its own confidentiality and corruption.

CONCLUSION

Why would one man’s effort to regain possession of his property be deemed a terroristic threat?

Why would all negligence and failure by the District Attorney to follow procedure and the law be ignored?

Why harass a man who is seeking resolution after 10 years of corruption and injustice which was intended to cause his suicide?

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 helps.

No one could help… until the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 which exposed A NATIONWIDE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS CAUSED BY THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION WHICH UNDERMINES THE JUDICIARY IN EACH STATE AND FEDERALLY.

LETTER TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DATED MARCH 27, 2016

Sent to:

Governor Tom Wolf

The Pennsylvania Senate

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives

The Office of the Attorney General

The United States Congress

The Montgomery County Judiciary

Montgomery County Departments

Other Government Officials and Staff as appropriate

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Memorandum dated March 9, 2016

65.24. Hybrid Representation

Rule 3304. Hybrid Representation

Rule 3305. Administrative Motions

Commonwealth v Jette

Commonwealth v Pursell

Commonwealth v Ellis

Commonwealth v Piscanio
aka Michael j. Piskanin v Mark A Krysevig, et al.

Rule 313. Collateral Orders

Rule 301. Requisites for an Appealable Order

Rule 576. Filing and Service by Parties

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON JANUARY 27, 2016

STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON NOVEMBER 18, 2015

STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON OCTOBER 14, 2015

STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2015

STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON AUGUST 10, 2015

LETTER DATED JUNE 11, 2015 to Attorney General, Sheriff and District Attorney

STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON JUNE 10, 2015

LETTER TO District Attorney, Attorney General and Governor

STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ONAPRIL 9, 2015

2016
03.19

The absolute undeniable denial of ALL civil rights, ALL constitutional rights, ALL human rights, Life and Liberty with NO protection of the law, NO due process or procedure; AND deliberate judicial actions without hearings or evidence to further create chaos and which sabotage my case and attempt to prevent me from addressing the matters.

Using every available resource, the Montgomery County District Attorney and the entire Montgomery County judiciary have terrorized my life for ten (10) years, stolen everything I own, compromised my liberty and freedom, and threaten to continue with unrelenting and aggressive malice.

The issues I have faced for the last 10 years and which I am currently facing require the attention of the Governor, Attorney General and the General Assembly.

This includes all Senators and Representatives, not just Senator Chuck McIlhinney and Representatives Kathy Watson, Marguerite Quinn and Todd Stephens. I have met with them and others to inform them of the Constitutional problem I have encountered and which has become inescapable. Senator Greenleaf has neglected the matter for 10 years.

It is my case which has also ensnared Attorney General Kathleen Kane. AG Kane is fully aware of the matter, BUT SHE HAS BEEN ORDERED BY ‘SECRET ORDERS FROM UNIDENTIFIED COURTS’ to personally neglect the responsibilities of her office. The OAG has failed to act where required on every Appeal without explanation. Rule 721 Notice of Challenge to the Constitutionality of a law. There are three pending currently.

The essential problem. The bad law was enacted by the Supreme Court. Because the law mandates Confidentiality and Non-disclosure where the integrity of the courts are concerned… The Supreme Court cannot undo their IMPROPER act. IMPROPER because Article 5 Section 10c only gives rulemaking authority when the rule does not affect CONSTITUTIONAL rights.

The ‘bad law’ is the Confidentiality law. It is preventing its own removal.

The General Assembly has the only authority to suspend a law. It is necessary that they suspend the law, so the courts can be rectified.

My case is the undiscussed part of the Montgomery County efforts against the Attorney General.

I have been living without any protection of the law and without any Constitutional rights since 2007. The judiciary cannot correct their own injustice. As such, it continues. As I persevere and try to survive, Montgomery County has been aggressive towards my lawful and legal efforts. All explained on www.work2bdone.com/live

The current false charges haven’t followed any law OR procedure. All Constitutional rights have been ignored. The latest being the right to a speedy trial. This has happened at the point where without hearings I have been forced to have a Public Defender. There was no hearing or evidence regarding that decision. But, with an attorney, I can also no longer file statements with the court to assert my rights and expose the wrongdoing. The courts have attempted to now take my voice.

I understand that no one wants to believe that an American in Pennsylvania can be denied their rights and left without recourse. I assure you this is NOT my imagination. The failure of government leaders to respond demonstrates that this improperly enacted Confidentiality law undermines the government and the US Constitution.

A lawyer has likely told you to ignore it with no further explanation. They are protecting the American Bar Association who presented their unethical and unconstitutional Model Rules gradually to each state, 1983 to 2009. The ABA effort was intentional, informed and deliberate treason. Making it illegal for lawyers to disclose ‘what broke’ has been effectively undermining the law and Constitution for over 30 years.

Attorney General Kane cannot speak until her hearing. By law she may expose the improper law in a courtroom when defending herself. BUT NOT BEFORE. So MontCo has delayed her hearing to the very last possible date August 8.

I would appreciate the opportunity to explain the issue and answer any questions. Every statement I make is fact and I have the supporting documentation to demonstrate everything.

A meeting would be appreciated.

The courts can be fixed… By removing one bad law. All the other laws work. The laws are simply being ignored and actions unexplained because of an inappropriate Confidentiality law which even prevents the lawyers and courts from indicting the problem with Confidentiality is confidential.

Thank you,

Terance Healy

FB_IMG_1458487247314

SENT TO:
kkane@attorneygeneral.gov,
rmartin@attorneygeneral.gov,
kmiller@attorneygeneral.gov,
consumers@attorneygeneral.gov,
akaiser@attorneygeneral.gov,
tkeating@attorneygeneral.gov,
twertz@attorneygeneral.gov,
bcox@attorneygeneral.gov,
amcgill@attorneygeneral.gov,
jdonahue@attorneygeneral.gov,
jressler@attorneygeneral.gov,
abarbieri@attorneygeneral.gov,
kjoel@attorneygeneral.gov,
mpassarelli@attorneygeneral.gov,
sdigiacomo@attorneygeneral.gov,
mlehr@attorneygeneral.gov,
mstaub@attorneygeneral.gov,
rdintino@attorneygeneral.gov,
cpu@attorneygeneral.gov,
jbarker@attorneygeneral.gov,
amcgovern@attorneygeneral.gov,
jduecker@attorneygeneral.gov,
jagnostino@attorneygeneral.gov,
cellis@attorneygeneral.gov,
aweinhold@attorneygeneral.gov,
chinesley@attorneygeneral.gov,
jjohnson@attorneygeneral.gov,
jmitchell@attorneygeneral.gov,
ablackmon@attorneygeneral.gov,
plittle@attorneygeneral.gov,
jogden@attorneygeneral.gov,
dshallcross@attorneygeneral.gov,
edominick@attorneygeneral.gov,
jholter@attorneygeneral.gov,
wotto@attorneygeneral.gov,
jnester@attorneygeneral.gov,
jgunn@attorneygeneral.gov,
gcappello@attorneygeneral.gov,
lcherba@attorneygeneral.gov,
jfitzpatrick@attorneygeneral.gov,
daugenbraun@attorneygeneral.gov,
mconnolly@attorneygeneral.gov,
rlabar@attorneygeneral.gov,
kmcdaniels@attorneygeneral.gov,
eschoenberg@attorneygeneral.gov,
cgillies@attorneygeneral.gov,
dkistler@attorneygeneral.gov,
jorie@attorneygeneral.gov,
kcotter@attorneygeneral.gov,
halbright@attorneygeneral.gov,
ngiunta@attorneygeneral.gov,
emadigan@attorneygeneral.gov,
csondergaard@attorneygeneral.gov,
jbaxter@attorneygeneral.gov,
esong@attorneygeneral.gov,
cjones@attorneygeneral.gov,
relo@attorneygeneral.gov,
egranahan@attorneygeneral.gov,
cbutterfield@attorneygeneral.gov,
amarmo@attorneygeneral.gov,
eolson@attorneygeneral.gov,
aforray@attorneygeneral.gov,
ddye@attorneygeneral.gov,
rfranz@attorneygeneral.gov,
mkluk@attorneygeneral.gov,
cmadden@attorneygeneral.gov,
jflannery@attorneygeneral.gov,
jgoldsmith@attorneygeneral.gov,
mlaucella@attorneygeneral.gov,
lditka@attorneygeneral.gov,
sbridges@attorneygeneral.gov,
tgoodwin@attorneygeneral.gov,
pschulte@attorneygeneral.gov,
bcoffey@attorneygeneral.gov,
gzaiser@attorneygeneral.gov,
wstoycos@attorneygeneral.gov,
pmccarthy@attorneygeneral.gov,
jpeterson@attorneygeneral.gov,
cschmidt@attorneygeneral.gov,
ksekula@attorneygeneral.gov,
gsimatic@attorneygeneral.gov,
sdonton@attorneygeneral.gov,
abeaverson@attorneygeneral.gov,
rtroutman@attorneygeneral.gov,
azapp@attorneygeneral.gov,
lkress@attorneygeneral.gov,
ashchuka@attorneygeneral.gov,
dgraham@attorneygeneral.gov,
ksmith@attorneygeneral.gov,
mross@attorneygeneral.gov,
kmohrman@attorneygeneral.gov,
rthurner@attorneygeneral.gov,
kgarrett@attorneygeneral.gov,
jheffner@attorneygeneral.gov,
solesh@attorneygeneral.gov,
bwright@attorneygeneral.gov,
mahwesh@attorneygeneral.gov,
cbonesch@attorneygeneral.gov,
kgibson@attorneygeneral.gov,
mdugan@attorneygeneral.gov,
rsmultkis@attorneygeneral.gov,
dgorman@attorneygeneral.gov,
pleonard@attorneygeneral.gov,
tmuttschler@attorneygeneral.gov,
kwymard@attorneygeneral.gov,
dwright@attorneygeneral.gov,
wabraham@attorneygeneral.gov,
hcastellino@attorneygeneral.gov,
mserge@attorneygemeral.gov,
kwevodau@attorneygeneral.gov,
ccrawford@attorneygeneral.gov,
riuzzolino@attorneygeneral.gov,
rgarutti@attorneygeneral.gov,
dellis@attorneygeneral.gov,
woconnell@attorneygeneral.gov,
rmelnick@attorneygeneral.gov,
jcanady@attorneygeneral.gov,
prichart@attorneygeneral.gov,
icaraway@attorneygeneral.gov,
asassano@attorneygeneral.gov,
jkozlina@attorneygeneral.gov,
imiranda@attorneygeneral.gov,
dpiefer@attorneygeneral.gov,
tbowman@attorneygeneral.gov,
bcook@attorneygeneral.gov,
ldetitto@attorneygeneral.gov,
wnemetz@attorneygeneral.gov,
mwevodau@attorneygeneral.gov,
bmerenda@attorneygeneral.gov,
jabel@attorneygeneral.gov,
lwilliams@attorneygeneral.gov,
adiebert@attorneygeneral.gov,
nditomo@attorneygeneral.gov,
jzucco@attorneygeneral.gov,
jtokarczyk@attorneygeneral.gov,
rlebo@attorneygeneral.gov,
kwilkinson@attorneygeneral.gov,
tblessington@attorneygeneral.gov,
sfrasch@attorneygeneral.gov,
smirarchi@attorneygeneral.gov,
jnastasi@attorneygeneral.gov,
mtulman@attorneygeneral.gov,
jparrilla@attorneygeneral.gov,
tcummings@attorneygeneral.gov,
rnelson@attorneygeneral.gov,
jdunn@attorneygeneral.gov,
jharvey@attorneygeneral.gov,
cpresogna@attorneygeneral.gov,
aschulman@attorneygeneral.gov,
sruffner@attorneygeneral.gov,
kpassarelli@attorneygeneral.gov,
tcreehan@attorneygeneral.gov,
tdevlin@attorneygeneral.gov,
jsmith@attorneygeneral.gov,
pgreene@attorneygeneral.gov,
nvanorder@attorneygeneral.gov,
rbloom@attorneygeneral.gov,
jbetsko@attorneygeneral.gov,
ncorreale@attorneygeneral.gov,
mpacella@attorneygeneral.gov,
mfoerster@attorneygeneral.gov,
jdowning@attorneygeneral.gov,
rschulman@attorneygeneral.gov,
mericson@attorneygeneral.gov,
mhathaway@attorneygeneral.gov,
lpinti@attorneygeneral.gov,
lbarth@attorneygeneral.gov,
ddembe@attorneygeneral.gov,
mkenney@attorneygeneral.gov,
pfingerhut@attorneygeneral.gov,
eherne@attorneygeneral.gov,
srenwand@attorneygeneral.gov,
rschnippert@attorneygeneral.gov,
nmara@attorneygeneral.gov,
nbrewster@attorneygeneral.gov,
eberger@attorneygeneral.gov,
pjarabeck@attorneygeneral.gov,
dgallagher@attorneygeneral.gov,
kdelone@attorneygeneral.gov,
mritzman@attorneygeneral.gov,
ewillier@attorneygeneral.gov,
nmarden@attorneygeneral.gov,
jthomson@attorneygeneral.gov,
mawalsh@attorneygeneral.gov,
jkirk@attorneygeneral.gov,
aschwartz@attorneygeneral.gov,
banderson@attorneygeneral.gov,
rmulle@attorneygeneral.gov,
vcaggiano@attorneygeneral.gov,
cweitzel@attorneygeneral.gov,
dstover@attorneygeneral.gov,
aelliott@attorneygeneral.gov,
sborn@attorneygeneral.gov,
jknorr@attorneygeneral.gov,
bdelone@attorneygeneral.gov,
hhopkirk@attorneygeneral.gov,
kmericli@attorneygeneral.gov,
ctesoro@attorneygeneral.gov,
skirkpatrick@attorneygeneral.gov,
jkenneth@attorneygeneral.gov,
lbasial@attorneygeneral.gov,
sbucknum@attorneygeneral.gov,
mlewis@attorneygeneral.gov,
pdarney@attorneygeneral.gov,
jdavis@attorneygeneral.gov,
lfritz@attorneygeneral.gov,
agiunta@attorneygeneral.gov,
jkoltash@attorneygeneral.gov,
kneary@attorneygeneral.gov,
srogers@attorneygeneral.gov,
cmckinney@attorneygeneral.gov,
jstark@attorneygeneral.gov,
cisreal@attorneygeneral.gov,
kklinkner@attorneygeneral.gov,
mcenturione@attorneygeneral.gov,
jfisher@attorneygeneral.gov,
aells@attorneygeneral.gov,
jstahl@attorneygeneral.gov,
wcarpenter@attorneygeneral.gov,
pmiller@attorneygeneral.gov,
rborthwick@attorneygeneral.gov,
asallavanti@attorneygeneral.gov,
jgnall@attorneygeneral.gov,
wdopierala@attorneygeneral.gov,
kgarrity@attorneygeneral.gov,
bkramer@attorneygeneral.gov,
kbradford.attorneygeneral@gmail.com
cgreenhall@attorneygeneral.gov,
rhenzes@attorneygeneral.gov,
sunger@attorneygeneral.gov,
skovatis@attorneygeneral.gov,
klesananman@attorneygeneral.gov,
agrube@attorneygeneral.gov,
aells@attorneygeneral.gov,
klawfer@attorneygeneral.gov,
rgeer@attorneygeneral.gov,
bstephens@attorneygeneral.gov,
jmueller@attorneygeneral.gov,
redmundson@attorneygeneral.gov,
lpalmer@attorneygeneral.gov,
akovalchick@attorneygeneral.gov,
mfriedline@attorneygeneral.gov,
sbradley@attorneygeneral.gov,
tdonahue@attorneygeneral.gov,
rwillig@attorneygeneral.gov,
skozlowski@attorneygeneral.gov,
tmazzocca@attorneygeneral.gov,
ywarshafsky@attorneygeneral.gov,
ccamprobst@attorneygeneral.gov,
bbaxter@attorneygeneral.gov,
rmcdermott@attorneygeneral.gov,
hsalvi@attorneygeneral.gov,
bmortakis@attorneygeneral.gov,
auditorgen@paauditor.gov,
admin@palawfund.com,
pacleb@pacle.org,
yudichak@pasenate.com,
wozniak@pasenate.com,
williams@pasenate.com,
tartaglione@pasenate.com,
swagner@pasen.gov,
senatorwiley@pasenate.com,
senatorleach@pasenate.com,
senatorblake@pasenate.com,
pbrowne@pasen.gov,
mscavello@pasen.gov,
andy@pasenate.com,
alloway@pasen.gov,
brewster@pasenate.com,
boscola@pasenate.com,
brennac@phillynews.com,
bbumsted@tribweb.com,
dwhite@pasen.gov,
dargall@pasen.gov,
mbrooks@pasen.gov,
lsmucker@pasen.gov,
hughes@pasenate.com,
jscarnati@pasen.gov,
jrafferty@pasen.gov,
jeichelberger@pasen.gov,
kward@pasen.gov,
kitchen@pasenate.com,
kwatson@pahousegop.com,
lmccrystal@phillynews.com,
val@montcopa.org,
josh@montcopa.org,
joe@montcopa.org,
mgibbons@calkins.com,
nralston@pa.gov,
sgreenleaf@pasen.gov,
senatorteplitz@pasenate.com,
wendy.saltzman@abc.com,
alloway@pasen.gov,
dargall@pasen.gov,
lbaker@pasen.gov,
cbartolotta@pasen.gov,
mbrooks@pasen.gov,
pbrowne@pasen.gov,
jeichelberger@pasen.gov,
sgreenleaf@pasen.gov,
cmcilhinney@pasen.gov,
jrafferty@pasen.gov,
jscarnati@pasen.gov,
mscavello@pasen.gov,
lsmucker@pasen.gov,
rtomlinson@pasen.gov,
vance@pasen.gov,
swagner@pasen.gov,
kward@pasen.gov,
dwhite@pasen.gov,
senatorblake@pasenate.com,
boscola@pasenate.com,
brewster@pasenate.com,
costa@pasenate.com,
andy@pasenate.com,
farnese@pasenate.com,
fontana@pasenate.com,
senatorhaywood@pasenate.com,
hughes@pasenate.com,
kitchen@pasenate.com,
senatorleach@pasenate.com,
SenatorSchwank@pasenate.com,
tartaglione@pasenate.com,
senatorteplitz@pasenate.com,
senatorwiley@pasenate.com,
williams@pasenate.com,
wozniak@pasenate.com,
yudichak@pasenate.com

2016
03.19

COULD WE START AGAIN

I’ve been living to see you.
Dying to see you, but it shouldn’t be like this.
This was unexpected,
What do I do now?
Could we start again please?

I’ve been very hopeful, so far.
Now for the first time, I think we’re going wrong.
Hurry up and tell me,
This is just a dream.
Oh could we start again please?

I think you’ve made your point now.
You’ve even gone a bit too far to get the message home.
Before it gets too frightening,
We ought to call a vote,
So could we start again please?

I’ve been living to see you.
Dying to see you, but it shouldn’t be like this.
This was unexpected,
What do I do now?
Could we start again please?

I think you’ve made your point now.
You’ve even gone a bit too far to get the message home.
Before it gets too frightening,
We ought to call a vote,
So could we start again please?
Could we start again please?

Could we start again?

alienate

%d bloggers like this: