My statement was accepted by the court prior to the hearing and delivered to the judge who indicated she did not review the statement before proceeding to conduct the Preliminary Hearing.
My appearance for the hearing which was ordered by the court was interpreted as a wavier of counsel even where I had indicated I did NOT waive my right to counsel.
It was out of character for the judge to IGNORE my statement, the non-waiver of counsel and proceed with the Preliminary Hearing. I respectfully acknowledged the judge’s decision and indicated I would seek an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to address the issues presented in my statement.
My experience demonstrates the inability to prevent any judge from being misdirected to unlawful and unconstitutional decisions which undermine their integrity. I can do nothing to protect the integrity of a judge who ignores me.
By law, the Preliminary Hearing is not permitted to occur where the Defendants rights have not been addressed, acknowledged and respected. When IGNORED, a persons rights tend to become further ignored and denied. An inescapable trap which denies the rule of law and justice.
I had no choice but to continue where I was ordered to appear, and ordered to defend myself even where my rights were expressed. Every action seeks to undermine the person who is presumed innocent… BUT, the charges are also being re-written.
When facing a moving scope of allegations and time periods, any demonstration of emotion which is being elicited and provoked can and will be used against you in a ‘court of law’ to deny your rights further.
Prior to the matter the representative of the District Attorneys office indicated she would not accept my statement where it could interfere with my rights.
No less than 5 minutes later, she indicated she already had a copy of the document which she had refused to accept from me.
The judge who indicated she had not read it before beginning the Preliminary Hearing – where I was left to represent myself – had provided a copy to the DA who pretended she was concerned about rights and refused it.
Lies, misrepresentation and fraud… The effort to deny and prevent facts and truth in any proceeding is the game which denies and prevents justice.
Those who purport to be respecting my rights have denied me the constitutional right to counsel, proceeded without a waiver of counsel, and have taken several days of my life without permitting me to indicate the fraud upon the court.
The problem with injustice is that it creates an economy for lawyers which you are obligated to engage. My rights are not protected when any effort to speak to address the allegations is prevented from multiple proceedings while my freedom my liberty and my movements are confined and restricted and my freedom of speech is further restricted and threatened by as a condition of bail.
After an extended proceeding where every question posed on cross examination was interrupted, chkallenged and failed to permit any continuity of thought, the matter was continued prior to the police officer who had compiled, assembled, delivered, alleged, responded to, sworn to, every effort in this matter including the affidavit sworn before the judge which caused my Arrest.
Though an essential element of the purported threat is the indication of who is the owner of the property, any question regarding the issue is OBJECTED and SUSTAINED. Where the letter to the PA Governor, Ag, and Legislature indicated that I would take possession of “MY PROPERTY”, the purported threat demonstrates the belief that the witness believes the property belongs to me.
The DA , after testimony and cross of the first witness, extended the scope of time for the complaint… AFTER OBJECTIONS TO THE CROSS EXAMINATION QUESTIONS OF EVERY ACTIVITY DURING THAT PERIOD WERE SUSTAINED.
One arrest. Two proceedings. And the complaint that has been modified in scope and activities three times at the direction of the DA who further initiated the personal delivery of the amended complaint by police (armed) to be delivered by police to my mothers residence. Intimidation and threat tactics seeking to humiliate and embarrass and requiring additional police escort/involvment by Warrington township instead of a postage stamp?
Responding the the question of who is her client, she indicated she had no client.
The final sentence of my statement indicates her client list to whom the mandate of attorney client privilege extends reaches well beyond the officer who has brought these false allegations before a court and lied to a judge to terrorize me and place my life in danger. The cost and liability for the intimidation by false reports and false swearing before a judge escalates… It will be used to continue the effort because the admission that a malicious prosecution has continued against a person who has sought justice is a truth which will never be admitted in court. Not after 9 years of terror.
How do you threaten a person with whom you have had no contact?
How do you harass a person when you have had no contact, and have never met?
When a person chooses to view a web site… The author is not stalking the person. Seeking information on the internet does not create a crime.
When a cop takes a paragraph from a web site wraps it in a vulgar horrific hack and presents it as a threat… The cop has committed a terroristic threat and attributed it to someone else and lied to a judge… Abuse of power under color of law with intent to harass and terrorize and cause emotional distress. AGAIN.
Commonwealth of Pennslyvania MJ-38118-CR-0000096-2015
Statement of Defendant on April 9, 2015
The criminal allegations are unfounded.
At issue is the inability to obtain counsel unhindered and unencumbered by the confidentiality and nondisclosure MANDATED by the Rules of Professional Conduct which have been demonstrated to cause an absolute denial of any protection of the law and the denial of rights secured and protected by the Constitution.
The Preliminary Hearing requires the constitution right to representation by legal counsel be addressed before continuing.
I do NOT waive the right to be represented by an attorney/lawyer/counselor.
I am destitute and cannot afford an attorney.
Every attorney within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is mandated by the Rules of Professional Conduct UNLESS and UNTIL they recognize the unconstitutionality of the law enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania .
A waiver of counsel with the knowledge of potential “dangers and disadvantages of self-representation” cannot be executed in where comprehension, acknowledgement and experience demonstrate the affect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of information causing the facts to be ignored.
Actions and decisions are UNEXPLAINED and/or UNSUBSTANTIATED and each and every effort seeking recourse and redress is IGNORED or PREVENTED.
I have proceeded within the law and without any deceptive, misleading, improper or incomplete information to those with whom I have communicated citing the procedure(s), law(s) or right(s) which were applicable in the situation.
The judiciary has improperly indicated a lack of jurisdiction in the matter which has been ‘affirmed’ upon appeal while documents filed with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania have been undistributed and related documents/orders have not been provided upon request without explanation.
The Pennsylvania Attorney General having the responsibility to address the issue of constitutionality of law has failed to respond without explanation when notified pursuant to Rule 521.
The person, Kathleen Kane, has indicated that she has received ‘orders from unidentified courts’ which require her to neglect the responsibilities of the office to which she has been elected and is prevented from conducting investigations or providing any explanation to any individual or to the public.
Where such an order exists with a mandate of non-disclosure, Kathleen Kane would be prevented from ANY CHALLENGE to that order where she lacked standing without evidence of damages to support her action and prevented from EXPOSING the improper order to which she must comply.
It is my firm belief that such order(s) exist and prevent Kathleen Kane, the person, from addressing the matter in any form INCLUDING communication with the Governor, the Legislature, or the judiciary of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
It is my firm belief that such an order has been indicated to the person and not the professional with the intention of concealing the usurpation of the lawful authority of the Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania from Governor, the Legislature, the Judiciary and the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
It is my firm belief that such an order has recognized and acknowledged the fallen Rule 1.6 with its collateral unconstitutional effect and has re-caste the ‘Rule’ as an order of the court which continues the denial of the Rule of Law and the prevention of constitutional rights with a mandate of confidentiality and non-disclosure which prevents the person from the elected responsibilities of the Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania.
It is my firm belief that the unconstitutional non-disclosure and confidentiality of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information which is mandated upon every lawyer, judge and legal professional within the jurisdiction of the state affects the administration of justice within every court within the state and federally (McDade Murtha Amendment and Local Rules).
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania has been contacted in this regard, and in regard to the matter before this honorable court. There has been no response from the Office of the Attorney General, nor Attorney General Kane.
Kathleen Kane, the person has been contacted in this regard and in regard to the matter before this honorable court. There has been no response from Mrs. Kane, nor through her personal legal team.
The most recent correspondence with the Governor and the Legislature advising the of the courts indicated lack of jurisdiction and seeking ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW and legislative action, where necessary, is attached.
There is no procedure to address this issue. There is no law. There is no case law.
The reason for this may be that once a person signs a waiver, or agrees to accept anything less than a zealous representation by a lawyer, any indication of a failure or ineffectiveness of counsel assigned by the court is EXCUSED AND IGNORED by any subsequent court pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.
The Right to Counsel is a federal issue which does not permit the state to infringe on the rights of the defendant to effective counsel.
Unless A DEFENDANT KNOWS THAT HIS RIGHTS WILL BE LOST FOREVER, he is deliberately undermined by a false sense of legal representation which is not permitted to indicate that the rule of law and the constitutional has been sacrificed.
I wish to assert my rights, which are secured protected and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitution.
I wish to be represented by a lawyer who is permitted to represent me without an unconstitutional law which silently and secrets sacrifices those rights.
I respectfully request this Honorable Court recognize the issue which has come before the Court and advance the issue to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for immediate attention to two questions.
1. Has the collateral and unconstitutional affect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, which was not constructed by any Legislature or signed by any governor enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania been reviewed for constitutional impact and affect by the court and found to be constitutional?
2. Has Kathleen Kane, the elected Attorney General, been ordered improperly to continue an unconstitutional effort which denies any litigant of the equal protection of the law and the rights secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitution; and to conceaql such an order from the government and the People of the Commonwealth?
I respectfully request the assistance of the court in composing the questions in the interest of justice and seeking to obtain the appropriate and effective response from the higher court.
It is noted that the clients of the District Attorney include all of those individuals and officials who have neglected or ignored this issue and prevents recourse for this Defendant since 2007.