Remember in 2014 when Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane said:

As many of you know, I initiated an independent inquiry into the way the Sandusky investigation was conducted — a central concern raised during my campaign for Attorney General. During that investigation, thousands of emails were discovered sent and received by Pennsylvania public officials that contained pornographic materials. As a result of multiple requests to the Office of Attorney General under Pennsylvania’s broad Right to Know Law, I released most of these emails to the media and the public.

The Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a recently published opinion, described the attachments to these emails as “clearly pornographic” and possibly criminal. As a result, many senior public officials involved in these emails resigned. But others remain on the public payrolls, as the Chief Justice pointed out.

Today I am due to testify before a Pennsylvania Grand Jury, as has been publicly reported. However, due to continuous, even overlapping court orders since last March, I am not allowed to explain why I am testifying or what my testimony has to do with the release of the pornographic emails under the Right to Know Law. These court orders also expose me to legal risk if I do my job as Attorney General that I was elected and trusted by the people of Pennsylvania to do. I am not allowed at this time to explain why.


The Office of Attorney General has cooperated from the beginning of this process and I will do the same. I will tell the Special Prosecutor the truth and the facts surrounding the disclosure of information to the public that was done in a way that did not violate statutory or case law regarding Grand Jury secrecy.

Despite my present situation that restricts my ability to answer your questions, I remain committed to the central theme of my campaign — transparency in government. The public has a right to know what public officials are doing or not doing with taxpayer dollars and whether they are doing their jobs properly or attempting to investigate or prosecute possible criminal conduct.

I promised I would expose corruption and abuse of the legal system. The winds of change can only blow through open windows. My administration is being prevented from prying open the windows that corruption has nailed shut. But that change is coming.

The right of the public and media to know what public officials are doing is vital and should be protected by public officials, the media, and the people of Pennsylvania. I am fighting for the right of the Attorney General to do my job without interference.

But more importantly, I am fighting for an end to abuse of the criminal justice system, for transparency, and for better government. That doesn’t come without cost to us. But if this can be done to me as Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of the 5th largest state in the country, I am sickened to think what can and may be done to regular, good people who don’t have the resources that I have to challenge it.

In conclusion, I wish I could say more and answer all your questions but I cannot. But I can promise you this: The truth and the law will prevail.


I don’t think any of us thought it would take so long…


castorholeI don’t think Bruce Castor has found redemption.
He is still the man he described in a threat-filled Manifesto.

He’s still using Rule 1.6 for evil. Just hours after blocking The Gansler Report, Castor filed in federal court leveraging that the effort which conceals Rule 1.6 corruption would score a few million dollars for District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller.

When Stacy Parks Miller failed to understand how Rule 1.6 Confidentiality concealed corruption and crime within the Office of the District Attorney, she forged a judge’s signature and quickly learned the difference between a crime… and an abuse of power.

A DA who commits forgery cannot assert attorney-client privilege to prevent prosecution. IT’S A CRIME.

However, the DA’s staff benefits from that privilege which MANDATES confidentiality and non-disclosure. Permitting any corruption and crime within law enforcement to be completely ignored is AN ABUSE OF POWER.

Not understanding the nuance of the privilege, there was no intervention to prevent the investigation into Parks-Miller’s crime.

After the PA Office of the Attorney General chose not to prosecute the crime, Parks Miller decided to rise up in righteous indignation against those who attempted to prosecute her. She would retaliate against those who witnessed, exposed and investigated. Her CRIME was unintentional… She had intended to commit an ABUSE OF POWER. However, her retaliation was intentional, vindictive, contrived … and incomprehensible because the issue with the confidentiality she didn’t understand is CONFIDENTIAL.

Leveraging the “courtesy” of the OAG which did not prosecute … and … efforts which prevent exposure that Rule 1.6 is corrupt, unconstitutional and was improperly enacted by the judiciary without Legislature, Governor or review for constitutionality. Bruce Castor was hired to file a federal civil suit seeking millions in damages which failed to indicate that his client has intended an ABUSE OF POWER and not a CRIME.

It would be incorrect to interpret an OAG decision to ‘not prosecute’ to mean that a crime did not occur.

It could be said that Bruce Castor was playing every sides of Rule 1.6 corruption. That would be accurate. But, he was aware that the effort to conceal Rule 1.6 was tremendous and MANDATORY. Castor aggressively retaliates against people who could not be expected to know the subtle nuances between the CRIME and the ABUSE OF POWER. Also, THEY COULD NOT BE INFORMED OF THOSE DIFFERENCES BECAUSE IT WOULD VIOLATE PRIVILEGED INFORMATION.

Several reports of Castor’s filings being incomprehensible would be logical and expected where Castor had to avoid any references to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality. Rule 1.6 nondisclosure applies to itself. Even the indication that non-disclosure is pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality violates Rule 1.6 Confidentiality.

Bruce Castor is a Special District Attorney in Centre County appointed by the Centre County District Attorney whom he is representing in a federal civil suit against Centre County officials. Castor demonstrates his ability to ignore rules, laws, ethics, conflicts or constitutions.

Exposing the devastating effects of an unconstitutional law enacted by the PA Supreme court would adversely affect the integrity of the court. The PA Supreme court lacked jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of their own improper law. Additionally, the PA Supreme Court would have a conflict of interest regarding any effort to review. Indicating the Supreme Court’s conflict of interest would violate Rule 1.6 Confidentiality.

Rule 1.6 had concealed Cash for Kids, the Sandusky molestations, The Foreclosure crisis, … Rule 1.6 had allowed injustice to ruin people’s lives while being completely ignored by law enforcement. The reports (by lawyers) were sanitized to avoid indicating the problem with confidentiality was confidential. Rule 1.6 prevented the reports on those scandals from indicating that Rule 1.6 caused the scandals to be ignored until someone violated Rule 1.6. Those whistleblowers were disciplined in confidential proceedings.

Bruce Castor knew that he was leveraging even more with his retaliatory legal action. Rule 1.6 is not exclusive to Pennsylvania. The American Bar Association had promoted it to EVERY state.

An UNCONSTITUTONAL confidentiality law which causes a defendant to be denied ALL Constitutional rights AND prevented from any protection of the law AND left without any remedy or resolution EVER. That you may not have heard of it is indicative of its affect. All over the US, it could be witnessed in the inexplicable failure to offer any reasonable explanation for inaction by law enforcement. Every American Injustice which has been ignored shows the affect of a Rule 1.6 mandate of confidentiality. There have been scandals, riots and protests nationwide. The problem was not any of the things which were suggested – race, sex, nationality, gender, guns, police, hatred, religion. The problem was the thing not mentioned because the confidentiality problem is CONFIDENTIAL

Rule 1.6 has undermined the state and federal judiciary and denied people of their constitutionally protected rights NATIONWIDE. The cause of the constitutional crisis in America which had been concealed since 1984.

Bruce Castor was clearly going “ALL IN”. But, He had personal experience to leverage.

As District Attorney in Montgomery County, Bruce Castor had understood Rule 1.6. He protected the privileged information of his staff. Castor didn’t make the Parks-Miller mistake. Castor had people to do things for him. The law required him to protect them.

Castor ignored the victims of injustice and crimes. He did so pursuant to Rule 1.6 by simply ignoring them. The Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association provided training.

Risa Vetri Ferman followed that same playbook. Where she rose from the ranks in the DA’s office, she had her own skeletons which Castor had ignored. It was necessary to secure those skeletons as Rule 1.6 would not apply now that she was District Attorney. Grand Juries were utilized to provide Confidentiality for past misdeeds, while current staff activities would be protected by Rule 1.6.

Ferman ignored the victims of injustice and crimes. Persistence by victims was met with retaliatory injustice which was very aggressive. Administrative Resolutions left victims homeless and destitute; OR incarcerated; OR victims of Suicide.

Ferman brought a false perjury charge against Attorney General Kathleen Kane who had looked into the injustice and constitutional issues.

Ferman brought charges of terroristic threats after a man notified PA Governor Tom Wolf, and the entire PA Legislature of his personal experience with the courts, 10 years of injustice and an unconstitutional Confidentiality. The course of that criminal action demonstrates the complete failure to follow any procedure or law by an assistant District Attorney. His rights are disregarded where pursuant to Rule 1.6, the ADA must be protected from prosecution by a District Attorney. (Commonwealth v. Healy)

The failure to follow the laws of the Commonwealth leaves the judge without jurisdiction in the criminal case.

The failure to follow the laws of the Commonwealth leaves the ADA without a client in the criminal case. Every action is an Abuse of Power Under Color of Law with Intent to Intimidate and Harass. She continues to terrorize in the name of the DA who conceals the corruption and abuse. They have NO OFFICIAL AUTHORITY, they continue to terrorize while the judge ignores their farce. One person who could intervene, the Attorney General, remains silent while facing the same corruption and abuse in the next courtroom.

Kevin Steele has inherited the retaliatory actions of Ferman, and the ongoing farce of the criminal prosecutions, and the grand juries.

Preventing the exposure of decades of corrupt, unconstitutional and retaliatory actions of Montgomery County, the Rule 1.6 Confidentiality Problem is ripe for exposure and resolution.

Staffers in the OAG have made allegations against Attorney General Kathleen Kane. Kane has denied the allegations. Montgomery County has charged her with Perjury.

Kane has been silent.

Kane is prevented from disclosing any criminal or corrupt activities by the OAG staff – clients pursuant to Rule 1.6 privilege – unless defending herself before a tribunal. The Gansler Report will likely provide tremendous insight.

Kane is NOT permitted to indicate that Rule 1.6 factors in the case, because THAT would indicate the existence of privileged information which must be kept confidential. Rule 1.6 prevents the indication that Rule 1.6 is a factor in the matter. There have been aggressive and coercive efforts seeking to get that statement which could result in disbarrment. Kane has been silent.

Rule 1.6 would prevent prosecution of corrupt OAG staff, but not prevent them from being fired. Court Orders from Montgomery County were issued to prevent retaliatory termination. When fired for causes Kane could not disclose or prosecute, the staffers alleged retaliation and contempt in further litigation.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane has contracted Doug Gansler on behalf of the Commonwealth. Kane was determined to eliminate any confidentiality privilege from the review of OAG email. Within the OAG, the comfort of mandatory confidentiality concealed abuse of power, corruption and crimes, The Gansler Report would indicate any improper activities’; include pornographic email; include efforts to ignore the victims of injustice and crimes; and offer indications of any coordinated efforts seeking to undermine AG Kane.

Bruce Castor, now Solicitor General in the OAG, has received the Gansler Report and rejected it. Rule 1.6 mandates his effort to prevent privileged information from being disclosed.

Bruce Castor would prevent it from AG Kane and the OAG.
Governor Wolf would be blocked by the Office of General Counsel.
The Legislature would be blocked by the Leadership, their counsel and the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.

The State Police is the only law enforcement organization unencumbered by the Rule 1.6 confidentiality.

[One can only imagine that Doug Gansler has provided his report to Kathleen Kane to use in her defense.]
AT THAT TIME… Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY will not be mandated. The Rule 1.6 issue can be presented and demonstrated for its unconstitutional affect on Kathleen Kane – with personal standing and a cause for relief which permits her to address the unconstitutional law.

Lack of Personal Standing had previously prevented Kane from challenging several ‘secret orders from unidentified courts’ which had required her to personally neglect the responsibilities of the Office of the Attorney General. Addressing the constitutionality of laws within the Commonwealth is ONE responsibility of the Attorney General.

Efforts which prevent or delay Kane from her opportunity to defend against the allegations have been disregarded by the news media. Her criminal trial was scheduled one year after the date when the charges were filed. All preliminary efforts to dismiss the matter have been denied without explanation.

Requests for the Recusal of Montgomery County Judiciary have been denied without explanation. Clearly, there is an appearance of impropriety?
However, Admitting to any appearance of impropriety would be indicative of the existence of privileged information. Rule 1.6 Non-disclosure prevents any explanation for denial of the motion to recuse.

Rule 1.6 also prevents the court from indicating a clear conflict of interest.

Failure to indicate the conflict of interest or address any impropriety undermines the independence of the judiciary which is an essential element for jurisdiction. The court lacks jurisdiction to proceed, but Rule 1.6 prevents the court from disclosing the lack of jurisdiction. Rule 1.6 has undermined the judiciary.

Every effort has been made to impeach Attorney General Kathleen Kane based on allegations.

There was NO HEARING before the Supreme Court regarding her professional license.

The Senate held hearings to determine if they would impeach her based on allegations without a conviction.

The House is currently pursuing an impeachment effort by Rep. Todd Stephens, a former MontCo ADA. Stephens is also a moron.

Kane’s law license was revoked by the Supreme Court based on the recommendation after a disciplinary action where she was NOT permitted to present any defense.

These actions are being conducted prior to any conviction, and without any hearing where Kane could present a defense.

These deliberate efforts seek to perpetuate, and to protect, and to conceal an unconstitutional abuse of power and corruption within law enforcement that undermines the authority of the entire judiciary and threatens the rights of every American at the exclusive and arbitrary discretion of the District Attorneys.

1. While affected by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality, The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter or render a verdict. JURISDICTION IS NOT INHERENT. Jurisdiction cannot be derived from the failure to indicate the lack of jurisdiction.

2. When presenting a defense before a court or tribunal, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality does NOT hinder or prevent the disclosure of any information by the Defendant. At a Hearing, Attorney General Kathleen Kane would be permitted to reveal the improperly enacted and unconstitutional confidentiality law

An overwhelming mountain of leverage – the people, the corruption, the magnitude of the injustice.

Up against the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the venerated Supreme Law of The Land which every lawyer, judge and government official has sworn to uphold, preserve, protect, and defend… to the best of their ability. That “ability” has been compromised by an improperly enacted and unconstitutional state confidentiality law which serves to completely undermine the Constitution of the United States, prevent justice, ignore law, and deny the rights of every American.

After 30 years, the Constitution of the United States is in a position to be rebooted. It is an inevitability.

Just hours after preventing the Gansler Report, Bruce Castor filed an amended petition in the federal court.

It would appear there may be NO REDEMPTION for the author of a New Years Eve Manifesto of December 31, 2014.


“You don’t go to war with a person who spends his/her professional life figuring how to [screw] others…” – Bruce Castor

“Career lawmen think strategically. They don’t go for the immediate gratification of a personal attack, instead preferring to set the board up just right and striking at the precise moment where the object of the attack cannot recover.” – Bruce Castor

“The moral: don’t pick a political fight against someone schooled in how to really hurt you.” – Bruce Castor


My theory on Facebook stupidity has been proven. It’s an organized effort.

The ultimate proof occurred when a person who kept interrupting a discussion, and preventing the discussion, and inflicting his OPINIONS but suggesting they were facts, refusing to be ignored… Apparently butthurt, he reported the following comment for ‘not following the Facebook Community Standards.” .

I had written:
“Are you one of those trolls who just writes stupid stuff to see if people will let you interrupt their discussion. Like a rude child trying to get attention. Run along…”


Anyone who has encountered the trolls on Facebook, or anywhere online, would be hard pressed to even describe the post as argumentative. Yet, it resulted in a restriction on EVERYTHING. No posts, No replies, No updates, No groups posts, No messaging, NO FACEBOOK COMMUNICATION AT ALL WITH ANYONE. This new flavor of “Facebook Jail” seems aggressive as punishment for telling someone to RUN ALONG.

The truth of the matter is simple. In one day, I exposed about 15 fake accounts. People who post fake stories and attempt to encourage hate. There were also a few who flaunted their Facebook Law Degree by inflicting fake law scripts which suggest ridiculous legal activity – made hopeless because the Queen of England runs the world – but, they fail to support their info. When they used their info to support their info, it showed them as FRAUDS.

I’ve been watching the posts of these people for years. I read their ‘crazy’ horseshit. I watched how they distributed it. Never their own articles, just hateful misleading writing of other PUBLISHED on web sites. Always absent facts. Always presenting OPINION, but trying to call it fact. Always presenting falsehoods, but trying to call them facts.

I TESTED MY THEORY… I questioned everything. I used logic. I was polite. I challenged facts. Their unsupported facts were substantiated by opinions. I pressed for their motivation for posting disinformation.

Nobody blocked me. Their “friends”, fake friends, attacked with all kinds of insults and names. Some suggested there is a First Amendment Right to provide their opinion even if it is not fact. Um, NO, there is not.

There have been harassment teams. I watched their tactics. Studied. Learned. Identified. Once their tactic was identified and stated, their effort became less tactical and more like a pidgeon shitting all over the place and acting like it was winning.

It has always disgusted me that these teams were often organized to demoralize and attack parents going through divorce, custody and parental alienation. When you survive 10 years of this type of situation, you learn to recognize and notice the patterns and scripts. Outlasting quite a few pretenders. Exposing others with their subsequent disappearance. There are some true and sincere people helping other people – and they also know the fakes.

It should come as no surprise that there are disinformation teams. Often, the disinformation seeks to create anger and hate and violence. There is also a specialized disinformation team that focuses on legal-eze. Large long chaotic unorganized documents with silly legal references. They often try to convince you that the world is flat, and all lawyers report directly to the Queen of England. They seem to think that because they have provided this information to you, multiple times, in the exact same form and structure, you are expected to believe it. I do have a big problem when people try to humiliate other people. For that reason, I try not to interact with those in this category. BUT, they seek me out. They are ever determined to be the one to “help me understand”. I also see them interacting with people who are looking for help. They disgust me.

The easiest thing to do would be to attack the “Rule 1.6 issue”. I offered it everywhere it fit. SO, YES. EVERYWHERE.

UNTOUCHED. Perhaps because EVERY time someone has challenged my information they have been proven wrong. Discussion has only served to advance my point. I answered the questions. Never avoided or sidestepped. The result was honing my ability to get the answer in as few sentences as possible; and knowing where they would strike to try to disprove me. Their zeal for attacking issues related to a concept they were not aware of previously was remarkable.

In the last few weeks, I have been placing blame firmly with the American Bar Association. The only way they can avoid the inevitable exposure of their treason and the decimation of the Public Trust in the Judiciary would be riots, civil war, cataclysm.

I think an organization which has so determinedly acted without morals, ethics, scruples, or empathy to cause, conceal and prevent correction of a deliberate act which undermined EVERY state and federal judiciary; and which denied and prevented the constitutional rights of Americans; and where their MEMBERS have acted to conceal their corruption and prevent correction;…


They sure as fuck do not intend to participate in their own rehabilitation.



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.

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

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.

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.



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:


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.



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.


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



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

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



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.


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.


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.

* * * * * * * * * *


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


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).


Kathleen Kane
Pennsylvania 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
[ 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.)


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

%d bloggers like this: