2013
10.03

( PDF )

IN THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NORRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA

Terance Healy :
  : #2013-29976
v. :
  :
David R. Miller :
Jennifer K. Miller :

CIVIL COMPLAINT – ACTION IN EJECTMENT

JURISDICTION

1. The Court has jurisdiction in ths matter as the matter is being brought in the county where the land is located, ia a matter relating to civil trespass, where there are no criminal charges currently being filed by the Plaintiff; where there is no financial considerations currently being sought by the Plaintiff.

OWNERSHIP

2. Pursuant to Rule 1054, Plaintiff, Terance Healy, asserts his ownership of the property located at 110 Banbury Avenue, North Wales, PA 19454.

3. The Deed to the Property lists the Plaintiff as Grantee. [ Exhibit A ]

4. The instruments filed regarding the Property identified by Montgomery County as Parcel #46-00-00467-11-7 confirms the transfer of the title to the Plaintiff recorded on 1/16/1996.

5. A list of instruments recorded by the Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds which related to the property/parcel is attached. [ Exhibit B ]

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE

6. The transfer of the deed to the Miller’s represents a fraudulent conveyance of the property;
a) Fraud: A person represents that they are the true owner of the land, but they are not.
b) Forgery: A person has given a forged Deed.
c) A Bad Power of Attorney: A person claims to have “power of attorney” but does not have the legal authority to act for another person; the power of attorney if invalid; the power of attorney is not properly executed and or notarized.
d). misrepresentation of marital status.
e) Undue Influence
f) Mistakes were made recording legal documents
g) Falsified title records
h) Representations on legal documents are invalid or incorrect.

NOTICE TO TRESPASSERS

7. Notice having been provided as a courtesy on July 26, 2013 at the property. (1) stapled to the front door frame, (2) stapled to the garage door frame and (3) stapled to the Mail box post. [ Exhibit C ]

8. No notice is required by law.

9. Receipt of Notice having been acknowledged by phone from Montgomery Township Police, officer McGuigan.

10. Plaintiff makes no allegation of Criminal Trespass at this time. This is a civil matter, Police involvement is unnecessary and outside their jurisdiction.

DAMAGES

11. Plaintiff is not currently seeking damages, however does not waive damages and reserves that right which may be asserted upon gaining access to the property.

COMPLAINT – CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

12. Plaintiff provides this Honorable Court with a copy of a document filed on August 8, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which challenges the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and has been served upon Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General and the Attorneys General of the United States. [ Exhibit D ]

13. “The Rules of Professional Conduct set out the minimum ethical standards for the practice of law and constitute a set of rules which all lawyers must follows.” – The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

14. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information causes a denial of the constitutionally protected rights to petition the Government for redress of grievances (First Amendment); causes a denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without duie process of law (Fifth Amendment); which causes the denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law by a State (Fourteenth Amendment).

15. Plaintiff believes that Defendant is a currently practicing legal professional who ‘must follow’ the Rules of Professional Conduct, and as such Plaintiff asserts that any misrepresentation made by Defendant will be lawfully ignored by this Honorable Court resulting in the denial of Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights.

16. The potential of a represented party intentionally introducing an act of fraud or misconduct which triggers the loss of constitutionally protected rights when facing a Pro Se litigant creates a situation which would demand strict actions regarding misconduct.

17. Those lawful practices endorsed and enabled by the Rules of Professional Conduct are unconstitutional and as such are a nullity.

18. Plaintiff does NOT ALLEGE knowledge of any prior misconduct by the Defendants, and is respectfully not acting with the intent to disparage, undermine or disrespect the Defendants or adversely affect the integrity of this Honorable Court.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable court issue an Order for Ejectment and permit the Plaintiff to safely return to the property of which he has been lawfully granted exclusive use and occupancy.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy





CASE DOCUMENTS
Civil Complaint – Action in Ejectment ( PDF )

Emergency Praecipe for Immediate Eviction / Order of Possession( PDF )

Emergency Praecipe for Immediate Eviction/Order of Possession (Addendum)( PDF )

Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and Defendant’s Memorandum of Law ( PDF )

Plaintiff Responds to Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and Defendant’s Memorandum of Law
( PDF )

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: