2015
09.17

Every public official has an Oath.  Getting the official signed copy is no big deal.  Using a search warrant is OVERKILL.  

Why create the drama of using a search warrant and ‘raiding’ the Offices of the Attorney General. 

Sources: Thursday search of AG Kane’s office was targeted to grand jury secrecy oath

New Search Warrant Executed at AG Kanes office

Kane’s office searched by Montgomery County detectives

Seeking out the OFFICIAL copy of an OATH is a game which “internet lawyers” have been suggesting people seek out to suggest that judges and officials are not following their oaths. 

It’s an annoyance… A misdirection which lawyers mock because every oath is undermined by the Rules of Professional Conduct.

One law usurps and ignores all rules, procedures, laws, statutes and constitutions…. It’s confidential though.

There is actually a law which requires all lawyers and judges to maintain confidentiality and Non-disclosure even where the law is not followed and constitutionally protected rights are being Ignored and denied.  Rule 1.6 affects the substantive rights of litigants in this way.  As such, the Article V Section 10 c authority for the judiciary to enact the law is INVALID, IMPROPER, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality prevents the court from revealing they have been undone and their authority usurped by the author of the unconstitutional law.  The American Bar Association.

The idea that public officials are not following their oaths is EVIDENT… Not one official does anything to preserve protect or defend the Constitution of the United States.  In the case of lawyers, they are mandated by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality (which includes Attorney Client Privilege).

Court clerks don’t go to jail for violating peoples rights for marriage licenses.  No prosecution, either.  They go to jail for contempt of court for not following an order of the court.  Why is there no prosecution for their violation of the Constitutional rights of Americans?  Confidentiality prevents prosecution.

Where the government is the largest entity able to violate Constitutional rights, the obligation of Confidentiality and Non-disclosure of their clients wrongdoing results in the Attorneys General and District Attorneys having no ability to prosecute violations of law and constitutional rights within government agencies and departments

Rule 1.6 undermines law enforcement and usurps the authority of the judiciary.  The victims have no recourse.


Clearly, an Attorney Client privilege relationship DOES NOT EXIST between Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Ferman and Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

Where there may be a privileged relationship between Attorney General and District Attorney, Kathleen Kane is prevented from disclosure unless and until she is defending herself in court. This explains the trial by media misinformation.

You have to wonder why the District Attorney prosecuting Attorney General Kathleen Kane is seeking to attack the media statements which the Attorney General has offered.

One might think that there is nothing solid to connect Kane to the leak.

Those OAG employees involved who had supposedly testified against Kane to the Grand jury have been embarassed by emails which demonstrate VERY UNPROFESSIONAL on the job activity.  Many have been fired or left the OAG.  By law, Kane cannot expose crimes committed by persons in the OAG.  Attorney-client privilege applies even when their crime is falsely accusing the Attorney General.

The document which is at the center of the leak IS NOT ACTUALLY THE LEAKED DOCUMENT.  ITS A COPY.

Though the prosecutor described the document and its cover in ridiculously needless and exhaustingly repetitive detail… IT TURNS OUT that the clear plastic cover and heavy cardboard backing were not available. Thrown away.  Along with any possible forensic evidence (fingerprints, printer identifier, etc…) which could identify those who handled the document.  Whether it be Kane herself, or those who are attempting to set her up.

The prosecutor spent such an exhausting amount of time describing the report and cover.  And who would have handled it, placed it, skimmed it, reviewed it, seen it, discussed it,… Over and over, clear plastic cover, blue backing.

FINALLY, When Kane’s attorney inquired about forensic testing of the cover and document ONLY to find out the originalS are not available and the cover was trashed, a packed courtroom collectively exhaled… ARE YOU F’ing KIDDING ME?

The prosecution wasted hours describing it and it isn’t available.  When the actions of the prosecutor are NOT about getting to the truth,  the effort to exhaust people with misleading information is reprehensible…

People are figuring out that the case against Attorney General Kathleen Kane is a farce.  They await the other shoe… Why are they really going after Kathleen Kane?

Attorney General Kathleen Kane is aware of the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF RULE 1.6 and its affect on litigants, law enforcement, and the judiciary.  Problem is that when demonstrated to be unconstitutional, SECRET ORDERS FROM UNIDENTIFIED COURTS ordered the person, Kathleen Kane, to neglect the responsibilities of the Office of Attorney General to which she had been popularly elected… AND ORDERED NONDISCLOSURE OF THE CONTENTS OF THOSE ORDERS.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL RULE 1.6 was ‘secretly’ recaste into a direct order to continue unconstitutional confidentiality. Continuing the denial of the protection of the law and denial of constitutionally protected rights of an individual left without recourse and suffering further injustice. Rule 1.6 is the cause of AMERICAN INJUSTICE IGNORED.

The Attorney General cannot prosecute employees (clients) who deliberately bungle cases, BUT she can fire them.  So she did.

Attorney Client Privilege would even conceal if a criminal porn syndicate involved OAG employees.  BUT, Kane could fire them! So she did.

They could retaliate knowing (as lawyers do know) that Kane, as Attorney General with multiple Attorney Client relationships throughout the govt, would be mandated by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information to maintain secrecy.

Rule 1.6 has unconstitutional affects which ignore the rights of litigants while concealing the corruption of government employees WHO CANNOT BE PROSECUTED.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAS AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP PROTECTING CORRUPT STATE AND COUNTY EMPLOYEES FROM PROSECUTION.

But Kane could fire them… So she did.

The same cannot be said for Montgomery County DA Risa Ferman who continues to use her position to deny protection of the law, ignore Constitutional rights, and protect the corrupt individuals, departments and agencies which she represents.

When Ferman became DA she vowed to prosecute corruption .  Embarassingly, Ferman set up a group to investigate corruption. Then, she found out that she protects the corrupt county personnel as their attorney. Her corruption investigators disappeared without a single case.

One difference… The corrupt personnel within Montgomery County continue their corruption and injustice against people who have no recourse for the injustice they receive.  The corruption grows unchecked. 

Ferman could fire them… BUT SHE DOESN’T.

Risa Ferman is none too happy that the Pennsylvania Attorney General has access and ownership of ALL INVESTIGATIVE DATA in the state… The Attorney General has all the collected investigative information and evidence of corruption concealed by an unconstitutional silence.  Even the Montgomery County  corruption improperly concealed by ‘investigative grand juries’.

Those secret orders from unidentified courts… were issued in regard to one case in Montgomery County.  The corruption was so deliberate.  The conspiracy to deny justice was so determined, so undeniable and absolute.  The participation of each county office and agency was coordinated by District Attorney Risa Ferman who also prevented any investigation by county, state and federal authorities.

The events of the case are well documented… on the court record… and on the web… A TERRORISTIC DIVORCE. 

Nine years and counting.  Over 20 Montgomery County judges.  Exposing the undermining efforts of corruption in every state and federal court and jurisdiction.  Concealed by lawyers mandated to follow an unconstitutional Confidentiality.

I don’t hate lawyers.  I do hate the unconstitutional law which has annihilated my life, family, and friends. 

I am not a lawyer.  I do not have to keep their secret.  I’ve been called “the worst kept secret in Pennsylvania”. 

Unconstitutional Rule 1.6 is exposed.  Justice Is Coming. 

Life without protection of the law and constitutional rights is only surviving… where I have no other choice but to persevere while the corruption fights back.

2015
09.17

#3151-15
#MJ-38118-CR-0000096-2015

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
Terance Healy

STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2015

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

My appearance at this, or any, proceeding should not be misconstrued in any way to suggest or indicate any waiver of any protection of the law or the constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which provide for the jurisdiction of the courts.

ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE ISSUES DIRECTLY WERE UNANSWERED

The attorney for the Commonwealth and the Montgomery County District Attorney have been contacted to address those issues which affect the proceeding on this date. THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE.

I appear at this time in the interest of resolving necessary issues which will permit me to prepare to represent and defend myself.

This document incorporates and includes the following documents filed in this matter in their entirety:
– Statement of Defendant on April 9, 2015
– Letter to District Attorney Risa Ferman
– Notice to Appear for Arraignment
– Statement of Defendant on June 10, 2015
– Letter to Attorney General Kathleen Kane on June 11, 2015
– Waiver of Arraignment – coerced under duress on June 10, 2015
– Challenge to Jurisdiction dated June 19, 2015
– Letter dismissing a Private Criminal Complaint dated June 23, 2015
– Statement of Defendant on August 10, 2015.

DELIBERATE ACTIONS WHICH UNDERMINE/PREVENT APPEAL

The documents in this matter neglect to indicate the elements necessary for the jurisdiction of this court.

The failure of the attorney for the Commonwealth to follow the laws and procedures of the Commonwealth cause a lack of jurisdiction for this court to review or decide on this matter.

The documents in this matter have not been docketed in a timely manner.

The documents in this matter have not been provided to the Defendant.

The documents in this matter have not been signed by the judge.

These deliberate failures prevent timely appeal and additionally prevent any review where jurisdiction is lacking to review the matter on Appeal.

FAILURE TO NOTIFY

The notification of the proceeding today was listed, however the Defendant received no notice from the court.

DELIBERATE NEGLECT AND FAILURE BY THE ATTORNEY FOR THE COMMONWEALTH

The attorney for the commonwealth is a client of the District Attorney.

The attorney-client privilege aspect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information prevents any actions to address the deliberate failures to follow the Law, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the US Constitution where the attorney deliberates neglecting her responsibilities is represented by the District Attorney.

DELIBERATE NEGLECT AND FAILURE BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER

A Public Defender has indicated that he has been assigned to the case and has begun filing documents.

He has not contacted the Defendant, nor has he returned calls, nor has he provided copies of the documents purportedly filed on the behalf of the Defendant.

The Public Defender is a client of the District Attorney.

The attorney-client privilege aspect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information prevents any actions to address the deliberate failures to follow the Law, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the US Constitution where the attorney deliberates neglecting his responsibilities is represented by the District Attorney.


THE HEARING TO DETERMINE ANY NECESSITY FOR REPRESENTATION IS SET TO SEPTEMBER 18, 2015. YET, A PUBLIC DEFENDER HAS ALREADY FILED IN THIS MATTER.
INCOMPLETE INFORMATION DOCUMENTS

The Documents provided within the INFORMATION are incomplete. The District Attorney’s Office has neglected to address the reported issues, or to return calls and messages.

NON-WAIVER OF COUNSEL

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 where comprehension, acknowledgement and experience demonstrate the affect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information which causes the facts to be ignored.

Defendant recognizes that this Court will likely proceed without regard for the procedures and laws established in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and THAT DELIBERATE AND BLATANT DISREGARD will be ignored at every level of the Court pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

The Defendant recognizes that the judiciary have improperly enacted Rule 1.6 into law without authority.

The Defendant recognizes that the judiciary have mandated CONFIDENTIALITY with regard to the improperly enacted and collaterally unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

The Defendant has communicated the issue to the Pennsylvania Legislature as the Legislature has the sole authority to suspend a law pursuant to the Constitution Of Pennsylvania.

The Defendant has communicated the issue to Governor Thomas Wolf as the governor has the authority to call the Legislature to Harrisburg to address the issue.

The Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Kathleen Kane, has been kept informed of the matter as her responsibilities include review of the constitutionality of laws within the commonwealth.

Kathleen Kane has indicated in the media that ‘secret orders from unidentified courts’ mandate that she personally neglect the responsibilities of the Office of the Attorney General to which she was elected.

– Those orders correspond to actions in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania where the responsibilities to address the constitutionality of a state law pursuant to Rule 521 has resulted in the unavailability of orders and documents in several cases. The Superior Court has not substantiated their actions in law.

THE DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE LAWS AND THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND THE NEGLECT BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND THE ATTORNEY FOR THE COMMONWEALTH CAUSE A DENIAL OF THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW FOR THE DEFENDANT AND IGNORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT… while concealed and remaining unaddressed pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The actions of the Court in this matter are UNEXPLAINED and/or UNSUBSTANTIATED where issues which have not been addressed by the District Attorney deny the court of proper subject matter jurisdiction in this matter due to deliberate procedural errors, the failure to follow procedures and laws, and the failure to address the rights of the defendant protected by the constitution of the United States.


The following topics require more research and effort on the part of the Defendant who has not been provided time to research and prepare while attempting to address the issues involved in the matter before this Court.

In the interest of keeping the Court advised and informed of issues and questions which are raised regarding the matter, the Defendant respectfully provides the following listing:

1. The Defendant requests to be formally informed of the Charges against him.

2. The ‘Arraignment’ paperwork indicates “SEE TRANSCRIPT” yet, the Defendant has not been provided the transcripts for the matter.

3. The revised copies of the complaint have not been signed by the District Attorney as required by law.

4. Their appears to be a conflict of interest with the Montgomery County Judiciary. A majority of the judges having been directly involved in matters which relate to this case since 2007.

5. Their appears to be a conflict of interest where the matters directly relate to ‘secret orders from unidentified courts’ which prevent Kathleen Kane from her elected responsibilities as Attornry General of Pennsylvania.

6. There appears to be a direct conflict of interest where the Montgomery County District Attorney has neglected to address, investigate, prosecute or respond to criminal complaints which relate to the matter and which demonstrate the ‘confidential’ neglect caused by Rule 1.6.

7. The Defendant requests the Court excuse the costs of subpoenas which must be served in this matter to properly prepare a defense. Subpoenas must be served upon the entire Pennsylvania Legislature, several courts which have neglected to provide documents, the Office of the Attorney General, county and local law enforcement agencies, and others.

8. The Defendant has not received complete documentation in the INFORMATION recently received from the District Attorneys office which has been contacted and refused to address the missing documents and pages.

9. An apparent forgery of the signature of Risa Vetri Ferman appears on the incomplete INFORMATION when compared to the signature which appears on the Complaint served upon Kathleen Kane in recent days.

10. Where the incomplete information prevents the Defendant from preparing an effective and complete defense to the, as yet, informal charges identified, Defendant requests the Court address the failure to of the District Attorneys office to follow procedures and laws and provide a deadline for the production of items which have been available for the preparation of the case against him.

DEATH THREAT

Within the INFORMATION paperwork provided was a five page document from a witness in the matter which demonstrates an effort to provision, plan and train to kill the Defendant based on irrational, paranoid and delusional events.

The District Attorney’s Office have had this document since March and failed to advise the Defendant of this credible threat to his life.

The witness is living in the Defendant’s Home and has not produced any documents which contradict the documented, reported and neglected fraudulent conveyance of the property, or demonstrate a ‘purported’ lawful ownership of the property.

The Office of the District Attorney has refused to address the issue.

The Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas has improperly denied jurisdiction with prejudice.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania documents are incomplete, unsubstantiated, and unsigned. The paperwork supports the decision of the lower court.

Where access to the courts is being improperly prevented by an incorrect lack of jurisdiction, the matter was raised in February to the Governor and the Legislature to address this lack of jurisdiction. It is my understanding that my document is the basis for the criminal charges.

Yet, a letter which clearly plans, provisions and trains for the Defendant’s execution based on detailed deluded and paranoid ideations has been ignored.

The true threat in this matter is being ignored. Rule 1.6 has that influence on the integrity of the judiciary and the legal profession while under a confidential mandate to undermine and deny the constitutional rights of litigants.

Respectfully Submitted,
Terance Healy

%d bloggers like this: