2015
12.30

image

2015
12.23

image

2015
12.22

On October 27, 2015, the issues surrounding a letter were raised to the attention of the Superior Court and the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. PDF Notice/Letter

There has been no response, or reaction.

On November 9, 2015, the issues surrounding ANOTHER letter were raised to the attention of the superior Court and the the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. PDF Notice/Letter

There has been no response, or reaction.

Were these letters actually written and sent by Judge William Carpenter to the Superior Court Prothonotary?
– signatures are ARTWORK, not an original signature
– Letterhead seems to be authentic
– Envelope seems to be authentic
– Judge Carpenter has not indicated his responsibility for the letters.
– The first letter attempts to have the Deputy Prothonotary quash an Appeal to the Superior Court.
– Judge Carpenter had given permission for the Appeal to proceed.
– The Rules of Appellate Procedure do NOT provide for letters from judges to obstruct or interfere with an Appeal. As such, the letter is improper, unethical and where seeking to undermine, obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice.
– The letter was sent to me AND to the Deputy Prothonotary of the Superior Court.
– The second letter incorrectly indicates or suggests the reason for the filing of a second Appeal to The Superior Court.
– The Superior Court has not acted in response to the letter, although there have been a series of unsigned, undated and unsubstantiated Per Curiam orders issued seeking to dismiss the Appeals.

Those orders are addressed in MOTIONS in the following documents:
REGARDING THE PER CURIAM ORDER filed December 8, 2015
REGARDING THE PER CURIAM ORDER filed December 9, 2015
REGARDING THE PER CURIAM ORDER filed December 9, 2015 – B
REGARDING THE PER CURIAM ORDER filed December 9, 2015 – C

QUESTIONS:

1) Does Judge William Carpenter admit responsibility for the letters?
– What is his motivation for the bold and deliberate breach of ethics, procedure, law and constitution?

2) Are the documents forgeries?
– Intimidation? Coercion? Extortion?
– The failure of the judge to clarify or indicate responsibility suggests forgery.
– An attempt to introduce further chaos into a criminal case initiated to intimidate, harass and prevent any recourse for justice.

3) There has been no response from the District Attorney, the Assistant District Attorney or their staff.

4) Where the Assistant District Attorney is a ‘client’ of the District Attorney, is the District Attorney mandated to nondisclosure of the any involvement of the District Attorneys Office?
– The District Attorney has ignored the COMPLETE denial of the rights of the Defendant.
– The District Attorney has NEGLECTED to investigate the coercion of a waiver of arraignment under duress and the direct threat of arrest/incarceration. The complaint was dismissed after the allegation was denied by Court Administration (Privileged clients of the DA). A statement filed concurrently with the coerced waiver clearly indicated the necessity of an Arraignment.
– The District Attorney has neglected to address the failure of her office to follow ANY Rule of Criminal Procedure. THIS IS NOT AN EXAGGERATION.
– The District Attorney, and her staff, have failed to respond to inquiries, statements, phone calls, etc…

The facts suggest that someone within the District Attorneys office has created and mailed the forged letters to myself and the Superior Court. They are protected from prosecution where the District Attorney does not prosecute the corruption and crimes within her own office.

The failure of the District Attorney to take action indicates participation in a conspiracy to undermine the independence of the judiciary, coerce decisions in the matters before the court, and a determination to elicit an outcome without basis in fact or substantiated by law.

AND THEN, there are all of the other documents which have been electronically signed, Some mailed, some not mailed. Not served, not provided, not docketed. This would suggest that Judge William Carpenter has only signed TWO orders in this matter. Only two NON-FORGERIES. The first is the subject of the initial appeal which seeks to require the Judge to produce a statement of jurisdiction where jurisdiction is defective, lacking and void because of the deliberate and absolute disregard for the Rule of Law, Rules of Criminal Procedure and the US Constitution, to name a few.

SO I ASK… AFTER 10 YEARS OF TERROR, HARASSMENT, INVESTIGATION and INJUSTICE, WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE ARREST RISA FERMAN BEFORE SHE HAS ME EXECUTED?

2015
12.22

It is called ‘paper terrorism’. It is INJUSTICE. Tedious. Unrelenting. Exhausting. It’s goal is THE DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS. It denies a right secured and protected by the US Constitution.

The actual people responsible AND any explanation or reasoning are kept CONFIDENTIAL. The Judiciary imagines their integrity and independence is not tainted by the Administration of Injustice.

Sometimes referred to as an ‘administrative resolution’, any failure to respond to paperwork demands; any failure to address errors; any failure to address fraud; any failure to respond; etc… can be ‘deemed’ as a broad waiver of any and all future opportunities to address any aspect. The administrative resolution is not about problem solving. The administrative solution seeks to ANY reason to dismiss the matter AND BLAME THE LITIGANT.

Every time your actions fail to permit Court Administration to ‘resolve’ the matter, the staff will become increasingly more rude and hostile. If you say “Good Morning” and the clerk disagrees, SECURITY may be called to escort you from the building for “inciting a riot”.

There are some ‘tells’.
– “I cannot give you legal advice.” in response to asking if there is a restroom nearby.
– “Are you a lawyer?” / “I am not a lawyer.” in response to even the most general question.
Everyday is this persons first day at their job. They know nothing… about anything… at all. Their script will begin to loop back to the other ‘tells’.

Court Administration has become trapped in their own manipulations. Preventing matters from any judicial review,the unsigned and undated and unsubstantiated and incorrect and improper and unnecessary manipulations by unidentified staffers seek to dismiss the matter and blame the litigant.

These are the corrupt manipulations of lawyers. Concealed by an unconstitutional confidentiality. Permitted, Ignored and Excused by District Attorneys.

As administration and staff lawyers likely have an attorney-client relationship with their boss, they cannot be prosecuted… UNLESS THEY GIVE PERMISSION TO EXPOSE THEIR CRIMES. AND… The boss would also be exposing the corruption within their own office.

The everyday corruption, injustice and unconstitutional actions within the District Attorneys office are ignored. Lives are destroyed. Families are annihilated. The DA cannot admit to the crimes of their staff, innocent people are railroaded AGGRESSIVELY into prisons.

When Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane became aware of the inescapable corruption, she investigated. District Attorney Risa Ferman retaliated… Well, her staff retaliated. The DA can protect, ignore and conceal the criminal actions of their STAFF, and their other clients.

The case of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane can confirm that a District Attorney can destroy anyone…. without evidence, without truth, without ethics, without oversight.

Former Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor said “You don’t go to war with a person who spends his/her professional life figuring out how to [screw] others.”

Disagree with the Montgomery County District Attorney and you may find yourself prosecuted for going to breakfast with a friend. Perjury is the GO TO crime to identify the Retaliating DA. The only requirement is for someone to think that you are lying AND to think that you know you are lying.
Ask Matthews. Ask Drexler. Ask Kane.

In Montgomery County, Commissioners had implemented an ETHICS PROGRAM which was approved by 2 of 3 commissioners. They did not realize their effort had ‘declared war’ on District Attorney Risa Ferman. Retaliation was broad and public, insidious and corrupt, cruel and destructive. Exoneration was slow, too late. Lives, families and reputations had been destroyed.
Ferman took the matter all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The law was overturned… THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE BECAME UNTOUCHABLE. (Who prosecutes criminal, unconstitutional and corrupt activities within the District Attorneys Office?)
— That ONE (1) VOTE against the program was Bruce Castor.

Where an undated, unsigned, unsubstantiated ‘per curiam’ order which contains ONLY ONE SENTENCE…
image

You are REQUIRED to respond or risk be dismissed.

The Per Curiam fails to provide a clear reference to the related documents. Each has a different nuance. The required responses are not identical.

Even referring to the order to which you are responding becomes tedious because of the lack of ANY specific reference or title.

You MUST respond or a non-response will be used to justify dismissal of the matter (in another undated, unsigned, ‘per curiam’ order).

It takes days, and a ream of paper. You respond:
REGARDING THE PER CURIAM ORDER filed DECEMBER 8, 2015
REGARDING THE PER CURIAM ORDER filed DECEMBER 9, 2015
REGARDING THE PER CURIAM ORDER filed DECEMBER 9, 2015 – B
REGARDING THE PER CURIAM ORDER filed DECEMBER 9, 2015 – C

… You survive another day. Until the next round. You cannot succeed or escape. You can only persist.
Should you somehow break free, it’s only temporary.

10 years of my life has been stolen. Terror intrudes into every day since 2007. Inescapable.

I am one of the victims that Kathleen Kane learned about. When ordered by ‘secret orders from unidentified Courts’ to personally ignore the responsibilities as Attorney General, Kane learned of a previously unimagineable level of public corruption within law enforcement and the courts.

The more Kane learned… The more Ferman retaliated.

2015
12.21

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA # 3234 EDA 2015
  # 3151-15
v. # 46-CR-0003151-2015
  # MJ-38118-CR-0000096-2015
Terance Healy  

REGARDING THE PER CURIAM ORDER FILED DECEMBER 9, 2015 – C

A Copy of the Order filed December 9, 2015 is attached in an effort to provide specificity with regard to the Order being addressed herein.

Appellant is unaware of any document filed in this matter by the Commonwealth (and NOT SERVED) which has challenged or contested ANY documents filed by the Appellant with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Appellant is unaware, and has not been advised nor informed of any proceeding or scheduled appearance held before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania for the purpose of addressing any uncontested Notice.

I. RESPONSE

The Appellant respectfully informs this Honorable Court that the subject Appeal is NOT an appeal of an interlocutory order.

This Appeal relates to a PETITION AND AFFADAVIT FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. The subject of the Appeal, the Order dated October 22, 2015 is GRANTED TO FILING FEE ONLY for this filing only. This limitation prevents the production of the transcript for the proceeding in the matter.

The brief proceeding conducted on October 14, 2015 contains the conditions of the verbal agreement between the Commonwealth and the Defendant with the approval and consent of the Court. The transcript of the proceeding on October 14, 2015 is an essential and necessary documentation of the issues relating to the earlier Appeal. (#3166 EDA 2015)

The Order filed December 9, 2015 improperly offers Pa.R.A.P. 341(b) as the applicable Rule of Law.

Pa.R.A.P. 552 Application to Lower Court for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis provides the applicable Rule of Law.

Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 552(e) “If the application is denied, in whole or in part, the court shall briefly state its reasons.

The Court has not provided any reasons or explanation in the Order.

II. MOTION FOR THE APPLICABLE RULE OF LAW – PER CURIAM

The Order filed December 9, 2015 is undated and unsigned and marked as a PER CURIAM Order.

The Order filed December 9, 2015 includes an improper application of an unrelated rule of Appellate procedure.

The Order filed December 9, 2015 seeks to quash the pending Appeal based on an unrelated Rule of Appellate procedure.

The Order filed December 9, 2015 has been issued where circumstances which apply to the interlocutory appeal and the permission granted by Judge Carpenter have been provided to the Superior Court on numerous occasions.
– Notice of Appeal
– Docketing Sheet

Appellant respectfully requests the Court indicate the applicable Rule of Law, Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule of Professional Conduct, or other law or statute which provides support for, excuses or permits, the rights of the Appellant in the matter to be ignored pursuant to an UNDATED, UNSIGNED and UNSUBSUBSTANTIATED Per Curiam Order.

Where the Appellant’s rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitution are being affected, a NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL has been filed as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 521).

The Attorney General will be better able to address any constitutional issues which arise in this matter if the decisions are substantiated by the applicable law.

III. MOTION FOR THE APPLICABLE RULE OF LAW – DEADLINE

Appellant respectfully requests the applicable Rule of Law, Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule of Professional Conduct, or other law or statute which permits the assignment of an arbitrary deadline for a response where ANY failure to comply with that deadline could result in the DENIAL of the Appeal, resulting in an implied waiver of rights which could result in the denial of constitutionally protected rights without opportunity for any recourse.

Where the Appellant’s rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitution are being affected, a NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL has been filed as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 521).

The Attorney General will be better able to address any constitutional issues which arise in this matter if the decisions are substantiated by the applicable law.

IV. MOTION FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE PERSON

The Order filed December 9, 2015 is UNDATED, UNSIGNED, UNSUBSTANTIATED and marked as PER CURIAM.

A Letter dated December 9, 2015, used as a transmittal, which accompanied the Order does NOT include an original signature but could be attributed to Deputy Prothonotary Michael A. DiPasquale.

The signature on the document is ARTWORK which fails to demonstrate any real evidence of the involvement of the Deputy Prothonotary in the filing or transmission of the Order to the Appellant and the others on the distribution list.

Appellant respectfully requests the Court indicate the applicable Rule of Law, Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule of Professional Conduct, or other law or statute which provides support for, excuses or permits, the use of any mark in place of an original signature on any court document filed or used in transmission to the litigants

Where the Appellant’s rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitution are being affected, a NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL has been filed as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 521).

The Attorney General will be better able to address any constitutional issues which arise in this matter if the decisions are substantiated by the applicable law.

THE RULEMAKING AUTHORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT

Article V Section 10 (c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution

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

Where any rule enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affects the rights of a litigant (abridged, enlarged or modified – directly, indirectly or collaterally), the Supreme Court has acted outside of the authority provided in the Pennsylvania Constitution.

CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW

Since Marbury v. Madison, the Judiciary has maintained the position as sole arbiter/decider when constitutionality is challenged.

There is no established process or procedure for constitutional review when the rule or law being challenged has been enacted by the judiciary.

An apparent and clear conflict of interest prevents the judiciary from any ability to address their own unconstitutional rule.

There is no provision for constitutional review by the Legislative or Executive Branch.

All law remains LAW until there is a determination of UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.

Once determined to be unconstitutional, it is NO LAW, a nullity, as if it had never existed.

A FURTHER COMPLICATION

When the improperly enacted and unconstitutional law IS CONCEALED by the CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION required of ALL legal professionals, lawyers and judges, at every level within the state and federally, the resolution is prevented by the lawyers inability to take any corrective action.

Exposure would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.

Exposure would violate the mandated CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

Confidentiality can collaterally trigger a denial of any Protection of the Law for a litigant, with ALL rights secured and protected by the US Constitution becoming unavailable to the litigant, ignored by legal professionals, and left unexplained pursuant to the mandate of confidentiality.

It is LAW, until it is not. Then, it never was.

OPPORTUNITY FOR RESOLUTION

While lawful exposure and resolution is available to me, as a non-lawyer litigant with damages and proper standing. There can be no mandate which requires the silence of any American Citizen while experiencing the denial of constitutionally protected rights and denied protection of the Rule of Law.

My efforts to address and resolve legal matters continue to be prevented by unexplained and unsubstantiated actions by lawyers, or court staff acting at the direction of their legal counsel.

While mandated by CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. They have acted to insulate and prevent the judiciary from being presented with any opportunity to review or addressing the constitutional issues affecting the Appellant.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has neglected to address the unconstitutional affect upon litigants within the courts.

The Legislature has neglected (or been prevented from) action to address the unconstitutional affect upon litigants within the courts.

The Governor’s Office of General Counsel have interfered, misinformed, obstructed and denied access to the Governor preventing any meeting, any discussion, any action or any resolution.

Governor Tom Wolf (pursuant to Article IV Section 12 of the Pennsylvania Constitution) can convene the Legislature to address the issue.

The Legislature (pursuant to Article I Section 12 of the Pennsylvania Constitution) can SUSPEND THE LAW and permit an open discussion of the unconstitutional affect of the improperly enacted Confidentiality of information which has undermined the Constitution, the Rule of Law and the Judiciary.

The incomplete, unexplained, unsubstantiated efforts of the Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania have been executed with deliberate intent. Preventing cases from going before the Judiciary is a violation of rights.

Where excused for their unconstitutional injustice concealed by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, I suggest they consider the eventuality where Rule 1.6 will be recognized to be unconstitutional, a nullity, NO LAW, and can provide no defense for their unconstitutional actions.

V. MOTION FOR INVESTIGATION

The constitutional rights of the Appellant are under threat of being ignored without opportunity for eventual restoration, resolution or recourse as a result of improperly applied rules; undated and unsigned orders which have been issued as Per Curiam; and distributed to the Appellant under the artificial signature of the Deputy Prothonotary.

Where these actions cannot easily be traced by the Appellant to the individual responsible for an egregious encroachment upon the constitutionally protected rights of the Appellant, the Appellant respectfully requests the identification of the person responsible for the document(s).

Where identification is prevented by Law, the Appellant respectfully requests that the applicable law be indicated.

Any law which seeks to conceal the improper and unlawful ability of an individual within the administration of the courts to obstruct or prevent rights secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States will be of interest to the state Attorney General where the Appeal has called into question the Constitutionality of laws/actions.

Respectfully Submitted,

Terance Healy

2015
12.21

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA # 3166 EDA 2015
  # 3151-15
v. # 46-CR-0003151-2015
  # MJ-38118-CR-0000096-2015
Terance Healy  

REGARDING THE PER CURIAM ORDER FILED DECEMBER 9, 2015 – B

A Copy of the Order filed December 9, 2015 is attached in an effort to provide specificity with regard to the Order being addressed herein.

Appellant is unaware of any document filed in this matter by the Commonwealth (and NOT SERVED) which has challenged or contested ANY documents filed by the Appellant with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Appellant is unaware, and has not been advised nor informed of any proceeding or scheduled appearance held before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania for the purpose of addressing any uncontested Notice.

I. RESPONSE

The Appellant respectfully informs the Honorable Court that VERBAL PERMISSION to file the subject interlocutory appeal was GRANTED on October 14, 2015 in Court by the Honorable William Carpenter.

This information regarding permission by Judge Carpenter was provided in the Notice of Appeal filed on October 20, 2015. (Paragraph 2)

The verbal order permitting the interlocutory appeal having been issued during a proceeding on October 14, 2015, a transcript has not been made available or provided.

The limited Order to Proceed in Forma Pauperis in the Appeal filed on October 20, 2015, neglects to provide for the production of the transcripts in this matter.

The limited IFP Order is the subject of a Notice of Appeal filed on October 27, 2015 seeking to provide the financial resources necessary to produce the transcripts of proceedings in this matter. Cross Reference #3234 EDA 2015.

The Order filed December 9, 2015 improperly offers Pa.R.A.P. 341(b) as the applicable Rule of Law.

Pa.R.A.P. 312 Interlocutory Appeals by Permission is the applicable Rule of Law.

II. MOTION FOR THE APPLICABLE RULE OF LAW – PER CURIAM

The Order filed December 9, 2015 is undated and unsigned and marked as a PER CURIAM Order.

The Order filed December 9, 2015 includes an improper application of an unrelated rule of Appellate procedure.

The Order filed December 9, 2015 seeks to quash the pending Appeal based on an unrelated Rule of Appellate procedure.

The Order filed December 9, 2015 has been issued where circumstances which apply to the interlocutory appeal and the permission granted by Judge Carpenter have been provided to the Superior Court on numerous occasions.
– Notice of Appeal
– Docketing Sheet
– collateral statements
– collateral documents

Appellant respectfully requests the Court indicate the applicable Rule of Law, Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule of Professional Conduct, or other law or statute which provides support for, excuses or permits, the rights of the Appellant in the matter to be ignored pursuant to an UNDATED, UNSIGNED and UNSUBSUBSTANTIATED Per Curiam Order.

Where the Appellant’s rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitution are being affected, a NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL has been filed as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 521).

The Attorney General will be better able to address any constitutional issues which arise in this matter if the decisions are substantiated by the applicable law.

III. MOTION FOR THE APPLICABLE RULE OF LAW – DEADLINE

Appellant respectfully requests the applicable Rule of Law, Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule of Professional Conduct, or other law or statute which permits the assignment of an arbitrary deadline for a response where ANY failure to comply with that deadline could result in the DENIAL of the Appeal, resulting in an implied waiver of rights which could result in the denial of constitutionally protected rights without opportunity for any recourse.

Where the Appellant’s rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitution are being affected, a NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL has been filed as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 521).

The Attorney General will be better able to address any constitutional issues which arise in this matter if the decisions are substantiated by the applicable law.

IV. MOTION FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE PERSON

The Order filed December 9, 2015 is UNDATED, UNSIGNED, UNSUBSTANTIATED and marked as PER CURIAM.

A Letter dated December 9, 2015, used as a transmittal, which accompanied the Order does NOT include an original signature but could be attributed to Deputy Prothonotary Michael A. DiPasquale.

The signature on the document is ARTWORK which fails to demonstrate any real evidence of the involvement of the Deputy Prothonotary in the filing or transmission of the Order to the Appellant and the others on the distribution list.

Appellant respectfully requests the Court indicate the applicable Rule of Law, Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule of Professional Conduct, or other law or statute which provides support for, excuses or permits, the use of any mark in place of an original signature on any court document filed or used in transmission to the litigants

Where the Appellant’s rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitution are being affected, a NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL has been filed as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 521).

The Attorney General will be better able to address any constitutional issues which arise in this matter if the decisions are substantiated by the applicable law.

THE RULEMAKING AUTHORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT

Article V Section 10 (c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution

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

Where any rule enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affects the rights of a litigant (abridged, enlarged or modified – directly, indirectly or collaterally), the Supreme Court has acted outside of the authority provided in the Pennsylvania Constitution.

CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW

Since Marbury v. Madison, the Judiciary has maintained the position as sole arbiter/decider when constitutionality is challenged.

There is no established process or procedure for constitutional review when the rule or law being challenged has been enacted by the judiciary.

An apparent and clear conflict of interest prevents the judiciary from any ability to address their own unconstitutional rule.

There is no provision for constitutional review by the Legislative or Executive Branch.

All law remains LAW until there is a determination of UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.

Once determined to be unconstitutional, it is NO LAW, a nullity, as if it had never existed.

A FURTHER COMPLICATION

When the improperly enacted and unconstitutional law IS CONCEALED by the CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION required of ALL legal professionals, lawyers and judges, at every level within the state and federally, the resolution is prevented by the lawyers inability to take any corrective action.

Exposure would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.

Exposure would violate the mandated CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

Confidentiality can collaterally trigger a denial of any Protection of the Law for a litigant, with ALL rights secured and protected by the US Constitution becoming unavailable to the litigant, ignored by legal professionals, and left unexplained pursuant to the mandate of confidentiality.

It is LAW, until it is not. Then, it never was.

OPPORTUNITY FOR RESOLUTION

While lawful exposure and resolution is available to me, as a non-lawyer litigant with damages and proper standing. There can be no mandate which requires the silence of any American Citizen while experiencing the denial of constitutionally protected rights and denied protection of the Rule of Law.

My efforts to address and resolve legal matters continue to be prevented by unexplained and unsubstantiated actions by lawyers, or court staff acting at the direction of their legal counsel.

While mandated by CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. They have acted to insulate and prevent the judiciary from being presented with any opportunity to review or addressing the constitutional issues affecting the Appellant.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has neglected to address the unconstitutional affect upon litigants within the courts.

The Legislature has neglected (or been prevented from) action to address the unconstitutional affect upon litigants within the courts.

The Governor’s Office of General Counsel have interfered, misinformed, obstructed and denied access to the Governor preventing any meeting, any discussion, any action or any resolution.

Governor Tom Wolf (pursuant to Article IV Section 12 of the Pennsylvania Constitution) can convene the Legislature to address the issue.

The Legislature (pursuant to Article I Section 12 of the Pennsylvania Constitution) can SUSPEND THE LAW and permit an open discussion of the unconstitutional affect of the improperly enacted Confidentiality of information which has undermined the Constitution, the Rule of Law and the Judiciary.

The incomplete, unexplained, unsubstantiated efforts of the Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania have been executed with deliberate intent. Preventing cases from going before the Judiciary is a violation of rights.

Where excused for their unconstitutional injustice concealed by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, I suggest they consider the eventuality where Rule 1.6 will be recognized to be unconstitutional, a nullity, NO LAW, and can provide no defense for their unconstitutional actions.

V. MOTION FOR INVESTIGATION

The constitutional rights of the Appellant are under threat of being ignored without opportunity for eventual restoration, resolution or recourse as a result of improperly applied rules; undated and unsigned orders which have been issued as Per Curiam; and distributed to the Appellant under the artificial signature of the Deputy Prothonotary.

Where these actions cannot easily be traced by the Appellant to the individual responsible for an egregious encroachment upon the constitutionally protected rights of the Appellant, the Appellant respectfully requests the identification of the person responsible for the document(s).

Where identification is prevented by Law, the Appellant respectfully requests that the applicable law be indicated.

Any law which seeks to conceal the improper and unlawful ability of an individual within the administration of the courts while permitting the denial of rights secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States will definitely be of interest to the state Attorney General where the Appeal has called into question the Constitutionality of laws/actions.

Respectfully Submitted,

Terance Healy

2015
12.21

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA # 3166 EDA 2015
  # 3151-15
v. # 46-CR-0003151-2015
  # MJ-38118-CR-0000096-2015
Terance Healy  

REGARDING THE PER CURIAM ORDER FILED DECEMBER 9, 2015

A Copy of the Order filed December 9, 2015 is attached.

Appellant is unaware of any document filed in this matter by the Commonwealth (and NOT SERVED) which has challenged or contested ANY documents filed by the Appellant with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Appellant is unaware, and has not been advised nor informed of any proceeding or scheduled appearance held before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania for the purpose of addressing any uncontested Notice.

I. MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

The Order filed December 9, 2015 neglects to specify the ‘Appellant’s pro se November 9, 2015 notice’ by title.

Appellant respectfully requests the Court indicate the subject document which is being addressed by the Order by title, or some other more specific identifying information.

II. MOTION FOR THE APPLICABLE RULE OF LAW

The Order filed December 9, 2015 fails to indicate the applicable Rule of Law which has resulted in the notice being DENIED.

Appellant respectfully requests the Court indicate the Rule of Law, Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule of Professional Conduct, or other properly enacted law, rule or statute which has been applied to the NOTICE resulting in it being DENIED.

Where the Appellant’s rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitution are being affected, a NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL has been filed as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 521).

The Attorney General will be better able to address any constitutional issues which arise in this matter if the decisions are substantiated by the applicable law.

III. MOTION FOR THE APPLICABLE RULE OF LAW – PER CURIAM

The Order filed December 9, 2015 is undated and unsigned and marked as a PER CURIAM Order.

Appellant respectfully requests the Court indicate the applicable Rule of Law, Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule of Professional Conduct, or other law or statute which provides support for, excuses or permits, any NOTICE to be DENIED by an UNDATED, UNSIGNED and UNSUBSTANTIATED Order.

Where the Appellant’s rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitution are being affected, a NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL has been filed as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 521).

The Attorney General will be better able to address any constitutional issues which arise in this matter if the decisions are substantiated by the applicable law.

IV. MOTION FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE PERSON

The Order filed December 9, 2015 is UNDATED, UNSIGNED, UNSUBSTANTIATED and marked as PER CURIAM.

A Letter dated December 9, 2015, used as a transmittal, which accompanied the Order does NOT include an original signature but could be attributed to Deputy Prothonotary Michael A. DiPasquale.

The signature on the document is ARTWORK which fails to demonstrate any real evidence of the involvement of the Deputy Prothonotary in the filing or transmission of the Order to the Appellant and the others on the distribution list.

Appellant respectfully requests the Court indicate the applicable Rule of Law, Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule of Professional Conduct, or other law or statute which provides support for, excuses or permits, the use of any mark in place of an original signature on any court document filed or used in transmission to the litigants

Where the Appellant’s rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitution are being affected, a NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL has been filed as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 521).

The Attorney General will be better able to address any constitutional issues which arise in this matter if the decisions are substantiated by the applicable law.

THE RULEMAKING AUTHORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT

Article V Section 10 (c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution

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

Where any rule enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affects the rights of a litigant (abridged, enlarged or modified – directly, indirectly or collaterally), the Supreme Court has acted outside of the authority provided in the Pennsylvania Constitution.

CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW

Since Marbury v. Madison, the Judiciary has maintained the position as sole arbiter/decider when constitutionality is challenged.

There is no established process or procedure for constitutional review when the rule or law being challenged has been enacted by the judiciary.

An apparent and clear conflict of interest prevents the judiciary from any ability to address their own unconstitutional rule.

There is no provision for constitutional review by the Legislative or Executive Branch.

All law remains LAW until there is a determination of UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.

Once determined to be unconstitutional, it is NO LAW, a nullity, as if it had never existed.

A FURTHER COMPLICATION

When the improperly enacted and unconstitutional law IS the CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION required of ALL legal professionals, lawyers and judges, at every level within the state and federally, the resolution is prevented by the lawyers inability to take any corrective action.

Exposure would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.

Exposure would violate the mandated CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

Confidentiality can collaterally trigger a denial of any Protection of the Law for a litigant, with ALL rights secured and protected by the US Constitution becoming unavailable to the litigant, ignored by legal professionals, and left unexplained pursuant to the mandate of confidentiality.

It is LAW, until it is not. Then, it never was.

OPPORTUNITY FOR RESOLUTION

While a resolution is available to me, as a non-lawyer litigant with damages and proper standing. There can be no mandate which requires the silence of any American Citizen while experiencing the denial of constitutionally protected rights and denied protection of the Rule of Law.

My efforts to address and resolve legal matters continue to be prevented by unexplained and unsubstantiated actions by lawyers, or court staff acting at the direction of their legal counsel.

While mandated by CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. They have acted to insulate and prevent the judiciary from being presented with any opportunity to review or addressing the constitutional issues affecting the Appellant.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has neglected to address the unconstitutional affect upon litigants within the courts.

The Legislature has neglected (or been prevented from) action to address the unconstitutional affect upon litigants within the courts.

The Governor’s Office of General Counsel have interfered, misinformed, obstructed and denied access to the Governor preventing any meeting, any discussion, any action or any resolution.

Governor Tom Wolf (pursuant to Article IV Section 12 of the Pennsylvania Constitution) can convene the Legislature to address the issue.

The Legislature (pursuant to Article I Section 12 of the Pennsylvania Constitution) can SUSPEND THE LAW and permit an open discussion of the unconstitutional affect of the improperly enacted Confidentiality of information which has undermined the Constitution, the Rule of Law and the Judiciary.

The preceding four (4) motions contained herein seek information which should otherwise have been provided to the Appellant.

The incomplete, unexplained, unsubstantiated efforts of the Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania have been executed with deliberate intent. Preventing cases from going before the Judiciary is a violation of rights.

Where excused for their unconstitutional injustice concealed by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, I suggest they consider the eventuality where Rule 1.6 will be recognized to be unconstitutional, a nullity, NO LAW, and can provide no defense for their unconstitutional actions.

V. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

In light of the unavailability of information, and during the pendancy of the information requested in Motions I, II, III, and IV being provided, the Appellant respectfully requests the reconsideration of this Honorable Court regarding the Order filed December 9, 2015 and referred to as the “Appellant’s pro se November 9, 2015 notice”.

The Court clearly has acknowledged the NOTICE which the Order of December 9, 2015 has DENIED.

An Order denying a NOTICE filed with the Court, and served upon the parties, is a contradiction in itself.

As requested in the above-listed Motions, further information is required before the Appellant can address or respond to any issues with any specificity as they relate to the Appeal to the Superior Court.

In addition, the information requested in the above-listed motions , will be of direct interest and necessity to the state Attorney General where the Appeal has called into question the Constitutionality of laws/actions.

The documented deficiencies demonstrate a deliberate refusal to respond to or address the broad failures to adhere to the Rule of Law, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Those documented deficiencies are directly, or collaterally, involved in and affecting the matter before this court while undermining the Appellants rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States which are being ignored without explanation or consequence.

Respectfully Submitted,

Terance Healy

2015
12.21

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA # 3234 EDA 2015
  # 3151-15
v. # 46-CR-0003151-2015
  # MJ-38118-CR-0000096-2015
Terance Healy  

REGARDING THE PER CURIAM ORDER FILED DECEMBER 8, 2015

A Copy of the Order filed December 8, 2015 is attached.

Appellant is unaware of any document filed in this matter by the Commonwealth (and NOT SERVED) which has challenged or contested ANY documents filed by the Appellant with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Appellant is unaware, and has not been advised nor informed of any proceeding or scheduled appearance held before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania for the purpose of addressing any uncontested Notice.

I. MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

The Order filed December 8, 2015 neglects to specify the ‘Appellant’s pro se November 9, 2015 notice’ by title.

Appellant respectfully requests the Court indicate the subject document which is being addressed by the Order by title, or some other more specific identifying information.

II. MOTION FOR THE APPLICABLE RULE OF LAW

The Order filed December 8, 2015 fails to indicate the applicable Rule of Law which has resulted in the notice being DENIED.

Appellant respectfully requests the Court indicate the Rule of Law, Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule of Professional Conduct, or other properly enacted law, rule or statute which has been applied to the NOTICE resulting in it being DENIED.

Where the Appellant’s rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitution are being affected, a NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL has been filed as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 521).

The Attorney General will be better able to address any constitutional issues which arise in this matter if the decisions are substantiated by the applicable law.

III. MOTION FOR THE APPLICABLE RULE OF LAW – PER CURIAM

The Order filed December 8, 2015 is undated and unsigned and marked as a PER CURIAM Order.

Appellant respectfully requests the Court indicate the applicable Rule of Law, Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule of Professional Conduct, or other law or statute which provides support for, excuses or permits, any NOTICE to be DENIED by an UNDATED, UNSIGNED and UNSUBSTANTIATED Order.

Where the Appellant’s rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitution are being affected, a NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL has been filed as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 521).

The Attorney General will be better able to address any constitutional issues which arise in this matter if the decisions are substantiated by the applicable law.

IV. MOTION FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE PERSON

The Order filed December 8, 2015 is UNDATED, UNSIGNED, UNSUBSTANTIATED and marked as PER CURIAM.

A Letter dated December 8, 2015, used as a transmittal, which accompanied the Order does NOT include an original signature but could be attributed to Deputy Prothonotary Michael A. DiPasquale.

The signature on the document is ARTWORK which fails to demonstrate any real evidence of the involvement of the Deputy Prothonotary in the filing or transmission of the Order to the Appellant and the others on the distribution list.

Appellant respectfully requests the Court indicate the applicable Rule of Law, Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule of Professional Conduct, or other law or statute which provides support for, excuses or permits, the use of any mark in place of an original signature on any court document filed or used in transmission to the litigants

Where the Appellant’s rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitution are being affected, a NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL has been filed as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 521).

The Attorney General will be better able to address any constitutional issues which arise in this matter if the decisions are substantiated by the applicable law.

THE RULEMAKING AUTHORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT

Article V Section 10 (c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution

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

Where any rule enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affects the rights of a litigant (abridged, enlarged or modified – directly, indirectly or collaterally), the Supreme Court has acted outside of the authority provided in the Pennsylvania Constitution.

CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW

Since Marbury v. Madison, the Judiciary has maintained the position as sole arbiter/decider when constitutionality is challenged.

There is no established process or procedure for constitutional review when the rule or law being challenged has been enacted by the judiciary.

An apparent and clear conflict of interest prevents the judiciary from any ability to address their own unconstitutional rule.

There is no provision for constitutional review by the Legislative or Executive Branch.

All law remains LAW until there is a determination of UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.

Once determined to be unconstitutional, it is NO LAW, a nullity, as if it had never existed.

A FURTHER COMPLICATION

When the improperly enacted and unconstitutional law IS the CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION required of ALL legal professionals, lawyers and judges, at every level within the state and federally, the resolution is prevented by the lawyers inability to take any corrective action.

Exposure would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.

Exposure would violate the mandated CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

Confidentiality can collaterally trigger a denial of any Protection of the Law for a litigant, with ALL rights secured and protected by the US Constitution becoming unavailable to the litigant, ignored by legal professionals, and left unexplained pursuant to the mandate of confidentiality.

It is LAW, until it is not. Then, it never was.

OPPORTUNITY FOR RESOLUTION

While a resolution is available to me, as a non-lawyer litigant with damages and proper standing. There can be no mandate which requires the silence of any American Citizen while experiencing the denial of constitutionally protected rights and denied protection of the Rule of Law.

My efforts to address and resolve legal matters continue to be prevented by unexplained and unsubstantiated actions by lawyers, or court staff acting at the direction of their legal counsel.

While mandated by CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. They have acted to insulate and prevent the judiciary from being presented with any opportunity to review or addressing the constitutional issues affecting the Appellant.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has neglected to address the unconstitutional affect upon litigants within the courts.

The Legislature has neglected (or been prevented from) action to address the unconstitutional affect upon litigants within the courts.

The Governor’s Office of General Counsel have interfered, misinformed, obstructed and denied access to the Governor preventing any meeting, any discussion, any action or any resolution.

Governor Tom Wolf (pursuant to Article IV Section 12 of the Pennsylvania Constitution) can convene the Legislature to address the issue.

The Legislature (pursuant to Article I Section 12 of the Pennsylvania Constitution) can SUSPEND THE LAW and permit an open discussion of the unconstitutional affect of the improperly enacted Confidentiality of information which has undermined the Constitution, the Rule of Law and the Judiciary.

The preceding four (4) motions contained herein seek information which should otherwise have been provided to the Appellant.

The incomplete, unexplained, unsubstantiated efforts of the Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania have been executed with deliberate intent. Preventing cases from going before the Judiciary is a violation of rights.

Where excused for their unconstitutional injustice concealed by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, I suggest they consider the eventuality where Rule 1.6 will be recognized to be unconstitutional, a nullity, NO LAW, and can provide no defense for their unconstitutional actions.

V. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

In light of the unavailability of information, and during the pendancy of the information requested in Motions I, II, III, and IV being provided, the Appellant respectfully requests the reconsideration of this Honorable Court regarding the Order filed December 8, 2015 and referred to as the “Appellant’s pro se November 9, 2015 notice”.

The Court clearly has acknowledged the NOTICE which the Order of December 8, 2015 has DENIED.

An Order denying a NOTICE filed with the Court, and served upon the parties, is a contradiction in itself.

As requested in the above-listed Motions, further information is required before the Appellant can address or respond to any issues with any specificity as they relate to the Appeal to the Superior Court.

In addition, the information requested in the above-listed motions , will be of direct interest and necessity to the state Attorney General where the Appeal has called into question the Constitutionality of laws/actions.

The documented deficiencies demonstrate a deliberate refusal to respond to or address the broad failures to adhere to the Rule of Law, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Those documented deficiencies are directly, or collaterally, involved in and affecting the matter before this court while undermining the Appellants rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States which are being ignored without explanation or consequence.

Respectfully Submitted,

Terance Healy

2015
12.20

The only way to ignore MY claim on the title to my home is to kill me.

The people living in my home have admitted their crime. They presented the fraudulent conveyance of the property and have collected the title insurance. They are likely destroying MY home. I am powerless to stop them. The endorsement of crimes by the District Attorney prevents resolution and justice. It permits the terror to continue… FOREVER.

While I have no Protection of the Law and my Constitutional rights are being ignored and denied, Criminal acts against me in the furtherance of the prior crimes are ignored.

Where criminals are not permitted to profit from their criminal actions, it would seem that Risa Vetri Ferman has not only endorsed their crimes BUT she has actively participated in the prevention of any resolution, preventing justice. As District Attorney Ferman has prevented other law enforcement agencies from investigations and prosecutions.

The fraudulent and intrusive investigations into ME, their target, by the District Attorney has produced NOTHING – – but that doesn’t stop them. They act ONLY to conceal and cover up their actions in this nightmare … THEY IGNORE. There HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE FROM DA RISA FERMAN FOR 8 YEARS. Take it from the ‘worst kept secret in Pennsylvania’ I have attempted to meet with the DA face to face to get some sort of explanation. 8 years where Risa Ferman ignored.

It has prevented any escape for me, their victim.

I HAD TURNED TO THE VERY PEOPLE ATTACKING ME FOR HELP.

Since 2007, DA Bruce Castor failed to conduct any investigation. Since 2008, DA Risa Ferman has failed to conduct any investigation; neglected to respond to any letter, request or complaint; RISA FERMAN ACTIVELY INTERFERED WITH ALL OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO PREVENT JUSTICE, PROLONG INJUSTICE, and TERRORIZE MY LIFE.

Imagine getting a $550,000 house for FREE. The $400,000 mortgage paid off by the Title Insurance. All that is required is to LIE. All that is required is to file FALSE ALLEGATIONS against the victim whose home was stolen. All that is required is a complete lack of ethics, morality, honor and truthfulness.

ONCE THAT DECISION WAS MADE THERE WAS NO BACKING OUT.

A major theft which took place in multiple states would result in Federal prosecution. Their fear of being caught is real – they have admitted their participation in the crime to receive the title insurance. They have risked EVERYTHING… I know what they have risked because THEY STOLE EVERYTHING FROM ME…. including my Constitutional Rights and any Protection of the Law.

If they don’t continue their terror, fraud and false allegations, they won’t see their children grow up.

They have placed their own freedom in the hands of a corrupt District Attorney. They KNOW she is corrupt because she has DELIBERATELY NEGLECTED TO PROSECUTE THEM.

They have motive for committing further fraud and crimes. That motivation threatens my life and my freedom and my future. A motive for murder.


For the last year, the fraudulent and unconstitutional actions of the staff of the District Attorneys office has overwhelmed my life and threatened my freedom and my life, my family and my friends. They continue the harassment through the courts.

The District Attorney has an attorney-client relationship with her staff. As Such, Ferman will NOT address the corruption within her office. Instead of firing the corrupt, Ferman has encouraged their actions in the furtherance to harass and terrorize and DENY PROTECTION OF THE RULE OF LAW. In cases where this has occurred, the target is most often coerced to suicide. The Suicide Solution has been executed in Montgomery County many times. I still have the records from when there was a telecon with their insurers. Apparently, that day they decided to ‘go for the suicide’. There has never been any explanation for their inescapable terror, corruption and injustice.


A Defendant must Defend.

I have been a Defendant in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas for the last 10 years. I have witnessed the injustice, corruption and lack of independence of the entire Montgomery County Judiciary.

I have been living without any protection of the law and without my constitutional rights, while every aspect of my existence has been annihilated and any hope for a future is threatened by further fraud and crimes.

I Persevere.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

secrecy

%d bloggers like this: