2016
02.09

THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN DENIED THE PROTECTION OF THE RULE OF LAW, AND DENIED CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS SINCE 2007.

The Defendant presents the following document, exhibits and attachments which relate DIRECTLY to the criminal matter immediately before this Honorable Court as evidence to support the statement.

Evidence dating back to the Summer of 2007 is additionally contained in the court records of the following matters:
#2007-12477 Healy v Healy
#2007-32095 Healy v Healy
#2007-32114 Healy v Healy
#104-EDM-2011 Appeal to Superior Court
#1330-EDA-2013 Appeal to Superior Court
#401-MT-2013 Kings Bench Supreme Court
#155-MM-2013 Kings Bench Supreme Court

#13-4614 Eastern District of Pennsylvania – The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
#13-4591 Third Circuit Court of Appeals

#2013-29976 Healy v Miller
#900-EDA-2014 Appeal to Superior Court

The charges are unfounded.

Jurisdiction has been challenged. The District Attorney has failed to provide a statement indicating the elements of jurisdiction necessary for the Court to proceed.

Lack of jurisdiction has been greatly exacerbated by the failure of the District Attorney
– to abide the laws of the Commonwealth
– to proceed in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure
– to address or respond when notified and informed of negligence

The lack of jurisdiction, deliberately caused by the District Attorney, has been leveraged by the District Attorney to undermine the authority and independence of the Court.

LOCATION

The purported ‘crime’ did not occur in Montgomery County.

THE PURPORTED THREAT

The Letter to the Governor of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Attorney General.
– The letter was written in Warrington, Bucks County.
– The document was sent by email, Facebook messenger.
– The document was mailed via US Postal Service to Harrisburg
– The document was posted on the internet to a web site which is hosted on a server located in Houston, Texas.

The document written by the Defendant requested law enforcement actions which are part of the responsibilities of the Executive branch. Governor Tom Wolf and Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

The document written by the Defendant requested a review by the General Assembly to address where the Court of Common Pleas had incorrectly indicated a lack of jurisdiction; the incorrect ‘lack of jurisdiction’ which was ‘affirmed’ without ANY review by the Superior Court (Central Legal Staff).

BRIEF HISTORY ( Healy v Miller )

The Common Pleas Court had dismissed an Ejectment Action filed to gain possession of the property – a necessary prerequisite to quiet the title and strike fraudulent documents recorded by the Recorder Of Deeds.

The Court further dismissed ALL Motions to address fraudulent paperwork as ‘moot’.

The Court dismissed incorrectly indicating a lack of jurisdiction.

On Appeal to the Superior Court , the decision was affirmed. Actions by the Central Legal Staff prevented judicial review of any and every issue related to the Appeal. The Judiciary had effectively removed themselves from the matter.

The Defendant was to have been misdirected into believing there was no recourse to recover his property. Instead, the Defendant recognized that the concealed corruption of the improper affirmed decision had only removed the Judiciary from ANY FURTHER INVOLVEMENT in the matter.

Recourse for the Defendant remained in seeking the Executive branch enforcement of the law through the Governor and the Office of the Attorney General.

Also, the Defendant informed the General Assembly regarding the purported ‘lack of jurisdiction’ which would required their attention to the laws which provide the courts with proper jurisdiction.

Legislative power is vested in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Defendant included the entire Senate and the House of Representatives in the distribution of the letter.

The Defendant was aware that his letter to the Executive and Legislative branches of government would expose a deliberate corruption of the courts by judges and administrative staff in the Judicial branch.

The letter written by the Defendant is specifically protected by Pennsylvania Constitution Article 1 Section 7.

Pennsylvania Constitution Article I Section 7.
Freedom of press and speech; libels.
The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

The letter was responsibly written to the government seeking assistance.

The letter was not maliciously or negligently made.

The letter relates to the official conduct of officers in public capacity seeking investigation, information and assistance to enforce the law.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

The District Attorney prosecution of the Defendant for an activity which is specifically protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution is improper, and has been brought for the purpose of harassing and terrorizing an individual who has properly and lawfully sought the actions and effort of law enforcement.

The District Attorney had/has failed to prosecute the fraudulent conveyance and related crimes. The District Attorney has offered no explanation or response.

The District Attorney has prevented an investigation commenced by Montgomery County Detectives on the evidence and at the behest of the RECORDER OF DEEDS. The District Attorney has offered no explanation or response.

The District Attorney has also acted to prevent the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation after the RECORDER OF DEEDS had assisted the defendant by making introductions to the proper contacts at the FBI. The District Attorney has offered no explanation or response.

The interference by the District Attorney with other law enforcement agencies extends beyond the criminal affirmance of the current District Attorney and two previous office holders:
– denies the Defendant of life, liberty and freedom;
– prevents equal protection under the law;
– denies constitutional rights;
– conceals and protects direct and documented threats to murder the Defendant;
– permits the Defendant to be further victimized and threatened without recourse.

The prosecution of the Defendant has proceeded without regard for law, process, procedures, or rights. The District Attorney is attempting convert the matter, using chaos and disinformation, leading to an administrative penalty in a fabricated situation beyond the information, control or influence of the Defendant. (IE, Bench Warrant, Arrest, Contempt, Failure to Appear…)

JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of the courts is established by law. Where the law is not followed, the courts are without jurisdiction in the matter.

JURISDICTION – MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COURT

The Magisterial District Court failed to follow the Rule of Law, as indicated in the Rules of Criminal Procedure while IGNORING the rights of the Defendant which are secured by the US Constitution.

Title 42 Judicial Procedure
1515 Jurisdiction and Venue – Magisterial District Judges

A lack of jurisdiction for the Magisterial District Court, challenged and not addressed, is not remedied by the case being held for court by the issuing authority.

The Magisterial Court neglected to follow the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
EXHIBIT MAGISTERIAL COURT NEGLECT

The Magisterial Court ignored rights protected by the US Constitution.
EXHIBIT MAGISTERIAL COURT IGNORES

The Magisterial Court lacked jurisdiction to review the matter, or to transfer the matter to the Court of Common Pleas.
EXHIBIT MAGISTERIAL COURT JURISDICTION

JURISDICTION – COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

The Court of Common Pleas failed/fails to follow the Rule of Law, as indicated in the Rules of Criminal procedure while IGNORING the rights of the Defendant which are secured by the US Constitution

Title 42 Judicial Procedure
931 Original Jurisdiction – Court of Common Pleas Judges

The Court of Common Pleas has neglected to follow the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
EXHIBIT COMMON PLEAS NEGLECT

The Court of Common Pleas has ignored rights protected by the US Constitution.
EXHIBIT COMMON PLEAS IGNORES

The Court of Common Pleas lacks jurisdiction to review the matter.
EXHIBIT COMMON PLEAS JURISDICTION

JURISDICTION – DEFICIENCIES CAUSED BY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

The Attorney for the Commonwealth has neglected to follow the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
EXHIBIT PROSECUTOR NEGLECT

The Attorney for the Commonwealth has ignored rights protected by the US Constitution.
EXHIBIT PROSECUTOR IGNORES

Issues have been raised to the attention of the Court and the Attorney for the Commonwealth. There has been no response. The issues remain ignored and unresolved.
EXHIBIT PROSECUTOR DELIBERATE FAILURE TO RESPOND

THE FAILURE TO ADDRESS “WRONGDOING”

The District Attorney, Risa Ferman and Kevin Steele, have failed to properly supervise or address the lawlessness, corruption and unconstitutional prosecution being conducted and directed by Assistant District Attorney Lauren McNulty.

Responsibility for addressing the ‘wrongdoing’ of the personnel in the Office of the District Attorney is vested exclusively in the District Attorney.

The failure to address the ‘wrongdoing’ of the Assistant District Attorney occurs because of a mandate of confidentiality. There has been no explanation.

As a Government Attorney, The District Attorney, represents
the Public,
the Government as a whole
the Branch of government in which employed
the Particular agency or department
the Responsible officers who make decisions with an agency or department

An attorney-client relationship prevents the District Attorney from exposing, disclosing, correcting, resolving or prosecuting actions by her ‘clients’ without their expressed consent.

Recognizing the mandate of non-disclosure which interferes with the ability of the District Attorney to respond to or take actions to correct the negligence by the attorney for the Commonwealth and personnel employed by Montgomery County;
and
Recognizing the Defendants right to equal protection under the law;
and
Recognizing the Defendants rights are protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States,

WHEREAS, The Defendant proposes and motions for this Honorable Court to require all participants:
– to submit the Rule of Law which substantiates their actions which have been contrary to procedure and law
– to submit the Rule of Law by which their actions require no explanation or justification;
– to submit the Rule of Law which permits concealing conceal actions which deny and prevent the Defendant from the equal protection of the Law, and other constitutionally protected rights;
– to submit any Order of the Court, or Policy, which prevents full disclosure of information.
– to sign a waiver of confidentiality.

WAIVER OF RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION

The Defendant is representing himself. There exists no relationship(s) with any attorney(s) mandated to conceal, prevent or not disclose any information related to the matter currently before the court.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is a broad mandate of non-disclosure which includes the ‘Attorney Client Privilege’. The mandate of non-disclosure for the attorney continues beyond any immediate matters before any court. Then, the Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandate survives in perpetuity.

In the interest of justice in this matter, the Defendant requests that all attorneys for the Commonwealth sign a Waiver of Attorney Client Privilege (Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information).

In the interest of full disclosure; the Defendant requests that all attorneys involved in this matter provide a list of clients with whom they have a prior attorney client relationship which could affect the proceedings and information presented to this court.

Any attorneys prevented from or refusing to sign a waiver; AND/OR failing to indicate and substantiate the reasons which prevent their waiver should be removed from any involvement in the matter.

Any attorneys prevented from or refusing to sign a waiver should document their actions in this matter for review by the judiciary, the parties, and further investigated by an appropriate law enforcement agency or division, if justified.

In the interest of openness, the Defendant requests all Montgomery County personnel involved in the matter sign a Waiver of Attorney Client Privilege (Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information).

Personnel representing the Commonwealth or County refusing to sign a waiver; AND/OR failing to indicate and substantiate the reasons which prevent their waiver should be removed from any involvement in the matter.

Personnel representing the Commonwealth or County refusing to sign a waiver should document their actions in this matter for review by the judiciary, the parties, and further investigated by an appropriate law enforcement agency or division, if justified.

Any rule, procedure, law, order of any court, etc… which denies, prevents or interferes with the constitutionally protected rights of the Defendant are unconstitutional, no law, a nullity which can provide no support for action or defense from prosecution for those actions.

APPEAL – SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF of The Superior Court is positioned to receive all documents and motions when filed; to intercept and prevent any review by the Superior Court judiciary. The prompt action(s) by the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF neither waits for, nor requires, any response(s) from the Attorney for the Commonwealth. There is no explanation or response to inquiries.

The CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF issues unsubstantiated and unsigned Per Curiam documents dismissing motions. There is no evidence which demonstrates the consideration of the matter before the court.

Single sentence unsigned Per Curiam Orders have neglected to properly indicate the motion which is being dismissed. Subsequent Motions seeking identification, clarification or specification are also dismissed.

APPEAL – SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA – THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE

Obstructing justice by denying and preventing access to the Court, the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF is committing constitutional and criminal violations of state and federal laws and constitutions.

The Defendant’s rights which are secured by the Rule of Law, the Pennsylvania Constitition and the Constitution of the United States are denied, prevented, ignored and dismissed leaving the Defendant without recourse. There is no explanation or response to inquiries.

The failure to provide answers or to substantiate actions by reference to a rule, procedure, law or Constitution is deliberate and intentional.

Where the unconstitutional affect(s) – denial of access to the courts, etc… – is(are) clearly demonstrated, the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF neglects to substantiate their unsigned Per Curiam Orders to avoid identifying the rule, procedure, or law which is denying the Defendant of his rights — AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

The CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF is engaging in a conspiracy to deny the constitutional rights of the Defendant. Their actions obstruct, prevent and deny justice leaving the Defendant without any recourse. The CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF further conceals their fraud, injustice and corruption by assigning responsibiltiy for corruption and injustice to the judiciary.

The integrity of the judiciary is essential. The independence of the judiciary is a necessity. When prevented from their responsibilities, the judiciary is effectively held hostage by the corruption of the court staff (Court Administration, Central Legal Staff, …).

APPEAL – SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA – THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW

The judiciary is prevented from addressing the usurpation of their authority pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of information. Improperly enacted as part of the Rules of Professional Conduct, ALL lawyers and legal professionals are mandated to nondisclosure of the unconstitutional law until such time as it is declared unconstitutional.

THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONFIDENTIALITY LAW CANNOT BE ADDRESSED BY LAWYERS AND LEGAL PROFESSIONALS.

THE Rules of Professional Conduct permit efforts by lawyers which prevent exposure of issues which adversely affect the integrity of the court. Those efforts are held confidential pursuant to Rule 1.6

WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO EXPLANATION OR RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information excuses non-disclosure and efforts which prevent disclosure.

Any law which interferes with the rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Any law which interferes with the rights which are secured and protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality causes a collateral denial of rights to the Defendant; prevents the Defendant from access to the courts; and denies the Defendant from equal protection of the Law.

Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional.

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Disciplinary Board dismisses complaints by neglecting the issues reported. Dismissals are written using a variety of deceptive logical fallacies.
– Incredulity
– Fallacious Reasoning
– Ambiguity
– Appeal to Authority
– Strawman

The Disciplinary Board fails to take any actions which could expose the corruption of the judicial branch.

The Disciplinary Board consists of lawyers who are mandated by the improperly enacted and unconstitutional Confidentiality of Information.
EXHIBITS

The Disciplinary Board prosecutes violations of nondisclosure and Confidentiality.
JUDGE ANN LOKUTA
ATTORNEY GENERAL KATHLEEN KANE

THE Disciplinary Board actions usurp the authority of the Judiciary
– denying constitutional rights
– failing to hold hearings
– denying due process of law

The Disciplinary Board seems determined to protect the corrupt system while neglecting to address any efforts which would promote justice.

They fail to follow, or understand, their own RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

GENERAL RULES

Chapter 93 Trial 9301
All procedures, motions and other matters relating to the trial, by jury or otherwise, of any criminal proceeding shall be conducted in the manner, at the times, on the terms and conditions and in the form prescribed by the general rules.

Pennsylvania Constitution Article I Section 9.
Rights of accused in criminal prosecutions.
In all criminal prosecutions the accused hath a right to be heard by himself and his counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and, in prosecutions by indictment or information, a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the vicinage; he cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself, nor can he be deprived of his life, liberty or property, unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land. The use of a suppressed voluntary admission or voluntary confession to impeach the credibility of a person may be permitted and shall not be construed as compelling a person to give evidence against himself.

Pennsylvania Constitution Article I Section 26.
No discrimination by Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right.

PROVIDED BY LAW

The power and authority of the judicial branch (“Jurisdiction”) is provided by the laws enacted by the Legislature.

Where the judiciary fails to adhere to the LAW, the result is a lack of jurisdiction.

The General Assembly is responsible for the Laws which provide for the proper jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch.

The direct relationship between the General Assembly and the Judiciary is clearly demonstrated by the following phrases from the Pennsylvania Constitution Article V The Judiciary:

Section 1. Unified judicial system.
… as may be provided by law …

Section 2. Supreme Court.
… shall have such jurisdiction as shall be provided by law.

Section 3. Superior Court.
… have such jurisdiction as shall be provided by this Constitution or by the General Assembly.

Section 4. Commonwealth Court.
… have such jurisdiction as shall be provided by law.

Section 5. Courts of common pleas.
… as shall be provided by law,…
… be provided by law.

Section 6. Community courts; Philadelphia Municipal Court and Traffic Court.
(a) … jurisdiction shall be as provided by law.
(b) … who under law …
… shall be governed by the general laws …
(c) … the jurisdiction of each shall be as provided by law.

Section 7. Justices of the peace; magisterial districts.
(a) … shall be as provided by law.
(b) The General Assembly shall by law establish …

Section 8. Other courts.
The General Assembly may establish additional courts or divisions of existing courts, as needed, or abolish any statutory court or division thereof.

Section 9. Right of appeal.
… as provided by law…
… as may be provided by law.

Section 10. Judicial administration.
(c) … 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.

… the General Assembly may by statute provide for …

Section 11. Judicial districts; boundaries.
… shall be changed by the General Assembly only …

Section 12. Qualifications of justices, judges and justices of the peace.
… shall be as provided by law.

Section 16. Compensation and retirement of justices, judges and justices of the peace.
(a) … as provided by law.
… unless by law…
(b) … as shall be provided by law.
Except as provided by law…

ABOUT ARTICLE V SECTION 10(c) SPECIFICALLY

Article V Section 10(c) limits the lawmaking authority of the Judiciary.

“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 and 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 the American Bar Association had provided their Model Rules of Professional Conduct to be prescribed into LAW by the Supreme Court (effective April 1, 1988), they included a broad confidentiality mandate which is cross referenced throughout each of the “Rules” which accurately are described as a minimum ethical standard for lawyers. THE MINIMUM IS NO ETHICS.

A collateral affect of the MANDATE of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information causes the denial of a persons constitutional rights and permits those rights to be DENIED AND IGNORED with no opportunity for recourse or resolution. With the loss of their rights, the person then discovers that they have NO PROTECTION under the Rule of Law.

The improperly enacted and unconstitutional CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandates that lawyers and legal professionals conceal information PERMITTING CORRUPTION TO REMAIN UNADDRESSED AND UNPROSECUTED; MANDATING INJUSTICE TO BE IGNORED even at the expense of a persons Constitutional Rights with NO RECOURSE OR OPPORTUNITY FOR REDRESS.

The independence and integrity of the Judiciary are greatly impacted by the non-disclosure mandate, and its subsequent ‘permission’ which excuses and ignores actions which prevent disclosure.

The Judiciary has had the exclusive authority to review ‘Constitutionality’ since Marbury v Madison.

The authority to review the constitutionality of a law enacted by the Judiciary is not designated. Perhaps, it was never thought to be necessary.

THE JUDICIARY ENACTED A MANDATE OF CONFIDENTIALITY which has the collateral impact of voiding the US Constitution, and denying any protection of the Rule of Law to those affected by the non-disclosure mandate without any recourse or opportunity for redress.

Complicating the issue: The MANDATORY NON-DISCLOSURE of this improperly enacted and unconstitutional law (Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information) is required pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

Lawyers and legal professionals are silenced by Rule 1.6 unless and until they recognize the unconstitutional affect and find they have standing to address the issue. It is possible that those lawyers may have been suspended or disbarred by a disciplinary system which is also ‘confidential” pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
Terance Healy, Todd M. Krautheim, on behalf of the United States
v.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane and the Attorneys General of the United States

The Challenge was served to each state Attorney General. The Attorneys General defaulted. Silenced by the Rule 1.6 mandate.

However, The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was then ‘1.6’d’ by lawyers (Court Staff) permitted to conceal their deception, fraud and corruption which prevented the Judiciary from reviewing the matter. The Judiciary silenced and held hostage by their own unconstitutional action.

Until declared unconstitutional, a LAW must be abided. Once unconstitutional it is a nullity, and never was law. An Unconstitutional ‘law’ can provide no protection or defense for those whose actions interfered with the Constitutional Rights of the people.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The McDade Murtha Act was passed federally requiring ALL FEDERAL LAWYERS, INVESTIGATORS AND PROSECUTORS to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct in the jurisdiction in which they were working.

The American Bar Association had rolled out their “Rules” from 1984 (New Jersey) until 2007 (Maine) affecting the larger jurisdictions in the earlier years. The ABA trained their membership to NOT SEE the issue.

American Injustice Ignored became evident, but the lack of efforts by the lawyers and judges mandated to confidentiality prevented the issue from being addressed, exposed, or dealt with while the entire USA noticed the US Constitution was being ignored.

Kids For Cash, Sandusky, the Foreclosure Crisis, Ferguson, Flint, Citizens United …

ABOUT THOSE RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Quickly returning to the Pennsylvania Constitution, it is worth reviewing Article V Section 16, as the Pennsylvania Government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial, has been notified and aware of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 since it was filed in August 2013.

Section 16. Compensation and retirement of justices, judges and justices of the peace.
(b) Justices, judges and justices of the peace shall be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 70 years. Former and retired justices, judges and justices of the peace shall receive such compensation as shall be provided by law. Except as provided by law, no salary, retirement benefit or other compensation, present or deferred, shall be paid to any justice, judge or justice of the peace who, under section 18 or under Article VI, is suspended, removed or barred from holding judicial office for conviction of a felony or misconduct in office or conduct which prejudices the proper administration of justice or brings the judicial office into disrepute.

The conflict of interest is evident.

The failure to accept responsibility and take actions to address the issue “prejudices the proper administration of justice” AND “brings the judicial office into disrepute.”

Revealing Rule 1.6 injustice and corruption which undermines every level of the court would financially affect every judge within the judiciary… but it should.

Ignoring the corruption of the court continues to prejudice the administration of justice…. And it does.

A judiciary failing to take responsibility for their actions affects the entire Commonwealth.

Where the Judiciary have ignored it’s own undoing, The lawyers in the clerks offices have interfered with the administration of justice and the courts.

The clerks have prevented hearings, dismissed petitions; quashed actions unsubstantiated by any proper law.

The clerks have used unsigned per curiam orders which they then purport to be valid orders of the Court.

Those lawyers/clerks are not simply protecting their own self interests.

The lawyers/clerks are not simply protecting the integrity of the judiciary whose authority they have usurped.

By promoting injustice and concealing corruption, the lawyers/clerks are holding the judiciary hostage.

The gatekeeper actions are recently evident in the actions affecting Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

Kane has been prevented from any hearing where she would be permitted to defend
herself against the allegations. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality does not permit disclosure until Kane is defending before a court or tribunal.
– Montgomery County has held no hearings where Kane could present a defense.
– The Supreme Court has held no hearings regarding the per curiam license suspension.
– A Supreme Court per curiam order quashed a recent request to reinstate the law license with no opportunity for any hearing on the issue deemed ‘untimely’.
– Montgomery County Court has recently announced a scheduled hearing date in August 2016. This scheduling directly affects and hinders the re-election effort of the Attorney General.

Two Secret Orders from Unidentified court personally prevent Kathleen Kane from the responsibilities of her elected office as Attorney General. (The secret orders relate to the appeals in Healy v Healy and Healy v Miller)

MOTIVATION

American Bar Association affiliated bar associations exist at most every level of the state and federal judiciary , their members include the lawyers/clerks who acting as gatekeepers prevent access to the courts.

American Bar Association and affiliated state bar associations had knowingly presented their unethical Model Rules of Professional Conduct to the Pennsylvania the Supreme Court.

The Constitution requires members of the General Assembly to abstain from votes where there is a conflict of interest.

The Pennsylvania Senators and Representatives actively seeking the premature impeachment of the Attorney General include lawyers.

They are aware and informed of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 and its affect which undermines the Judicial branch impact.

They are aware of the involvement of the Office of the Attorney General investigating the corruption concealed by Rule 1.6 unconstitutional confidentiality.

Their membership in the ABA and affiliated bar associations creates a clear conflict of interest.

To anyone informed of the full affect of Rule 1.6 corruption, the actions of some in the General Assembly are unconstitutional and treasonous.

NATIONWIDE

Now consider again that the American Bar Association rolled out the Rule of Professional Conduct gradually across the entire United States. 1984 New Jersey through 2007 Maine.

Causing a nationwide Constitutional Crisis, the American Bar Association has a clear interest in preventing Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane from being heard in personal or professional capacity.

Non-disclosure and confidentiality have undermined the government of the United States. An unconstitutional law enacted improperly in every state prevents justice, excuses injustice and permits corruption by concealing itself in its own confidentiality and corruption.

CONCLUSION

Why would one man’s effort to regain possession of his property be deemed a terroristic threat?

Why would all negligence and failure by the District Attorney to follow procedure and the law be ignored?

Why harass a man who is seeking resolution after 10 years of corruption and injustice which was intended to cause his suicide?

I am a sane man dealing with an absolutely insane situation. Every person in a position to help has acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter… They each make the situation worse. No one helps. No one could help… until the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 which exposed A NATIONWIDE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS CAUSED BY THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION WHICH UNDERMINES THE JUDICIARY IN EACH STATE AND FEDERALLY.

Something like that could be viewed as a threat by those seeking to continue and conceal their corruption.

2016
02.09

THE FAILURE TO ADDRESS “WRONGDOING”

The District Attorney, Risa Ferman and Kevin Steele, have failed to properly supervise or address the lawlessness, corruption and unconstitutional prosecution being conducted and directed by Assistant District Attorney Lauren McNulty.

Responsibility for addressing the ‘wrongdoing’ of the personnel in the Office of the District Attorney is vested exclusively in the District Attorney.

The failure to address the ‘wrongdoing’ of the Assistant District Attorney occurs because of a mandate of confidentiality. There has been no explanation.

As a Government Attorney, The District Attorney, represents
the Public,
the Government as a whole
the Branch of government in which employed
the Particular agency or department
the Responsible officers who make decisions with an agency or department

An attorney-client relationship prevents the District Attorney from exposing, disclosing, correcting, resolving or prosecuting actions by her ‘clients’ without their expressed consent.

Recognizing the mandate of non-disclosure which interferes with the ability of the District Attorney to respond to or take actions to correct the negligence by the attorney for the Commonwealth and personnel employed by Montgomery County;
and
Recognizing the Defendants right to equal protection under the law;
and
Recognizing the Defendants rights are protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States,

WHEREAS, The Defendant proposes and motions for this Honorable Court to require all participants:
– to submit the Rule of Law which substantiates their actions which have been contrary to procedure and law
– to submit the Rule of Law by which their actions require no explanation or justification;
– to submit the Rule of Law which permits concealing conceal actions which deny and prevent the Defendant from the equal protection of the Law, and other constitutionally protected rights;
– to sign a waiver of confidentiality.

MOTION FOR WAIVER OF RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION

The Defendant is representing himself. There exists no relationship(s) with any attorney(s) mandated to conceal, prevent or not disclose any information related to the matter currently before the court.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is a broad mandate of non-disclosure which includes the ‘Attorney Client Privilege’. The mandate of non-disclosure for the attorney continues beyond the matters before the court. The Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandate survives in perpetuity.

In the interest of justice in this matter, the Defendant requests that all attorneys for the Commonwealth sign a Waiver of Attorney Client Privilege (Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information).

In the interest of full disclosure; the Defendant requests that all attorneys involved in this matter provide a list of clients with whom they have a prior attorney client relationship which could affect the proceedings and information presented to this court.
Any attorneys prevented from or refusing to sign a waiver; AND/OR failing to indicate and substantiate the reasons which prevent their waiver should be removed from any involvement in the matter.

Any attorneys prevented from or refusing to sign a waiver should document their actions in this matter for review by the judiciary, the parties, and further investigated by an appropriate law enforcement agency or division if justified.

In the interest of openness, the Defendant requests all Montgomery County personnel involved in the matter sign a Waiver of Attorney Client Privilege (Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information).

Personnel representing the Commonwealth or County refusing to sign a waiver; AND/OR failing to indicate and substantiate the reasons which prevent their waiver should be removed from any involvement in the matter.

Personnel representing the Commonwealth or County refusing to sign a waiver should document their actions in this matter for review by the judiciary, the parties, and further investigated by an appropriate law enforcement agency or division if justified.

2016
02.09

JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of the courts is established by law. Where the law is not followed, the courts are without jurisdiction in the matter.

JURISDICTION – MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COURT

The Magisterial District Court failed to follow the Rule of Law, as indicated in the Rules of Criminal Procedure while IGNORING the rights of the Defendant which are secured by the US Constitution.

Title 42 Judicial Procedure
1515 Jurisdiction and Venue – Magisterial District Judges

A lack of jurisdiction for the Magisterial District Court, challenged and not addressed, is not remedied by the case being held for court by the issuing authority.

The Magisterial Court neglected to follow the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
EXHIBIT MAGISTERIAL COURT NEGLECT

The Magisterial Court ignored rights protected by the US Constitution.
EXHIBIT MAGISTERIAL COURT IGNORES

The Magisterial Court lacked jurisdiction to review the matter, or to transfer the matter to the Court of Common Pleas.
EXHIBIT MAGISTERIAL COURT JURISDICTION

JURISDICTION – COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

The Court of Common Pleas failed/fails to follow the Rule of Law, as indicated in the Rules of Criminal procedure while IGNORING the rights of the Defendant which are secured by the US Constitution

Title 42 Judicial Procedure
931 Original Jurisdiction – Court of Common Pleas Judges

The Court of Common Pleas has neglected to follow the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
EXHIBIT COMMON PLEAS NEGLECT

The Court of Common Pleas has ignored rights protected by the US Constitution.
EXHIBIT COMMON PLEAS IGNORES

The Court of Common Pleas lacks jurisdiction to review the matter.
EXHIBIT COMMON PLEAS JURISDICTION

JURISDICTION – DEFICIENCIES CAUSED BY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

The Attorney for the Commonwealth has neglected to follow the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
EXHIBIT PROSECUTOR NEGLECT

The Attorney for the Commonwealth has ignored rights protected by the US Constitution.
EXHIBIT PROSECUTOR IGNORES

Issues have been raised to the attention of the Court and the Attorney for the Commonwealth. There has been no response. The issues remain ignored and unresolved.
EXHIBIT PROSECUTOR DELIBERATE FAILURE TO RESPOND

2016
02.09

THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN DENIED THE PROTECTION OF THE RULE OF LAW, AND DENIED CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS SINCE 2007.

The Defendant presents the following document, exhibits and attachments which relate DIRECTLY to the criminal matter immediately before this Honorable Court as evidence to support the statement.

Evidence dating back to the Summer of 2007 is additionally contained in the court records of the following matters:
#2007-12477 Healy v Healy
#2007-32095 Healy v Healy
#2007-32114 Healy v Healy
#104-EDM-2011 Appeal to Superior Court
#1330-EDA-2013 Appeal to Superior Court
#401-MT-2013 Kings Bench Supreme Court
#155-MM-2013 Kings Bench Supreme Court

#13-4614 Eastern District of Pennsylvania – The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
#13-4591 Third Circuit Court of Appeals

#2013-29976 Healy v Miller
#900-EDA-2014 Appeal to Superior Court

The charges are unfounded.

Jurisdiction has been challenged. The District Attorney has failed to provide a statement indicating the elements of jurisdiction necessary for the Court to proceed.

Lack of jurisdiction has been greatly exacerbated by the failure of the District Attorney
– to abide the laws of the Commonwealth
– to proceed in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure
– to address or respond when notified and informed of negligence

The lack of jurisdiction, deliberately caused by the District Attorney, has been leveraged by the District Attorney to undermine the authority and independence of the Court.

LOCATION

The purported ‘crime’ did not occur in Montgomery County.

THE PURPORTED THREAT

The Letter to the Governor of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Attorney General.
– The letter was written in Warrington, Bucks County.
– The document was sent by email, Facebook messenger.
– The document was mailed via US Postal Service to Harrisburg
– The document was posted on the internet to a web site which is hosted on a server located in Houston, Texas.

The document written by the Defendant requested law enforcement actions which are part of the responsibilities of the Executive branch. Governor Tom Wolf and Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

The document written by the Defendant requested a review by the General Assembly to address where the Court of Common Pleas had incorrectly indicated a lack of jurisdiction; the incorrect ‘lack of jurisdiction’ which was ‘affirmed’ without ANY review by the Superior Court (Central Legal Staff).

BRIEF HISTORY ( HEALY v MILLER )

The Common Pleas Court had dismissed an Ejectment Action filed to gain possession of the property – a necessary prerequisite to quiet the title and strike fraudulent documents recorded by the Recorder Of Deeds.

The Court further dismissed ALL Motions to address fraudulent paperwork as ‘moot’.

The Court dismissed incorrectly indicating a lack of jurisdiction.

On Appeal to the Superior Court , the decision was affirmed. Actions by the Central Legal Staff prevented judicial review of any and every issue related to the Appeal. The Judiciary had effectively removed themselves from the matter.

The Defendant was to have been misdirected into believing there was no recourse to recover his property. Instead, the Defendant recognized that the concealed corruption of the improper affirmed decision had only removed the Judiciary from ANY FURTHER INVOLVEMENT in the matter.

Recourse for the Defendant remained in seeking the Executive branch enforcement of the law through the Governor and the Office of the Attorney General.

Also, the Defendant informed the General Assembly regarding the purported ‘lack of jurisdiction’ which would required their attention to the laws which provide the courts with proper jurisdiction.

Legislative power is vested in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Defendant included the entire Senate and the House of Representatives in the distribution of the letter.

The Defendant was aware that his letter to the Executive and Legislative branches of government would expose a deliberate corruption of the courts by judges and administrative staff in the Judicial branch.

The letter written by the Defendant is specifically protected by Pennsylvania Constitution Article 1 Section 7.

Pennsylvania Constitution Article I Section 7.
Freedom of press and speech; libels.
The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

The letter was responsibly written to the government seeking assistance.

The letter was not maliciously or negligently made.

The letter relates to the official conduct of officers in public capacity seeking investigation, information and assistance to enforce the law.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

The District Attorney prosecution of the Defendant for an activity which is specifically protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution is improper, and has been brought for the purpose of harassing and terrorizing an individual who has properly and lawfully sought the actions and effort of law enforcement.

The District Attorney had/has failed to prosecute the fraudulent conveyance and related crimes. The District Attorney has offered no explanation or response.

The District Attorney has prevented an investigation commenced by Montgomery County Detectives on the evidence and at the behest of the RECORDER OF DEEDS. The District Attorney has offered no explanation or response.

The District Attorney has also acted to prevent the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation after the RECORDER OF DEEDS had assisted the defendant by making introductions to the proper contacts at the FBI. The District Attorney has offered no explanation or response.

The interference by the District Attorney with other law enforcement agencies extends beyond the criminal affirmance of the current District Attorney and two previous office holders:
– denies the Defendant of life, liberty and freedom;
– prevents equal protection under the law;
– denies constitutional rights;
– conceals and protects direct and documented threats to murder the Defendant;
– permits the Defendant to be further victimized and threatened without recourse.

The prosecution of the Defendant has proceeded without regard for law, process, procedures, or rights. The District Attorney is attempting convert the matter, using chaos and disinformation, leading to an administrative penalty in a fabricated situation beyond the information, control or influence of the Defendant. (IE, Bench Warrant, Arrest, Contempt, Failure to Appear…)

%d bloggers like this: