2016
05.10

This is the response to a Letter from Pietro J. D’Angelo dated May 5, 2016.

Disinformation techniques such as misquotes and cleverly crafted compound sentences are often used to neglect the failure to address any issue and to displace responsibility. It causes further chaos – UNNECESSARILY.

It is necessary to address each incorrect statement or aspect, because the disinformation will be used to support future misstatements. It can be overwhelming to address every aspect.

Why neglect every issue documented already?
You are being ignored with specificity. THE ANSWERS ARE BEING CONCEALED. Explanations are not available or offered. Where the questions are clear and reasonable, the inability to get ANY answers indicates Rule 1.6 has been triggered. Confidentiality and non-disclosure will prevent resolution.

May 9, 2016

Pietro J. D’Angelo
Office of the Public Defender
Montgomery County Courthouse
P.O. Box 311
Norristown, PA 19404-0311

Dear Mr. D’Angelo,

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 5, 2016. Clearly, my statements in the opening paragraphs of my letter to you on May 1, 2016 were accurate. You neglected to address ANY issue addressed in the 3 page letter. Your letter is quite focused and erroneously suggests the it is I who is preventing the matter from resolution.

It is simplest to address the misstatements in your letter a line at a time.

“As you know, I have been appointed to represent you because you were deemed incompetent to stand trial.”

I do not know this. On January 27, 2016, there was no hearing. There was no competency hearing. There was no testimony. There were no witnesses. A Report by Dr. O’Brien did NOT YET EXIST.

The non-existent report was based on an examination which was not conducted in accordance with the law. That non-existent report was also not provided to the Court in accordance with the schedule required by law. The non-existent report was also not provided for review prior to a competency hearing.

The failure to adhere to the Law regarding conducting the examination and the schedule by which the report must be provided to the Court and the parties creates conditions under which the report would NOT BE ADMISSABLE as evidence.

Perhaps this is among the underlying reasons that a real hearing was not conducted on January 27, 2016.
– Instead, you met with Judge Carpenter and the Assistant District Attorney in the judge’s chambers while I sat in the courtroom..
– Special Prosecutor Thomas Carluccio was also in the courtroom and in the judges’ chambers at the time of this ‘hearing’.
– The document which indicates your assignment is a Call of the Trial List order which reads as follows:

“PUBLIC DEFENDER IS APPOINTED AS DEFENDANT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE INCOMPETENT.”

On January 27, 2016, as there had been no hearing, testimony or evidence, and the ADA had indicated that the examination report was STILL NOT available, the Court lacked jurisdiction to reach any determination regarding competency.

A NOTICE OF APPEAL was filed on January 29, 2016 and indicated that the “Order of January 27, 2016” was not yet available. The Order was not filed with the Clerk of Courts until February 9, 2016.

The NOTICE OF APPEAL was accepted by the Clerk of Courts as your appearance in the matter had not yet been filed. You filed your appearance in the matter on February 23, 2016. I have since been prevented from filing documents with the Clerk of Courts.

We have only met three times and only for a few minutes each time. On January 27, 2016, I expressed a willingness to work with you as long as I did not feel that I was being sabotaged. I also indicated that the matter from my perspective was well documented on the court record and would gladly explain anything which was unclear.

I have great concerns that as my legal representative, you failed to OBJECT to the failure to follow procedure; the neglect to follow due process; the failure to conduct a hearing where issues could be presented to the Court and addressed; and you didn’t challenge the inadmissibility of the non-existent report.

You permitted my right to equal protection of the Law and my rights protected by the US Constitution to be ignored with extreme prejudice. This is not the zealous representation which is expected of an attorney. I have provided you with the necessary information supported by law. It seems that you are participating in the chaos and furthering the injustice. .

You have failed to address the intentional negligence and failure of the District Attorney to follow the Law, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and abide by the Constitutions of Pennsylvania and the United States. Surely, your are not extending a professional courtesy to ignore the incompetence of the Assistant District Attorney..

The Order appointing you to represent me is defective and void. It was issued without proper jurisdiction.

Back to your letter:

“You expressed to me on many occasions that you are competent and would like to proceed to trial pro se.”

I am competent, knowledgeable and aware. I take the matter very seriously.

I have never indicated a desire to proceed to trial pro se. Quite the contrary, as I have stated in documents filed with the court, I would much rather be zealously represented by a defense attorney who has courtroom experience and access to a library of legal information and a staff to prepare the documents for Court.

The inability to be represented by counsel is affected by an improperly enacted and collaterally unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information. Rule 1.6 causes the complete and absolute denial of any protection of the law and all constitutionally protected rights are ignored. This has been indicated and demonstrated in the preceding paragraphs and statements filed with the Court.

“In order to meet your desire, I scheduled an evaluation with Dr. Nell for 5/3/16. You decided not to appear for the evaluation.”

Again, it is not my desire to proceed to trial pro se.

You failed to challenge the admissibility of the O’Brien Report. The report dated February 5, 2016 was delivered months later than permitted by law. You failed to challenge it where the report was the basis for your assignment to the case. The report didn’t exist when the Court made that determination and you failed to challenge that also.

The conclusion of the report is logically flawed, unsubstantiated, and personally offensive. Dr. O’Brien was contracted by the District Attorney with the purpose to support their allegation of incompetence. Additionally, after January 27, 2016, the conclusion and finding of the report was necessary to support the pre-mature finding of the Court.

On March 30, 2016, I indicated to you that Dr. Rocio Nell would have a considerable conflict of interest in this matter. I suggested we meet and go over the issues.

Instead, you filed a document with the court without my knowledge seeking an Order for the examination by Dr Nell. You failed to consider the issues which presented Dr. Nell with the conflict of interest. You neglected to consult with me. You failed to provide me with a copy of the document you filed with the Court. Your office refused to provide the document to me as well. The Clerk of Courts did not have any record of the document on the Court Docket.

“If she found you competent, we would have a competency hearing to determine your competency. If the judge found you to be competent, your case would proceed to trial.”

As someone who has just read the experience on the preceeding pages, the belief that an actual competency hearing would occur is unfounded, unsupported and ridiculous. A hearing to challenge the conclusion of the O’Brien report is not necessary. The report is not admissible because of the defects in the examination process and the failure to deliver the report to the Court within the time permitted by law.

You have not challenged the admissibility of the O’Brien Report where it’s inadmissibility is substantiated by very specific Laws.

The relevance of a contradictory conclusion from another professional indicates a logical fallacy. Where Dr. O’Brien was contracted by the County, and Dr. Nell is employed by the County, their obligation is not to myself or to the truth or to the Court. The contractor is obligated to the person who has contracted them or is paying for their service.

“It would be highly unlikely to prevail at a competency hearing with the only expert concluding you are incompetent. That is your current situation since we do not have a contrary evaluation.”

“Your case can not move forward as long as you are considered incompetent to stand trial. If you would like me to try to reschedule the evaluation, please let me know.”

That being the case, perhaps your attention would be better focused on Motions to Dismiss with prejudice for failure to follow the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Law, the Constitutions while I am prevented from filing statements and motions with the Court with your appearance on the record. It is also affecting and hindering the Appeals in this matter.

The criminal complaint is based on a protected freedom of speech and the constitutional ability to contact the government to resolve matters which require their attention. The letter which is the purported threat was written to Governor Tom Wolf, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, and the Representatives and Senators of the General Assembly.

There is no graceful exit for the District Attorney. The complaint is clearly a vindictive and retaliatory action by a protected ADA permitted to undermine my rights and ignore the law. The District Attorney has failed to address the deliberate lawlessness, the fraud and forgeries, and the abuse of authority under color of law.

The independence of the judiciary is clearly in question, unless Judge Carpenter is unaware of the series of documents bearing a rubber stamped image of his name. The deliberate negligence of the ADA has caused a lack of jurisdiction for the Court. It was agreed that the elements necessary for jurisdiction were to have been documented by the ADA in October. The ADA ignored and the District Attorney is powerless to publicly address the corruption within his office and negligent in his responsibilities to the rule of law and professional ethics of the staff employed by the District Attorneys Office.

Meanwhile, their witnesses have profited from their fraudulent conveyance through the title insurance ($ 400,000) and another large loan ($ 375,000) using my house as collateral.

Please let me know when you are available to meet to discuss the case. This is me letting you know.

Thank You.

disinformation

2016
05.06

When an entire County judiciary perpetrates a farce over 10 years which demonstrates their complete corruption and lack of independence and causes the annihilation of a man’s family and every aspect of his life. WHY DOES THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALSO PROSECUTE THEIR VICTIM?

Answer: Because he survived. Because he documented their injustice and cruelty.

WHY DOES THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALSO PROSECUTE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL?

Answer: Because Kathleen Kane knows what they have done to an innocent man, and what they will continue to do to him.

Since prevented from filing documents with the Court to address their farce, I am left with the alternative – THE LAWFUL & CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED DIRECT COMMUNICATION to the Court and those involved.

May 6, 2016 Documents

May 5, 2016 Documents

Chx8L6nXEAABOKZ

2016
05.03

Pietro J. D’Angelo
Office of the Public Defender
Montgomery County Courthouse
P.O. Box 311
Norristown, PA 19404-0311

Dear Mr. D’Angelo,

Calls, letters, faxes and documents left for your attention at the Office of the Public Defender have continued to go without any response. The failure to communicate is contrary to effective representation in the matter before the court.

I take the matter before the Court very seriously. I have communicated by filing statements before each proceeding. Unfortunately, there is no method by which I can motivate your activity. While you have been silent, I have provided information which is relevant and necessary for my defense.

Statement of Defendant on March 30, 2016
[ PDF Document contains 108 pages (17.3 MB) ]

I would prefer to NOT BE REPRESENTED as your obligations pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct prevent a zealous representation and prevent open communication regarding the case.

Your assignment to the matter has effectively undermined my efforts to communicate and/or file documents with the Court. The ‘order’ by which you have been ‘assigned’ to my case is defective and void for lack of jurisdiction and other procedural issues. The ‘order’ has been appealed to the Superior Court. There are currently three (3) interlocutory appeals filed in this matter with the Superior Court.

Similarly, the District Attorney clearly finds no necessity or obligation to adhere to the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Law or respect rights which are protected by the PA Constitution and the US Constitution.

The ‘order’ dated April 7, 2016 demonstrates the complete disregard for communication. I recognize that you are ignoring the information I have provided. It is clear that you do not intend to permit me to participate or communicate regarding my defense in any way.

Perhaps, your neglect obfuscates the knowledge that your assignment is defective and void. This is further supported by the delay in filing your appearance in the matter.

On March 30, 2016, I informed you that Dr. Rocio Nell would have several issues which create a conflict of interest for her. This information has been ignored.

You filed a document on my behalf without any communication requesting an examination by Dr Nell. I have been unable to obtain the petition you filed with the Court. The clerk indicated that he could not provide the petition or any other documents which are listed in the system but WHICH DO NOT APPEAR on the Court Docket.

An ‘order’ dated April 7, 2016 resulted. The ‘order’ indicates you served that ‘order’ to my address on April 6, 2016. [ The day before? ] The docket indicates that ‘order’ was received by the Clerk of Courts on April 14, 2016.

I traveled to the Courthouse on April 20, 2016 to meet you and to obtain copies of the ‘order’ which had appeared on the docket without any petition filed with the Court. You were unavailable. You did not contact me to follow up.

I was provided the ‘order’ which, aside from the immediate discrepancies regarding the date/time stamps, was carelessly prepared, improperly captioned, not supported by Law, and contained a rubber stamped signature. There was no way to certify its authenticity. This was confirmed by the Clerk.

The Clerk of Courts would not accept a fourth (4) NOTICE OF APPEAL regarding this ‘order’ of April 7, 2016 because the docket reflects your appearance filed on February 23, 2016.

Directly relating to Dr. Nell’s conflict of interest is a matter from 2007 where the same police officer involved in the current matter had falsified documents. Since 2007, repeated requests for Police Reports and other documents have been denied citing an ‘ongoing investigation’. That ‘ongoing investigation’ has never been addressed, or resolved. Reports have never been made available. The matter involves civil and constitutional rights violations by the police officer and failure to follow the Law. Actions by MCES in 2007, and subsequently, have neglected to adhere to Pennsylvania Law. MCES acted without regard for the law and my individual civil rights.

Additionally affecting subsequent criminal complaints, attempts to obtain police reports have been met with the same response. ‘Ongoing Investigations’ which have never been explained, resolved or prosecuted.

The ‘Information’ provided by the District Attorney in this matter also failed to include these documents. The DA has failed to address the missing ‘information’.

Where an investigation has failed to result in prosecution, the Office of the District Attorney will secure their investigative materials using grand jury seals and associated confidentiality. These actions are presumed to prevent an investigated individual from being adversely affected by the failed investigation.

Where a failed investigation has affected an individual, law enforcement confidentiality efforts can create a situation where the individual is victimized, denied protection of the Law, and prevented any recourse or resolution. Collateral crimes which could expose sealed materials are ignored.

Abuse of authority or public corruption could also lead to a ‘failed investigation’ and the sealing of related materials.

In recent years, the aggressive efforts of the Montgomery County District Attorney with regard to grand jury secrecy have attacked Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane. As owner of the CHRIA data, the Attorney General would have access to all investigative materials, AND visibility to information should it have been improperly sealed behind grand jury secrecy to conceal corruption or abuse.

A meeting on the MCES property with Dr. Nell would require a level of trust which does not exist and one which I can ill afford to extend. The challenge to my competence is unfounded and baseless. The issues are well documented. I understand the legal proceedings.

I recognize the deliberate and intentional efforts by the District Attorney which neglect to follow the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Rule of Law, while ignoring Constitutional rights.

I am unable to prevent the continued abuse of power and obstruction of justice involved in this vindictive and retaliatory prosecution by the Montgomery County District Attorney. The manipulative and abusive tactics demonstrated by the prosecutor are contrary to established law and procedure. I cannot endorse or capitulate to the efforts which deny my rights and seek to prevent any participation in my own defense.

The failure of the Court to address ANY AND EVERY procedural violation by the prosecutor remains unexplained. There is nothing that a victim of retaliatory and vindictive prosecution without ‘rules’ can do except survive and attempt to address the issues with sincerity and in a respectful manner.

The actions of the District Attorney were initiated when the victim of a fraud, the Defendant, reported the crime to the Pennsylvania Attorney General and the Governor.

The District Attorney has chosen to aggressively prosecute the victim of a fraudulent conveyance where neglecting to prosecute the perpetrators of the fraud. The failure of the DA to prosecute does not validate the fraud which has occurred. Efforts which prevent lawful resolution in a timely manner seem determined to run out a statute of limitations for the crime. However, the fraudulent conveyance has resulted in an invalid deed which cannot become valid by ignoring the crimes involved

The validity of the ‘order’ of April 7, 2016 cannot be determined where the issues which affect its validity remain ignored. I will not be complicit in the efforts, purportedly executed on my behalf, which place my security and liberty at risk.

I welcome any opportunity to address the issues which will serve to substantiate the lawful dismissal of the criminal complaint with prejudice.

Terance Healy

PDF version

DISTRIBUTION:
Public Defender, Pietro D’Angelo
Montgomery County Sheriff
Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane
Judge Carpenter, Chambers
Judge Furber, Chambers
Judge Demchik-Alloy, Chambers
Pennsylvania Legislature
Media & Internet

ChiqA63WkAAUPxv

%d bloggers like this: