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:


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.


No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: