Superior Court
Terance Healy #3166 EDA 2015
  #3234 EDA 2015
  #376 EDA 2016
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  #126 MAL 2017

MOTION FOR DISMISSAL (Pursuant to Rule 600)

Defendant seeks an indication that this matter will be moving forward to permit the Defendant to defend against the allegations/criminal charges or an indication if it the intent of the Assistant District Attorney to continue in efforts seeking to damage the Defendant’s reputation with an administrative punishment (ie. Bench Warrant) is the goal.

On January 23, 2018, …
– it has been 1,066 days since the Offense.
– It has been 1.048 days since the Complaint was filed.
– it has been 1,047 days since the Defendant was arrested.

Defendant reminds the Court of the necessity of jurisdiction and that there is/are defect(s) which has left the Court of Common Pleas without proper jurisdiction.

The Assistant District Attorney was to document those elements for proper jurisdiction in this matter as agreed in September, 2015. She neglected.

Instead of addressing ‘jurisdiction’, the Assistant District Attorney pursued a challenge to the Defendant’s competence.

Where the jurisdictional issue has been raised once again, the Assistant District Attorney is now challenging competence – however she has neglected to indicate under which law she is making her challenge. Competence to Stand Trial? or Competence to understand the proceedings and the charges.

Defendant re-asserts that
– there has been No Formal Arraignment.
– he has received NO copy of an Information
– he has received no copy of a charging document
– there has been No Pre-Trial Conference.
– there has been No Pre-Trial Motions – timing is based on the Formal Arraignmernt.
– there have been three appeals to the Superior Court where the issue of jurisdiction has been neglected.
– there has been one appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court where the issue of jurisdiction has been neglected.

Defendant has NOT SIGNED any waiver of counsel.
Defendant has NOT WAIVED the preliminary Hearing.
The docket incorrectly states otherwise. CORRECTION REQUESTED.

Defendant is not currently represented by Counsel.
Defendant has indicated from the first proceeding that he cannot afford representation and wishes to be represented in this matter.

Defendant asserts that the right to representation provided by the US Constitution is a right to representation unhindered by an improperly enacted and collaterally unconstitutional Confidentiality of information which prevents zealous representation while excusing and ignoring the denial of the Rule of law and the denial of rights protected by the constitutions.


Defendant asserts that right to representation is not for representation outside of his participation, involvement and direction as was performed by the court appointed Public Defender.

Where this court has indicated “There is no great injustice caused by the January 27, 2016 order…” “having appointed a Public Defender to represent him”, the Defendant disagrees strongly and with the experience of the last two years where the lack of any representation prevents any suggestion that the representation was not effective.

The actions of the Public Defender served to undermine two appeals for failure to file any brief, while attempting to secretly withdraw the third without any communications with the Defendant.

The Public Defender refused to provide documents filed with the Courts.

The Public Defender refused to respond to email or phoen messages.

The Public Defender filed no motions to dismiss – this matter is currently on the 1,042nd day since the Defendant was arrested.

The Public Defender has neglected to challenge the jurisdiction of the court.

It is possible that the Public Defender has become aware of crimes occurring which affect their client, yet the Public Defender is mandated by non-disclosure.


The filing of a motion by the Public Defender to withdraw with the Court without any related communication to the Defendant suggests that the two (2) sentence motion seeking the withdrawal is neglecting to indicate the true reason for their motion.

The two sentences are considerably weak when you consider that the Defendant was opposed to their appointment, AND that the Defendant had prevailed in having the Public Defender removed from the matter in September 2015 after usurping the representation in the matter without any application or request – and against the expressed (verbally and written) requests of the Defendant.

It has been suggested through a lawyer with the Public Defender, that there is the potential for an ambush by the Assistant District Attorney seeking false testimony in an effort to revoke bail – another administrative solution providing punishment without any trial. This could potentially prevent the Defendant from ANY release where the court lacks proper jurisdiction to conduct any trial in this matter.

The Public Defender was permitted to withdraw on January 18, 2018. However, there are laws/rules which prohibit this type of withdrawal. Where the Public Defender was assigned to the matter based on the allegation of the Defendant’s incompetence, which was never adjudicated, but granted without hearings or testimony or evidence or any opportunity for the Defendant to be heard pursuant to Title 42 Pa. 2501(b) (“In all criminal prosecutions the accused has a right to be heard by himself and his counsel.”)

Defendant is concerned by the discrepancies in the orders received from this Court. Inconsistencies in the Caption, the case # format, the misspelling of the Defendant’s name, and the use of rubber stamps for the signature of the judge.

There is no record or transcript of these proceedings.

There are no scheduling orders indicating that the Defendant was given proper notice of the proceeding and the purpose for the proceeding.

The Defendant has been available and in the courtroom, but prevented from any involvement or participation or awareness of issues being discussed, and those involved are NOT identified or indicated. There has been no explanation, or indication of any Rule or any Law which directs these activities.

On January 18, 2018, Defendant had been instructed to appear to indicate his cause for not appearing on January 10, 2018.

The court appointed Public Defender did not review anything with the Defendant and also did not appear in court to represent the Defendant.

The Defendant’s reasoning had already been provided to the Court directly by correspondence.

A Notice of Appeal had been filed indicating the cause for the Defendant’s non-appearance on January 10, 2018.

A courtesy copy was sent to the judge’s chambers. The Defendant confirmed that the judge had received his correspondence.

Then, the court proceeded to discuss the Motion to Withdraw filed on January 11, 2018 by the Public Defender.

Defendant had no input in the appointment of the Public Defender two years prior. The Public Defender had proceeded to sabotage, neglect and undermine my efforts. Defendant had indicated that he did NOT want to be represented by counsel encumbered and hindered by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandates as it permitted the denial of the Rule of Law and ignored constitutional rights. Every aspect of this matter proves that statement yet again.

Entering the courtroom, as if on cue, the court asked Denise Marone her impression of the Defendant’s competence. This information is privileged. But, without any hesitation, Marone indicated her opinion of the Defendant. And she was gone again.

Next, The Assistant District Attorney read from a document which had never been presented to the court as an exhibit, or testimony, or affidavit.

Defendant indicated the defects in the document, in the examination, the general and deliberate negligence to adhere to any rule or law which would have produced the report and permitted it to be admissable in any hearing to any court. Those defects are fatal. Defendant objected indicating the document was inadmissable and the reasoning. The Assistant District Attorney just continued.

Where the court lacks jurisdiction, there are no rules to abide. There are only opportunities to denigrate, demean, humiliate, and attack the reputation of the Defendant while threatening his freedom.


Defendant requests an explanation for the misrepresentations which appear on the Order dated January 18, 2018.

Incorrectly indicating that “the above matter having been scheduled for a COMPETENCY HEARING before Judge William R. Carpenter at 9:30 AM in Courtroom C was heard and the matter is:
– to be rescheduled for the Call of the Trial List by Court Administration
– scheduled for January 23, 2018”

Where the Defendant had NOT been provided ANY notice of ANY Competency Hearing
Where the Defendant had not been provided with ANY petition or ANY motion for a Competency Hearing
Where the Defendant had appeared based on the Order of January 10, 2018 indicating the Assistant District Attorney had requested the court issue a bench warrant.

Defendant appeared as ordered at 8:45 AM on January 18, 2018 in Courtroom C.

Defendant raises the question as to the purpose for misrepresenting the matter as a scheduled Competency Hearing and requests a reply and correction be issued, distributed and filed.

(Copies of Both Orders are attached.)

Defendant incorporates by reference his prior Statements filed at each appearance, and requests an explanation from the court for the failure to address any issue.


Defendant has indicated that he has not been brought to trial within the time limits set forth in Rule 600(A) and requests that the charges be dismissed with prejudice on the ground that Rule 600 has been violated.

Service to the Assistant District Attorney by hand delivery on January 23, 2018 and interoffice from the Clerk of Courts.

A Hearing is requested.

It has approaching three (3) Years since the arrest, there has been no movement towards prosecution in a trial.

There has NEVER been ANY opportunity for the Defendant to defend.

Proceedings have been repeatedly rescheduled where the Assistant District Attorney indicates her lack of preparedness to go to trial, and then reschedules for the next month while making constant threats of bench warrants being issued for arrest.

Defendant can only surmise that the defect in the jurisdiction is preventing the court from holding any proper hearings.

The neglect or refusal of the court to address the proper jurisdiction has been exacerbated with every notice of a proceeding or scheduling order.

Every threat of a bench warrant is another threat to the liberty of the Defendant who has been prevented from any recourse or resolution or escape by and through an aggressive and malicious prosecution determined to exact a punishment without regard for ANY Rule of Law or Constitutional right.

I recognize that District Attorney Kevin Steele has a privileged relationship with the Assistant District Attorney which prevents him from prosecuting her for her crimes. Mr. Steele is not prevented from terminating her employment with the District Attorneys Office. I request that action be taken immediately.

I seek dismissal with prejudice and a referral to the proper law enforcement agency to address the crimes committed against me.

Terance Healy
…since 2007

I verify that the facts contained herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge or information or belief.
I understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

Terance Healy
c/o/ 871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976


An Expression comes to mind. (Which requires an aural argument. Apologies…)

“The accent is on the wrong syllable.”
(The ac-cent is on the wrong syl-LA-ble.)

The cute expression tells you the problem and demonstrates itself. It plays out in your mind. You hear it wrong. Your mind knows right away. The pronunciation distracts/confuses you while the answer is being provided.


And so it is with … INTERLOCUTORY.

I thought that prefix (inter = within) could be removed. Then, the base pronounced lo-CUE-tory. But, it is not inter + lo-CUE-to-ry.

I speak multiple languages. Yet, I stumbled over the word. I felt stupid EVERYTIME I tried to say it… to pronounce it. I am not too proud to ask a question. So, EVERYTIME I used it in a sentence, I would ask if I got it right. In my experience, the word only exists in one realm. I never got an answer from within that realm.

I was told the correct pronunciation of the word by someone from Philadelphia.

inner – lokka – tory

So why does interlocutory require wordplay for correct pronunciation?

An issue arises before something starts. It is immediately identified as interlocutory. You are told the issue will be addressed at the end. Logic suggests “address it immediately to avoid the entire waste of time and effort.”

An issue arises in the middle. It is identified as interlocutory. You are told of chaos and confusion which requires that issue must be addressed at the end. Logic suggests “addressing it now will avoid any further waste of time and effort.” AND Logically, neglecting the issue IS WHAT IS CAUSING the chaos and confusion.

When raised after completion, the interlocutory issue is called ‘moot’.
LOGIC indicates IT IS MOOT. It is not interlocutory anymore.

You made it to the end. You were required to waste time and effort. You were required to wait, to endure, to survive. NOW, YOU TRULY SEE THE COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME AND EFFORT. b AND… IT IS MOOT. But, it is also not an interlocutory issue any longer. Those rules no longer apply.

Perhaps, the struggle with pronunciation of interlocutory is necessary to recognize the problem is the problem in itself.

Once played, the interlocutory card prevents resolution. The resolution is prevented by identifying the issue as interlocutory – it occurs in the middle. If you get to the end, it is not interlocutory. IT’S MOOT. All the wasted time and effort which sought to avoid getting to a point where that time and effort would be indicated as wasted time and effort is moot once you get to the end and realize … it was all wasted time and effort.

WELL, NOW IT IS, but… AW, shit, so there it is. Logic told you something was wrong. Wordplay. A GAME? But, this has no place to occur HERE. Not in a court of law. The American system of justice could NOT have been undermined by machinations, or petty manipulations.


Interlocutory is “wrapped within itself”. You can only identify it when you are within the issue. At any other time, it is identified as something else.

Interlocutory issues can not be addressed while interlocutory; and at any other time, they are pointless.

Interlocutory translates to “have not and never intend to answer the question or address the issue, demonstrating a confident belief of protection from any requirement for response. Ever.”

In a court which is required to have jurisdiction??
In Superior Court, what they are concealing, which is lacking in the lower court, is the very thing the higher court is saying they do not have… JURISDICTION. On appeal, the higher court indicates their lack of jurisdiction to address the lower court’s jurisdiction.

There can be no bigger indication that something is wrong. Yet, there is no suggestion of any intention to indicate or resolve the problem. Any recourse will be prevented.

IT’S OBVIOUS. IT”S IN YOUR FACE. It’s only funny when it happens to other people. Why? That’s simple. There’s no easy escape. Survival is key.

Courts can pretend they have jurisdiction, BUT, CLEARLY KNOW WHEN THEY DON’T.

There is no retro-active jurisdiction. There is no interpretive jurisdiction. It is a matter of law, a fact, either it exists or it doesn’t. There are no gray areas. The elements of jurisdiction are a necessity. The most basic necessity in jurisprudence is jurisdiction.

If the court has it, they indicate it immediately, arrogantly, without hesitation, and with indignation to demonstrate their confidence.

If they don’t have it, it will be as though you never asked. Because, well, you never asked. If you had, there are “rules” in place.

There’s no correcting a lack of jurisdiction. Where you keep asking, the court will only conclude one thing. You are incapable of realizing that the court is never going to tell you. You’re incompetent.

If you indicate the court had no jurisdiction to decide “competency”… OH NO YOU DI’INT. There will be no further discussion of the matter as you have been found to be “severely mentally disabled.”

Courts don’t indicate their want (or lack) of jurisdiction. Courts defer any obligation to answer. There is NO OVERSIGHT of interlocutory issues.
CLARIFICATION: From their perspective there is no oversight outside the judicial branch. They locked down all lawyers with non-disclosure (Rule 1.6).

Because what they are doing is WRONG. What they are doing is denying basic American principles… the Rule of Law, Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land, is based on morality. All federal laws must be constitutional. The state constitutions must also defer to the US Constitution. State laws must be constitutional. Denying basic American principles is so wrong, it is not moral… not constitutional… a nullity… NO LAW. So, in Pennsylvania, they called them ‘rules”.

“Well, this rule said it was interlocutory… and another rule said it can’t be reviewed,… and another rule said it was too late.”
THOSE RULES ARE NOT LAWS. Regular people do not differentiate because the law is the law.
BREATH!!! It’s not just ‘rules’, there are other words which do similar things.

RULES ARE NOT LAWS. There is no review to see if that, or any, “rule” has an unconstitutional consequence.

Where a lawyer may learn of the consequence, lawyers are mandated to non-disclosure (Rule 1.6) which prevents raising the unconstitutional consequence as a challenge.

Where no one would address “the rule you know” to be wrong, there has always been another “rule you don’t know” which required non-disclosure.

I had experienced years of litigation, when it became clear, that “rule you don’t know” was the precise problem. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information. The needle in the haystack of injustice. The mandate for the silent participation by lawyers.

Unless, and until, it had a direct affect on them, a lawyer could take no action to expose the problem. And where permitted to expose the problem, the reality of the true intent would hit that lawyer like a ton of bricks. If any lawyer tried to take any action, the system would retaliate.

And it did.

Article V Section 10(c) 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 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. “

Those “rules” are derived from the rule-making authority of Article V Section 10(c) of the state constitutions.

The “rules” must be “… consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant,…”

BUT, those Rules HAVE denied protection of the law and all constitutional rights. MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!

BUT, no one helps. Right? Let’s recruit some assistance. If you read one phrase further.

The “rules” may not “… affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court…”

The General Assembly indicates the jurisdiction of the courts by law. The jurisdiction of any court is the responsibility of the General Assembly.

You contacted your legislators. You were told that they do not get involved in issues currently before any court or involving the judiciary.

While you have been neglecting to recognize, or address, these problems with the judicial branch, the judiciary have been writing ‘rules’ which undermine the Laws of the General Assembly, ignore rights secured by the Pennsylvania Constitution, and deny rights and protections under the Constitution of the United States.

In neglecting their constitutional mandate “TO DETERMINE THE JURISDICTION OF ANY COURT”, the General Assembly – Pennsylvania’s legislative branch, has neglected any review, oversight or action regarding jurisdiction of the courts. Where discovered to be lacking in jurisdiction, the courts have enacted rules which prevent resolution or recourse while preventing the laws of the commonwealth, and denying the rights of litigants.

Additionally, the judicial branch has demanded participation and non-disclosure by lawyers pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

The executive branch, Office of the Attorney General, has been similarly obstructed and prevented from responsibilities to the Commonwealth, to the Rule of Law and to the Constitutions.

I present this matter to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania seeking resolution, recourse and restoration of constitutional protections.

The Judiciary has neglected any review or enforcement pursuant to “their rules” which have denied equal protection of the law and all constitutional rights.

“Their rules” have additionally prevented any review of unconstitutional affect(s) of their rules where Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information mandates non-disclosure where adversely affecting the integrity of the judiciary.

I have no obligation to any improperly enacted and unconstitutional confidentiality rule which requires silent participation in the complete denial to American citizens of the protection of the Rule of Law and prevention of rights protected by the Constitutions of the US and the state. I am not a lawyer. “Their” Rule 1.6 applies to lawyers.

I respectfully request the members of the General Assembly to self-identify those who are obligated pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct promulgated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

I respectfully request those members obligated pursuant to Rule 1.6 recuse, and be excused permitting their personal rights to be respected, from any further discussion or involvement in this issue.

I respectfully request those members, not directly affected pursuant to Rule 1.6, who have been advised by their legal counsel to abstain or recuse from participation in any further discussion or involvement in this issue, to indicate by name those persons advising them and provide the reasoning/basis for their advice.

I respectfully request the Office of the Attorney General, obligated pursuant to Rule 1.6, recuse or withdraw so that personal rights can be respected.

I respectfully request the involvement of Special Attorney General Doug Gansler, as proxy for the Attorney General, with the understanding that he has reasonable awareness of these issues and is under no obligation pursuant to rules being challenged constitutionally, including Rule 1.6, and has no privileged relationships within the Commonwealth which must be admitted, concealed or protected.

I respectfully call attention to the matter currently in the Court of Common Pleas in Montgomery County Pennsylvania, Judge William R. Carpenter presiding, where the jurisdiction of the court has been challenged and jurisdiction remains ignored. Demonstrating the lack of any resolution or recourse, the history of the case(s) is presented as briefly as possible.

“When a court avoids indication of proper jurisdiction, that court is aware that it lacks jurisdiction.”

Commonwealth v. Terance P. Healy


Rule 1.6 is additionally improperly enacted and unconstitutional where it has usurped the authority of the Legislature to define jurisdiction of the courts.

By a mandate of Confidentiality which conceals the affect on jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of PA violated ANOTHER CONDITION OF Article V Section 10(c) when mandating Confidentiality.

Effectively overthrowing the rule of law, the constitutionally protected rights of the litigant and the constitutional authority of the Legislature.

“… nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or Justice of the Peace…”

Rule 1.6 can be demonstrated to remove the jurisdiction from the Court of Common Pleas while placed there by law, but where confidentiality prevents the court from indicating their lack of jurisdiction is caused where a prior directly related order is defective and void.

A court with established jurisdiction is left without jurisdiction and any explanation while concealing prior court lacked jurisdiction.

Judge Weilheimer indicated a lack of jurisdiction TO CONCEAL the deliberately defective and void orders of Judge Carluccio.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania violated the PA Constitution in enactingt Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.
– Affecting the substantive rights of lit8igants
– Affecting the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court .

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality could not be permitted to leave a litigant without recourse.

In 2015, Terance Healy, in writing to the General Assembly to notify them of EXACTLY SUCH AN OCCURRENCE in Healy v Miller, invoked the wrath of the lawyers, District Attorney Office, ATTACKED THE MESSENGER and the courts have additionally participated for three years… and now seek to threaten my Liberty even further.

AGAIN, I seek the intervention of the General Assembly and the Governor to stop their retaliation.

A Conspiracy to conceal a defective and void order lacking juridiction in a proceeding where jurisdiction is lackling and prevented from exposure concealed by Confidentiality…. for three years and through every level of PA Courts the neglect to address the jurisdiction is evident and clearly Confidential… WHERE IT EFFECTIVELY OVERTHREW THE ENTIRE LEGISLATURE…
(and silent efforts of lawyers in the Legislature)

Rule 1.6 caused – No rule of law for me, no constitutional rights for me, and usurped the constitutional authority of the Legislature.

“… 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”

The lawyers in the PA Legislature did not have the constitutional authority to neglect their involvement regarding JURISDICTION of the courts. But, neglect they did.


To The Montgomery County Public Defender Office:

Your deliberate and intentional negligence instructed by the Chief Public Defender threatens my life and the lives of people around me.

Is there any bench warrant?


Motion for Recourse

Notice of Appeal

Notice of Appeal Filed

Request for Acknowledgement of Notice of Appeal filed 1-9-2018

Query Regarding Any Issuance Of Bench Warrant

EMAIL Sent to:
“Beer, Dean” , adaniels@montcopa.org, agur@montcopa.org, akatzman@montcopa.org, akosinsk@montcopa.org, akostyk@montcopa.org, bhalfond@montcopa.org, bkersey@montcopa.org, callman@montcopa.org, cfortune@montcopa.org, chosay@montcopa.org, csweeney@montcopa.org, dgreensp@montcopa.org, djohnson@montcopa.org, “Marone, Denise” , dmontows@montcopa.org, dtheveny@montcopa.org, ebrogan@montcopa.org, edonato@montcopa.org, epeterse@montcopa.org, esieber@montcopa.org, fzeock@montcopa.org, gcardena@montcopa.org, ggriffit@montcopa.org, gnester@montcopa.org, hkranzel@montcopa.org, itorres@montcopa.org, jkravitz@montcopa.org, jlucas@montcopa.org, jthorn@montcopa.org, kgrimsru@montcopa.org, kharbiso@montcopa.org, khudson@montcopa.org, kpemment@montcopa.org, kwagner@montcopa.org, lalexan1@montcopa.org, ljones@montcopa.org, lkash@montcopa.org, lnonnema@montcopa.org, lortiz@montcopa.org, lwilson@montcopa.org, lzitsch@montcopa.org, mcassidy@montcopa.org, mdayoc@montcopa.org, mjohn@montcopa.org, mschanba@montcopa.org, msontchi@montcopa.org, mwarren@montcopa.org, ncasey@montcopa.org, pcassidy@montcopa.org, pdangelo@montcopa.org, pgeorge@montcopa.org, pkeller@montcopa.org, rmadden@montcopa.org, “Roberts, Raymond” , rsimon@montcopa.org, shudson@montcopa.org, tbowman@montcopa.org, tross@montcopa.org, vbellino@montcopa.org, vsimmons@montcopa.org, wburnett@montcopa.org, wmendez@montcopa.org, mamodio@montcopa.org, MSuplicki@montcopa.org, cstuart@montcopa.org, josh@montcopa.org, val@montcopa.org, joe@montcopa.org


Hon. William R. Carpenter January 11, 2018
Court of Common Pleas
Montgomery County
Norristown, PA 19404
  Query Regarding Any
RE: #3151-2015 Issuance of Bench Warrant

Defendant AGAIN asks this court to advise of any actions which places his life, and the lives of those around him, at risk by any law enforcement team mislead by an abusive and aggressive District Attorney.

A Notice of Appeal has been filed on January 9, 2018. Defendant is not represented in this matter and has been prevented from self-representation.

The unnecessary issuance of any bench warrant would further serve to terrify not only myself, but my mother, causing unnecessary fear, and creating neighborhood speculation and gossip. A concern for the safety and security of all involved.

Defendant respectfully requests a courtesy. The indication of any further actions in this matter while without jurisdiction and while neglecting to indicate the lack of jurisdiction. An abuse leveraged by Lauren McNulty which adversely undermines the integrity of this honorable court and the entire Montgomery County judiciary.

Defendant calls judicial notice to the Montgomery County Sheriff – who is similarly entangled as a lawyer mandated to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information which usurps the Rule of Law, the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Constitution of the United States – ripe for manipulation.

Defendant having demonstrated that those persons who find themselves bound by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of information have found their authority undermined and has been leveraged for further abuses upon the Defendant. All the while aware that their actions are a contradiction to the law the rights protected by the constitutions, but unable to address the conflict by the mandate of cnon-disclosure.

A simple courtesy. Is that so much to ask of a court which has permitted it’s integrity to be undermined by an aggressive and malicious prosecutor?

I can be contacted at 215-343-1686, leave a message, and yepTerance@gmail.com.


Terance Healy
…since 2007


A reliance on defective and void Orders lacking any jurisdiction and a Confidentiality law which mandates lawyers non-disclosure.

That statement is precise.

Defective – did not follow law.

Void – a nullity and unenforceable

Jurisdiction – a necessity of ANY court order.

Confidentiality Law – Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information (incorporated by cross-reference throughout the Rules of Professional Conduct.)
The collateral affects of confidentiality undermine the rule of law and all constitutional rights while the lawyers are MANDATED to non-disclosure.
– It is unconstitutional
— It is improperly enacted – Article V Section 10(c)

The Abusive Effect of Rule 1.6 is triggered by injustice, which is kept secret, Confidential, NON-DISCLOSED.

The abuse, absent any Rule of Law, ignorant of any constitutionally protected right, … In my case, everyone silently participated for years.

The secret Order of (#1) Judge Rhonda Lee Daniele undermined the judiciary, the law, the constitutions…
(TRIGGERS RULE 1.6 ABUSE before Defendant ever sees any courtroom.)

(#2) The Hon. Judge Toby Dickman was never affected.
(Footnotes in Orders indicate attempt to provide protection.)

(#3) Judge Ott

(#4) Judge Tilson

(#5) Judge DelRicci – conceals the secret order when identified in his court.

(#6) Judge Bertin

The defective and void Divorce Decree of (#16) Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio – she stifled the appeal – just ignored and neglected

Attempted Enforcement (#17) Judge Haaz does nothing.

Attempted Enforcement (#19) Judge Page provides further abuse.

Attempted Appeal (#20) Judge Austin refuses to participate.

2013 – The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information. Explained every malicious act and bad actor as a participant in non-disclosure. Unconstitutional affect. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had no authority to enact the law.
– Improperly enacted and unconstitutional Confidentiality of Information which denied the Rule of Law and prevented EVERY constitutional right.

Yet, they persist.

Chased from the court of (#21) Judge Duffy by an out of control Administrator who interferes with hearing.

Yet, they persist further.

(#21) Judge Duffy neglects procedure and law. clerks falsify computer records.

(#22) Judge Carpenter unable to address, explain or resolve the lack of jurisdiction.

Appeal #1

Appeal #2

Appeal #3

Appeal #3 escalates to Supreme Court.

Without jurisdiction, hearing is ‘ordered’. Appealed 1/9/2018.

When an attorney finds the unconstitutional affect and is affected by it directly, or the client is clearly affected, and where there is nothing they can accomplish to prevent or undo the unconstitutional actions, they have a responsibility as an officer of the court to act to address the unconstitutional law and to prevent its unconstitutional affects.

(This is why Dean Beers, Montgomery County Public Defender, has instructed his office to NOT READ ANYTHING in my case.)

(This is why Kathleen Kane, was secretly ordered by two-unidentified courts to PERSONALLY neglect the responsibilities of the Office of the Attorney general. This is why they took her law license.)

(The efforts to prevent exposure by AG Kane exposed in email exchanged by the Office of the Attorney General. The Doug Gansler Report.)

2015 – A preliminary hearing without waiver of counsel and without colloquoy where it is stated on the record that the litigant wishes to assert his constitutional right to representation, HOWEVER that counsel must be unencumbered by an improperly enacted and unconstitutional mandate of confidentiality which can be demonstrated to deny the rule of law and prevent constitutional rights.

2015 – False Entries into a Government Computer System

The result – the Court of Common Pleas is without jurisdiction and lawyers are mandated to non-disclosure.

Collateral Orders – for example: Bail Orders are defective and void where the law and constitutioanl rights have been ignored.

BUT, Confidentiality prevents everyone from any resolution. And anyone who becomes too informed learns the UNCONSTITUTIONAL affect. Anyone who becomes directly involved becomes INVOLVED in the unconstitutional acts… and obligated to raise the issue… (or feign stupidity)



Hon. William R. Carpenter January 10, 2018
Court of Common Pleas
Montgomery County
Norristown, PA 19404
  Request for Acknowledgment
RE: #3151-2015 of Notice of Appeal filed 1/9/2018

Defendant respectfully requests the acknowledgment of receipt and awareness of the Notice of Appeal filed in this matter.

Defendant advises the court that this matter has been completely and absolutely neglected by the Public Defender Office, Dean Beers, and the entire office. The contempt of the Public Defender has been indicated in documents filed with the court.

Defendant is not represented in this matter and has been prevented from self-representation.

The situation having been created by an allegation of incompetence by the District Attorney, unfounded and not adjudicated, yet granted to the detriment of the Defendant. Dismissed from review on Appeal to the Superior Court. The Public Defender office refuses to communicate regarding to the actions in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. They will not provide any paperwork.

Concern for the further involvement, incursion and interference by law enforcement already entangled in a quagmire after a violent and aggressive false suicide intervention by Warrington Township Police in April 2017, necessitates this request for acknowledgment and receipt. That matter is currently being adjudicated in Bucks County. The Hon. Judge James McMasters presiding.

The unnecessary issuance of any bench warrant would further serve to terrify not only myself, but my mother, causing unnecessary fear, and creating neighborhood speculation and gossip. A concern for the safety and security of all involved.

Where the Public Defender, having received the same courtesy copy sent to judge’s chambers yesterday, may not have opened it or read it – following the instruction of the Public Defender Dean Beer to neglect and NOT TO READ any document in this matter. Brie Halfond, the Public Defender who has filed an appearance in the matter has had no contact. Any statement by a deliberately negligent and uninformed court-appointed Public Defender in this matter would be moot.

For the reasons indicated above I respectfully request acknowledgment of the Notice of Appeal in this matter. I can be contacted at 215-343-1686 and yepTerance@gmail.com.


Terance Healy
…since 2007


The terror inflicted upon me by the District Attorney when compared to the false allegations against me in the Criminal Complaint is EXTREME AND BRUTAL beyond any measure of the imagination.

A malicious prosecution more violent than the purported crime being prosecuted.

Arrested 3/13/2015. There has been no Formal Arraignment.

The scope of their terror so brutal, extreme and without consequence that it defies comprehension.

Boundless, they involve further participants at an alarming rate.

The relentless level of assault, the number of people involved, the abuse of power under color of law, the prevention of life, the constant threat of further false allegations, the requirements of the constant litigation which proceeds without Rule of Law and ignoring every constitutional right, and… NO ONE CAN STOP IT. NO ONE WILL STOP IT.


My EVERY action had/has sought resolution to no avail.



The Plea Deal – relinquish the deed and all charges would be dropped. Extortion by the District Attorney on their behalf.

THEIR GOAL – My Death. Where murder would indicate their responsibility, a false suicide intervention was intended to conceal – BOTCHED. FAILED.
EXPOSED THE MANIPULATION OF POLICE TO UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS causing liabilities for everyone who became involved. HUNDREDS joined the effort and became liable for the violations. Three organizations – Doylestown Hospital, Lenape Valley Foundation, The Horsham Clinic – participated in a hostage situation from which there was no escape for days – because it never should have happened. The law was ignored. There was no warrant. There was no suicide. All rights ignored. The officer admits he did not fill out the form. It had been pre-filled. The false suicide intervention was a weapon to terrorize. It did. It still does.

My death provides them with no further challenge to the deed to property they stole.

My death provides them with safety from prosecution for the false allegations with which they have charged me. And the insurance fraud. And the death threats. And their abuse of authority – Dad WAS Police Chief.

My death provides them protection and is their goal.


There is no escape. There is no recourse. There is no relief. There is only further terror.

A malicious prosecution more violent than the false accusations which they have alleged.

An abuse of power under color of law with intent to cause severe emotional distress.

An abuse of power under color of law determined to bring about my DEATH. This has always been their goal.

The day will come to execute me.

And … it will not be avoided.

It cannot be prevented.

No one shows any indication of stopping them.



Hon. William R. Carpenter January 9, 2018
Court of Common Pleas
Montgomery County
Norristown, PA 19404
  (Courtesy Copy) PDF

“There is no great injustice caused by the January 27, 2016 order…” “having appointed a Public Defender to represent him.” – Judge William R. Carpenter

The Defendant strongly disagrees with that Opinion of the Court. [WITH EXPERIENCE ADDED]

The negligence and sabotage by the Public Defender for the last two years contradicts the judges opinion WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE and shows their CONTEMPT for his assignment.

The court-appointed Public Defender having neglected any review of the case;
neglected any preparation of any defense;
having neglected to file their appearance in the matter;
having neglected to indicate the attorney assigned to this matter;
having demonstrated their contempt for an order of a court unable to address it’s jurisdiction; and
having failed to take any action indicative of providing representation (court-appointed, zealous or otherwise);
having failed to file a Notice of Appeal.

Defendant has had no response from the Court regarding his correspondence, Petition for Recourse, on January 8, 2018.

Defendant, Terance Healy, has filed this NOTICE OF APPEAL January 9, 2018 (Copy Attached) and provides this copy as a courtesy.

Terance Healy
…since 2007



  Superior Court
Terance Healy #3166 EDA 2015
  #3234 EDA 2015
  #376 EDA 2016
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  #126 MAL 2017


Notice is hereby given that Terance Healy, Defendant, Appellant named above, hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the “purported” order entered in this matter on January 2, 2018. (Copy Attached)

“Purported” as the document contains a “robo-signature” and was delivered after a conference where the Defendant was not permitted to be present, and where Defendant was not permitted to be heard, and where the Defendant was not represented, and where the court lacks jurisdiction.

The Defendant has delivered to Judge William R,. Carpenter a MOTION FOR RECOURSE on January 8, 2018. (Attached)

Judge Carpenter having indicated in his Opinion dated March 9, 2016, that “There is no great injustice caused by the January 27, 2016 order…” “having appointed a Public Defender to represent him.”

In hindsight, the Court ordered representation, which provided NO REPRESENTATION, denied the Defendant of ANY representation. It served to prevent the Defendant from representing himself and denies his constitutional right to be heard.


The Court of Common Pleas does not have jurisdiction in this matter..

The Court has neglected to respond to any challenge of jurisdiction at any time, in any document, order or opinion, through three prior appeals to Superior Court, and one escalates to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Commonwealth has additionally neglected to address the issue of jurisdiction at any time, in any document, petition, or brief, through three appeal to Superior Court, and having filed a NO ANSWER letter neglected to address the issue with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The lack of jurisdiction, and inability to address the issue of jurisdiction, has caused a farce which threatens the integrity of the Court and the Public Trust in the judiciary.


There can be no permission provided by the Court, which lacks jurisdiction.

Appellant appeals to this Court with regard to a farce which has proceeded without regard for the Rule of Law, The Rules of Criminal Procedure, The Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Pennsylvania Constitutional or the Constitutional of the United States.

Appellant asserts that ANY RULE pursuant to Pa Constitution Article V Section 10(c) WHICH PREVENTS THIS MATTER FROM ANY REVIEW AND PREVENTS HIM FROM ANY RECOURSE subverts substantive rights protected by the US Constitution and has been improperly enacted where the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania authority to enact such rule or mandate requires that
“… such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant…”


Non-disclosure of ‘the whole truth’ in this matter has been prevented and unsubstantiated by any applicable rule of law.

Appellant challenges that non-disclosure of “the whole truth” is pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information which has collaterally subverted the rule of law and the constitutions, and prevents him protection under any Rule of Law and subverts ALL rights as a litigant.


Appellant asserts that those persons encumbered by the mandate of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information are prevented from any action to address or challenge or review constitutionality pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

The unconstitutional paradox is presented for your review, experience, endorsement judicial notice and RECUSAL with escalation to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Appellant is unaware of any transcript regarding the order.

The subject Order dated the 2nd day of January 2018 has been entered in the docket as evidenced by the attached copy of the docket entry.

Terance Healy

Warrington, PA 18976

%d bloggers like this: