2018
01.09

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.

I SURVIVE TO BE FURTHER TERRORIZED.

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

THEIR EVERY ACTION A MANIPULATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT BY MEMBERS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.

THEIR TWISTED MISUSE AND ABUSE OF THE FULL AND TREMENDOUS LIFE AND DEATH TERROR – A REALITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN AMERICA.

THEIR AGGRESSIVE AND VIOLENT EFFORTS CONDUCTED ON THEIR BEHALF BY THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
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.

I SURVIVE TO BE FURTHER TERRORIZED.

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.

SINCE MARCH 2015, THREE YEARS AGO, THEIR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION MORE VIOLENT THAN THE CRIME THEY FALSELY ALLEGE… RESULTS IN MY DEATH.

2018
01.09

Hon. William R. Carpenter January 9, 2018
Court of Common Pleas
Montgomery County
Norristown, PA 19404
   
RE: #3151-2015 NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED
  (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;
and
neglected any preparation of any defense;
and
having neglected to file their appearance in the matter;
and
having neglected to indicate the attorney assigned to this matter;
and
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);
and
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.

Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Defendant
…since 2007

2018
01.09

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA #3151-15
  #MJ-38118-CR-0000096-2015
v.  
  Superior Court
Terance Healy #3166 EDA 2015
  #3234 EDA 2015
  #376 EDA 2016
   
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  #126 MAL 2017

NOTICE OF APPEAL PDF

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.

JURISDICTION

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.

APPEAL – ALLOWANCE BY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

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…”

THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH

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.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL PARADOX

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: