Lawyers present The Truth, and Nothing But the Truth, however Rule 1.6 can mandate non-disclosure of The Whole Truth. At risk: Protection of the Rule of Law, and constitution rights.

It is without any implication or suggestion of negative intent; nor any belief in motivation based on malice that I present the following activity in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas. The Honorable Judge James M. McMaster presiding. January 5, 2018.

A PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS APPOINTED COUNSEL was filed on 11/16/2017 by Bradley Bastedo, Senior Chief Deputy Public Defender, Bucks County.

The Petition and a RULE TO SHOW CAUSE praecipe was filed on December 18, 2017 and served along with correspondence from Christine A. King, Public Defender, Bucks County, to the Defendant.

A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE RETURNABLE AT HEARING was ordered for 01/05/2018 by Judge McMaster.


In his petition to withdraw, Attorney Bastedo indicates “emails and a phone call from Terance Healy” (at para #9) as reason for withdrawal.

Further, Bastedo indicates that Ms. Christine King, Public Defender of Bucks County had “likewise received such emails and who directed that counsel should file this petition.” (at para #10)

Attorney Bastedo and Attorney King are professionally licensed attorneys in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and as such they practice pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct initially promulgated into law in 1987 by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

The Response filed by the Defendant presents issues which could not be presented by the attorneys in their documents pursuant to a confidentiality mandate under Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

“There was no immediate explanation for the actions of all involved to have completely disregarded the Mental Health Laws and gone off the rails. A false suicide intervention.” (at Response Page 3 para 4)

“Brad indicated he may have to consult a lawyer for himself in order to continue representing me” (at Response Page 3, para 5)

“Brad indicated he had been contacted to drop the case, to withdraw, from people within the courthouse. He never mentioned them by name. He indicated some email exchanges regarding his representation.” (at Response Page 3 para 6)

“The suggestion that the volume of email was the conflict was unfair.” (at Response Page 4, para 6)

County Commissioner “Diane Marseglia responded. Our email exchanges lead to an introduction to the Public Defenders Office to handle the appeal.” (at Response Page 2 para 12)

“December 6, 2017, at the County Commissioners meeting, I asked the Commissioners why this action was occurring. They indicated they had helped me enough. They admitted to their effort to withdraw the Public Defender. Their suggestion of organizations to whom they had just donated thousands of dollars seemed mindlessly indicative of the control. The meeting is recorded.” (at Response Page 4, para 8)

“The Commissioners fund both the Public Defender and the Mental Health Department. I had requested meetings with them to inform them of my experience.” (at Response 4 para 11)

“After learning the reality of the story which they did not want to hear, the Commissioners acted to end further legal representation.” (at Reponse Page 4 para 12)

“The use of involuntary commitment as a weapon has little or no regard for the law. Once triggered, it creates a liability for everyone who becomes involved.” (at Response Page 5 para 4)

“The disregard for the law caused a complete disregard for constitutional rights.” (at Response Page 5 para 7)

“Rule 1.6 Confidentiality prevents exposure of corruption in government. Confidentiality prevents exposure of the clients misdeed. A District Attorney represents himself, his staff and his office. If he discovers a crime by a staffer, confidentiality prevents him from exposing his client. District Attorneys discretion avoids prosecution for a crime. Confidentiality Mandate is not discretionary.” (at Response Page 5 para 8)

“The victim of those staffer crimes is left without recourse.” (at Response Page 5 para 10)

“It is possible for others to prey on the victim further. They can leverage confidentiality to protect their crimes from prosecution as well.” (at Response Page 5 para 11)

“The victim has no recourse. The best he can attempt is survival.” (at Response Page 5 para 3)

“The chaos involved in the matter before this court cannot be compared to the experience or the current events in Montgomery County.” (at Response Page 8 para 3)

“It is with both confidence of the facts and fear for credibility that I submit the recent filing in Montgomery County where there is no Rule of Law and No Constitutional Rights. STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON JANUARY 2, 2018.” (at Response page 8 para 6)
* Included as part of the STATEMENTS OF DEFENDANT

Judge McMasters queried Attorney Bastedo, and Attorney Colin Jenei who discussed the email.

Indicating awareness of the confidential nature of specifics, Judge McMasters confirmed with the Attorneys his recollection and belief that the courts have established that interference with representation by public officials is NOT ACCEPTABLE. The attorneys agreed.

Judge McMasters DENIED the Petition to Withdraw.

The information regarding the Commissioners actions was not presented to the court by attorneys mandated by confidentiality.

Confidentiality directly affected the matter which was before the court and threatened to undermine the representation of the Defendant. The right to representation guaranteed by the US Constitution.

The Public Defenders Office would not have been able to provide another lawyer, and would not be permitted to indicate the true reason pursuant to the confidentiality mandate. The right to representation was being affected by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

A great volume of the expenditures approved by the County Commissioners are done to pay for lawyers involved in efforts throughout the county and state. Had the public defender been permitted to withdraw, the Defendant would not likely be able to find representation unaffected by the County Officials. The right to representation could be undermined by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

Confidentiality caused the Defendant to challenge diligence as defined in Rule 1.3.
Confidentiality affected effective communications with the Defendant as provided in Rule 1.4.
Confidentiality prevented exposure of the conflict of interest described in Rule 1.7.
Confidentiality prevented full candor to the tribunal as required by Rule 3.3.

Confidentiality of Information is a broad scope of confidentiality, including attorney-client privilege, incorporated by cross reference throughout the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information provides an unstated excuse for lawyers to neglect the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Maintaining confidentiality was an essential reason that Attorney Bastedo ceased communicating with the Defendant.

In August 2017, it was indicated in court and on the record, the Police Officer did NOT prepare the form or check the box indicated. That violation, a crime defined in the Mental Health Act, triggered liabilities for every person and organization that would become involved in further denial of constitutional rights.

On April 9, 2017 at about midnight, four Warrington Township Police officers responded to an anonymous report transferred from Doylestown Township Police. They acted outside of any lawful process or procedure, in direct and deliberate violation of Pennsylvania Law and without regard to rights protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

I was woken, ambushed, beaten, abducted, stripped and held for days without any consequence to the police who acted without a warrant while violating the laws and the Constitutions and creating liabilities for all other organizations and people they involved.

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: