2017
06.15

Evidence of malicious prosecution in the criminal case against me in Montgomery County.

Proof that all are working against me, DA, Admin, Public Defender, Judge, … and Thomas &  Caroline Carluccio.

Connection to Warrington Police fake suicide intervention.

Connection to Bucks County Common Pleas delay in Appeal of fake suicide intervention

Connection to Montgomery County Common Pleas Court delay preventing resolution

Connection to Superior Court delay to deliberately extend the delays in that court

Connection to Supreme Court delay to address the failure of Superior Court to act after SUPERIOR COURT ruled the Appeal in their court could not be withdrawn.
(A secret petition to withdraw – done behind my back by the Public Defender – had been denied by Superior Court keeping the appeal in play until they decided not to even consider the appeal 8 months later.)
When all tied together with the initial plea deal offered (2015) for the criminal charges in MontCo requiring me to give up any claim to the deed to my home…  The deed problem persists until my death.  THE MOTIVE IS CLEAR.
It demonstrates CARLUCCIO involvement in every aspect in a plot to murder me while they delay any hearings and prevent any resolution ( no law or procedure is followed ANYWHERE – creating frustration but PREVENTING LAWFUL ADJUDICATION – NOT POSSIBLE WHEN INTENTIONAL ERRORS AND UNDENIABLE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE DELIBERATE LACK OF JURISDICTION.  There is no such thing as retroactive jurisdiction.) while manufacturing a fake suicide to conceal the murder….
And the active and passive participation of EVERYONE to whom I have turned for help and resolution including the Warrington Township Supervisors who have been coerced to inaction and growing liability by their lawyer’s instructions to ignore.
Rock Solid Documentation.  

They are determined to murder me.  

Motive is clear.  

Actions in the furtherance of the conspiracy to cover it up.

Negligence of each person, department, organization and court.  They wait  – so all of their corruption dies with me.

2017
05.30

Where is their car?  Parked down the street so that any vehicle camera would not record their ‘visit’.

Arriving unannouncd?  Rude. Disrespectful.  Shady.  Especially in light of their unwillingness to respond to emails and personal pleas to the Township Supervisors… And the failure of the police chief to respond.

I have deliberately NOT visited my one neighbor, who is a supervisor.  I explained this to her at the first supervisor meeting where i presented the matter.   As she had made it clear she didn’t wish to discuss the matter by email or arrange any meeting or allow anything more than a 3 minute comment, I would not ambush her at her home.  It’s called respecting boundaries.

Points to anyone who can identify the device in the one man’s hands. Scanner?

Last police visit was a 2 man 2 department threat to not make any effort to contact the court regarding the pending Appeal.  I was told I would be arrested if I tried to contact them OR IF I ANSWERED ANY PHONE CALL FROM THEM.

Email to Supervisors:
It is necessary for you to take action to prevent the further retaliation of the police.

Email to Supervisors:
Notice that their vehicle is parked down the street past the house. That would prevent any vehicle camera from recording them. The same as was done in April.
– – In April, when police finished beating and handcuffing me, it was at that point where they said “it’s ok to turn on cameras”. That was 2 hours into the ambush.

Email to Supervisors:
Your Silence and Inaction is a Threat.

There is nothing I can do but live in fear of retaliatory attacks from police while you do NOTHING.

There was no basis for their ambush attack and false incarceration before…. There is no reason to think they won’t do it again…and again… and again.  Why would anyone expect differently?

FYI, Judge Caroline Carluccio was so determined to bring about my suicide that she sent people to my home from Montgomery County Emergency Services on the day she issued EACH of her orders.  She wanted to plant the idea.  The orders arrived the next day in the mail.  The people had no explanation as to why they were sent or who had directed them.  This relates directly to the web page which the Chief accessed from 6 years ago.

You immediate action is required and requested.

Terance Healy

Email to Supervisors:
While demonstrating the tremendous disrespect of failing to reply or EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE my communication,you may wish to ponder…

The paperwork indicates a start time of 11:30.
Yet, the Doylestown report from which the event started came in at 11:45.
The precognitive Officer Kelly strikes again.

The use of force report has not been provided. AND NEITHER HAS THE UIR which is referenced in the paperwork received.
UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION REPORT

My life was placed in danger because of he fraud and lies. The Supervisors are responsible for the police.

What are you doing? While my life is threatened. Harassment. Intimation.

The favor of an acknowledgement would be appreciated. Your silence demonstrates an aggressive complicity. Why no response?

2017
05.29

Chief Friel,

I am greatly concerned by your failure to respond in any way.

Your inaction and non-response places myself and those around me in jeopardy and creates a very uncomfortable living environment.

It should also be noted that an undercover investigation is exposed in the paperwork. This is another cause for alarm at your silence. I realize the affect when police or Informants reveal the investigation. This has occurred before. It creates an environment of fear, distrust and justified paranoia. You silence perpetuates it.

The failure to identify the person behind the report is causing a collapse of trust among those persons who I meet and communicate with and attempt to trust. I have been aware of the false friends and the online harassment teams determined to undermine my efforts.

Your failure to communicate serves to exacerbate the situation. I have asked the Township Supervisors to request your resignation and the suspension of the officers involved. Criminal prosecution is appropriate for the officers involved. The liability they created for all involved accords a profound and very corrupt conspiracy of silence and inaction.

When can I expect hear from you, or your assigned investigator? The Supervisors have been kept informed, yet are taking no action. This is unacceptable.

Terance Healy

2017
05.28

The improper use of Involuntary Commitment as a weapon. It is very effective because once a target has been called ‘crazy’ once, all anyone need do is repeat it to have anything you say or do ignored. It becomes even more powerful when whispered because of Confidentiality rules.

It is effective because it can be accomplished by the action of a single person, a police officer.

It is effective because the instant liability created by the police officer promptly extends to the police department and the township and the township supervisors. They will lawyer up quickly. They will suggest an ongoing investigation. They will ignore facts. They will say nothing, do nothing, explain nothing as their lawyers have directed them. Oddly, they will act unaware that they are being implicated by the obstruction.

The issue of following the lawyers advice is perplexing where it is deliberately concealing a violation of rights protected by laws and constitutions and where it perpetuates further involvement of other people and/or organizations. Those persons and organizations, instantly aware of the liability which is spreading like a cancer, fail with extreme prejudice to the target. They say nothing, do nothing and explain nothing.

EVERY RULE OF LAW and EVERY CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT of the target is COMPLETELY LOST based on the advice of a lawyer. Any person who attempts to accord the target any consideration becomes a target themselves.

It is effective because of the liability brought upon physicians and facilities who become involved and ignore that there has been am improper use of Involuntary Commitment. On the word of a single person, a police officer, they assume full responsibility for ‘evaluation’ and ‘treatment’. They will dismiss anything the target has to say or present as ‘crazy’ and ignore. They will carelessly label the target as SEVERELY MENTALLY DISABLED – an offensive term which I find more cruel than ‘crazy’.

It is effective because of the liability brought upon employees of the facilities who become involved and ignore that there has been an improper use of Involuntary Commitment. The employees follow ‘policy’ which prevents them from taking any effort on your behalf while denying your liberty and denying your rights. The ‘policy’ fails to address where the Law has not been followed. The ‘policy’ fails to address where the established procedures have not been followed. The ‘policy’ even goes as far as ignoring where their own ‘policy’ is not being followed.

Liability spreads aggressively. The Law dictates the responsibility for all person and organizations involved. The Law provides for prosecution of those individuals involved, and with specificity for the prosecution of the Directors of agencies and organizations involved.

With extreme carelessness, ‘gatekeepers’ failed to act to prevent further actions. In under 5 hours, liabilities grew to affect over 100 people and a dozen organizations. No one was going to stop the speeding train from running off the rails. Everyone could rely on the advice which lawyers give to those who become involved in crimes. Say Nothing. Do Nothing. Ignore. If the target persists in trying to communicate, contact police and falsely report harassment, threats, stalking,… The target has already been falsely labeled SEVERELY MENTALLY DISABLED. No one will care if the police shoot and kill him. It won’t even warrant a second thought.

The attorney-client privilege absolves all involved in the denial of the Rule of Law. The attorney-client privilege obliterates EVERY Constitutional Right of the target. It is important to note: The target remains a target… FOREVER.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court enacted Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct into law, discretion became a mandate which is aggressively enforced by The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality applies to their proceedings, filings and dockets. Rule 1.6 is broader than just attorney-client privilege, it is incorporated by reference into most, if not all, of the Rules of Professional Conduct required of lawyers.

Rule 1.6 permits/causes the denial of the Rule of Law and EVERY constitutional right protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. A collateral affect which can be easily demonstrated, YET, defies correction where lawyers may not expose the problem pursuant to Rule 1.6.

Even an unconstitutional law must be followed until it is declared ‘unconstitutional’. Only then, it is considered a nullity as if it never existed.

Conflict of Interest prevents The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania from addressing their unconstitutional law. Their lack of authority to enact an unconstitutional law is indicated in Article V Section 10(c). When they did it, AND THEY DID, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality defied exposure and removal. Subsequent edits to Rule 1.6 presents a trail of breadcrumbs which exposes the effort to conceal the improperly enacted and unconstitutional law.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information prevents the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania from revealing the unconstitutional law – Confidentiality required where there is an adverse affect on the judiciary.

No Legislature was involved. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality is required of the lawyers in the Legislature who stifle and prevent the resolution of the constitutional quagmire.

No governor was involved. Only a non-lawyer governor could take any action. Governor Tom Wolf, a non-lawyer, has been prevented from being informed of the issue by the Office of General Counsel, his lawyers. Governor Wolf could assemble the Legislature to suspend the law and permit its correction.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was served upon 56 State Attorneys General who defaulted. However, their default was 1.6’d. Fraud is permitted to maintain ‘confidentiality’.

Rule 1.6 has been enacted in every state undermining the constitutional rights of every American. From 1984 (New Jersey) to 2009 (Maine), the American Bar Association promoted their Rules of Professional Conduct (absent the fraud provisions) to every state Supreme Court to enact into law. Federal lawyers have been compromised since the failed McDade-Murtha Amendment was secreted into an Appropriations Bill which requires they follow the ethics rules in the jurisdiction where they are working.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane became aware of the Rule 1.6 issue and was promptly delivered ‘secret orders from unidentified courts’ which required her to personally neglect the responsibilities of the Office of the Attorney General. Following the Order of the Supreme Court to release email, Kane was disciplined for adversely affecting the integrity of the court. A violation of Rule 1.6 which resulted in the revocation of her law license. The contrived prosecution of Kathleen Kane in Montgomery County neglected to expose Rule 1.6 because it would violate Rule 1.6.

It was in Montgomery County, where I continue to experience the impact of Rule 1.6, that my divorce has been before 22 judges each exasperated by the injustice mandated pursuant to Rule 1.6. Since 2007, the experience is fully documented at www.work2bdone.com/live

The exposure of improperly enacted and unconstitutional Rule 1.6 is the reason behind the harassment and injustice which has taken everything except my liberty. Then, a 302, woke me up in the middle of the night, and the threats continue…

In the interest of demonstrating the willful misconduct and gross negligence by the participants, I list the applicable Pennsylvania Mental Health Laws and Regulations.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 4603. Immunities
No person and no governmental or recognized nonprofit health or welfare organization or agency shall be held civilly or criminally liable for any diagnosis, opinion, report or any thing done pursuant to the provisions of this act if he acted in good faith and not falsely, corruptly, maliciously or without reasonable cause; provided, however, that causes of action based upon gross negligence or incompetence shall not be affected by the immunities granted by this section.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7104. Provision for treatment
Adequate treatment means a course of treatment designed and administered to alleviate a person’s pain and distress and to maximize the probability of his recovery from mental illness.

It shall be provided to all persons in treatment who are subject to this act.

It may include inpatient treatment, partial hospitalization, or outpatient treatment.

Adequate inpatient treatment shall include such accommodations, diet, heat, light, sanitary facilities, clothing, recreation, education and medical care as are necessary to maintain decent, safe and healthful living conditions.

Treatment shall include diagnosis, evaluation, therapy, or rehabilitation needed to alleviate pain and distress and to facilitate the recovery of a person from mental illness and shall also include care and other services that supplement treatment and aid or promote such recovery.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7106. Persons responsible for formulation and review of treatment plan
(a) Pursuant to sections 107 and 108 of this act, a treatment team shall formulate and review an individualized treatment plan for every person who is in treatment under this act.

(b) A treatment team must be under the direction of either a physician or a licensed clinical psychologist and may include other mental health professionals.

(c) A treatment team must be under the direction of a physician when:
(1) failure to do so would jeopardize Federal payments made on behalf of a patient;
or
(2) the director of a facility requires the treatment to be under the direction of a physician.

(d) All treatment teams must include a physician and the administration of all drugs shall be controlled by the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as “The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7107. Individualized treatment plan
Individualized treatment plan means a plan of treatment formulated for a particular person in a program appropriate to his specific needs.

To the extent possible, the plan shall be made with the cooperation, understanding and consent of the person in treatment, and shall impose the least restrictive alternative consistent with affording the person adequate treatment for his condition.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7108. Periodic reexamination, review and redisposition
(a) Reexamination and Review.
Every person who is in treatment under this act shall be examined by a treatment team and his treatment plan reviewed not less than once in every 30 days.

(b) Redisposition.
On the basis of reexamination and review, the treatment team may either authorize continuation of the existing treatment plan if appropriate, formulate a new individualized treatment plan, or recommend to the director the discharge of the person.

A person shall not remain in treatment or under any particular mode of treatment for longer than such treatment is necessary and appropriate to his needs.

(c) Record of Reexamination and Review.
The treatment team responsible for the treatment plan shall maintain a record of each reexamination and review under this section for each person in treatment to include:
(1) a report of the reexamination, including a diagnosis and prognosis;
(2) a brief description of the treatment provided to the person during the period preceding the reexamination and the results of that treatment;
(3) a statement of the reason for discharge or for continued treatment;
(4) an individualized treatment plan for the next period, if any;
(5) a statement of the reasons that such treatment plan imposes the least restrictive alternative consistent with adequate treatment of his condition; ?and
(6) a certification that the adequate treatment recommended is available and will be afforded in the treatment program.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7109. Mental health review officer
(a) Legal proceedings concerning extended involuntary emergency treatment under section 303(c), [FN1] court-ordered involuntary treatment under section 304 or 305 or transfer hearings under section 306, may be conducted by a judge of the court of common pleas or by a mental health review officer authorized by the court to conduct the proceedings.

Mental health review officers shall be members of the bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, without restriction as to the county of their residence and where possible should be familiar with the field of mental health.

Law-trained municipal court judges may be appointed mental health review officers.

(b) In all cases in which the hearing is conducted by a mental health review officer, a person made subject to treatment shall have the right to petition the court of common pleas for review of the certification.

A hearing shall be held within 72 hours after the petition is filed unless a continuance is requested by the person’s counsel.

The hearing shall include a review of the certification and such evidence as the court may receive or require.

If the court determines that further involuntary treatment is necessary and that the procedures prescribed by this act have been followed, it shall deny the petition.

Otherwise, the person shall be discharged.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, no judge or mental health review officer shall specify to the treatment team the adoption of any treatment technique, modality, or drug therapy.

(d) Notwithstanding any statute to the contrary, judges of the courts of common pleas, mental health review officers and county mental health and mental retardation administrators shall notify the Pennsylvania State Police on a form developed by the Pennsylvania State Police of the identity of any individual who has been adjudicated incompetent or who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for inpatient care and treatment under this act or who has been involuntarily treated as described under 18 Pa.C.S §6105(c)(4) (relating to persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms).

The notification shall be transmitted by the judge, mental health review officer or county mental health and mental retardation administrator within seven days of the adjudication, commitment or treatment.

Notwithstanding any statute to the contrary, county mental health and mental retardation administrators shall notify the Pennsylvania State Police on a form developed by the Pennsylvania State Police of the identity of any individual who before the effective date of this act had been adjudicated incompetent or had been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for inpatient care treatment under this act or had been involuntarily treated as described in 18 Pa.C.S. §6105(c)(4).

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7110. Written applications, petitions, statements and certification
(a) All written statements pursuant to section 302(a)(2), and all applications, petitions, and certifications required under the provisions of this act shall be made subject to the penalties provided under 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 (relating to unsworn falsification to authorities) and shall contain a notice to that effect.

(b) All such applications, petitions, statements and certifications shall be submitted to the county administrator in the county where the person was made subject to examination and treatment and such other county in the Commonwealth, if any, in which the person usually resides.

(c) Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to patients admitted pursuant to Article II [FN2] when no part of the patient’s care is provided with public funds provided that the department may require facilities to report clinical and statistical information so long as the data does not identify individual patients.

(d) Repealed. 1980, Oct. 5, P.L. 693, No. 142, §331, effective in 60 days.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7111. Confidentiality of records
(a) All documents concerning persons in treatment shall be kept confidential and, without the person’s written consent, may not be released or their contents disclosed to anyone except:
(1) those engaged in providing treatment for the person;
(2) the county administrator, pursuant to section 110; [FN1]
(3) a court in the course of legal proceedings authorized by this act;
and
(4) pursuant to Federal rules, statutes and regulations governing disclosure of patient information where treatment is undertaken in a Federal agency.

In no event, however, shall privileged communications, whether written or oral, be disclosed to anyone without such written consent.

This shall not restrict the collection and analysis of clinical or statistical data by the department, the county administrator or the facility so long as the use and dissemination of such data does not identify individual patients.

Nothing herein shall be construed to conflict with section 8 of the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 221, No. 63), known as the “Pennsylvania Drug and Alcohol Abuse Control Act.

(b) This section shall not restrict judges of the courts of common pleas, mental health review officers and county mental health and mental retardation administrators from disclosing information to the Pennsylvania State Police or the Pennsylvania State Police from disclosing information to any person, in accordance with the provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(c)(4) (relating to persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms).

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7112. Rules, regulations and forms
The department shall adopt such rules, regulations and forms as may be required to effectuate the provisions of this act.

Rules and regulations adopted under the provisions of this act shall be adopted according to provisions of section 201 of the act of October 20, 1966 (3rd Sp.Sess., P.L. 96, No. 6), known as the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966, and the act of July 31, 1968 (P.L. 769, No. 240), known as the Commonwealth Documents Law.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7113. Rights and remedies of persons in treatment
Every person who is in treatment shall be entitled to all other rights now or hereafter provided under the laws of this Commonwealth, in addition to any rights provided for in this act.

Actions requesting damages, declaratory judgment, injunction, mandamus, writs of prohibition, habeas corpus, including challenges to the legality of detention or degree of restraint, and any other remedies or relief granted by law may be maintained in order to protect and effectuate the rights granted under this act.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7114. Immunity from civil and criminal liability
(a) In the absence of willful misconduct or gross negligence, a county administrator, a director of a facility, a physician, a peace officer or any other authorized person who participates in a decision that a person be examined or treated under this act, or that a person be discharged, or placed under partial hospitalization, outpatient care or leave of absence, or that the restraint upon such person be otherwise reduced, or a county administrator or other authorized person who denies an application for voluntary treatment or for involuntary emergency examination and treatment, shall not be civilly or criminally liable for such decision or for any of its consequences.

(b) A judge or a mental health review officer shall not be civilly or criminally liable for any actions taken or decisions made by him pursuant to the authority conferred by this act.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7115. Venue and location of legal proceedings
(a) The jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas and juvenile courts conferred by Articles II and III? [FN1] shall be exercised initially by the court for the county in which the subject of the proceedings is or resides.

Whenever involuntary treatment is ordered, jurisdiction over any subsequent proceeding shall be retained by the court on which the initial proceedings took place, but may be transferred to the county of the person’s usual residence.

In all cases, a judge of the court of common pleas or a mental health review officer of the county of venue may conduct legal proceedings at a facility where the person is in treatment whether or not its location is within the county.

(b) Venue for actions instituted to effectuate rights under this act shall be as now or hereafter provided by law.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7116. Continuity of care
(a) It shall be the responsibility of the facility administration to refer those voluntary and involuntary patients discharged from State institutional programs to the appropriate county mental health and mental retardation program.

(b) The county mental health and mental retardation program shall, pursuant to Article III of the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966, receive referrals from State-operated facilities and shall be responsible for the treatment needs of county residents discharged from institutions pursuant to Article II and III of this Act.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7301. Persons who may be subject to involuntary emergency examination and treatment
(a) Persons Subject.–Whenever a person is severely mentally disabled and in need of immediate treatment, he may be made subject to involuntary emergency examination and treatment.

A person is severely mentally disabled when, as a result of mental illness, his capacity to exercise self-control, judgment and discretion in the conduct of his affairs and social relations or to care for his own personal needs is so lessened that he poses a clear and present danger of harm to others or to himself.

(b) Determination of Clear and Present Danger.
(1) Clear and present danger to others shall be shown by establishing that within the past 30 days the person has inflicted or attempted to inflict serious bodily harm on another and that there is a reasonable probability that such conduct will be repeated.

If, however, the person has been found incompetent to be tried or has been acquitted by reason of lack of criminal responsibility on charges arising from conduct involving infliction of or attempt to inflict substantial bodily harm on another, such 30-day limitation shall not apply so long as an application for examination and treatment is filed within 30 days after the date of such determination or verdict.

In such case, a clear and present danger to others may be shown by establishing that the conduct charged in the criminal proceeding did occur, and that there is a reasonable probability that such conduct will be repeated.

For the purpose of this section, a clear and present danger of harm to others may be demonstrated by proof that the person has made threats of harm and has committed acts in furtherance of the threat to commit harm.

(2) Clear and present danger to himself shall be shown by establishing that within the past 30 days:
(i) the person has acted in such manner as to evidence that he would be unable, without care, supervision and the continued assistance of others, to satisfy his need for nourishment, personal or medical care, shelter, or self-protection and safety, and that there is a reasonable probability that death, serious bodily injury or serious physical debilitation would ensue within 30 days unless adequate treatment were afforded under this act;
or
(ii) the person has attempted suicide and that there is the reasonable probability of suicide unless adequate treatment is afforded under this act.

For the purposes of this subsection, a clear and present danger may be demonstrated by the proof that the person has made threats to commit suicide and has committed acts which are in furtherance of the threat to commit suicide;
or
(iii) the person has substantially mutilated himself or attempted to mutilate himself substantially and that there is the reasonable probability of mutilation unless adequate treatment is afforded under this act.

For the purposes of this subsection, a clear and present danger shall be established by proof that the person has made threats to commit mutilation and has committed acts which are in furtherance of the threat to commit mutilation.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7302. Involuntary emergency examination and treatment authorized by a physician–not to exceed one hundred twenty hours
(a) Application for Examination.–Emergency examination may be undertaken at a treatment facility upon the certification of a physician stating the need for such examination;
or upon a warrant issued by the county administrator authorizing such examination;
or without a warrant upon application by a physician or other authorized person who has personally observed conduct showing the need for such examination.

(1) Warrant for Emergency Examination.–Upon written application by a physician or other responsible party setting forth facts constituting reasonable grounds to believe a person is severely mentally disabled and in need of immediate treatment, the county administrator may issue a warrant requiring a person authorized by him, or any peace officer, to take such person to the facility specified in the warrant.

(2) Emergency Examination Without a Warrant.–Upon personal observation of the conduct of a person constituting reasonable grounds to believe that he is severely mentally disabled and in need of immediate treatment, and physician or peace officer, or anyone authorized by the county administrator may take such person to an approved facility for an emergency examination.

Upon arrival, he shall make a written statement setting forth the grounds for believing the person to be in need of such examination.

(b) Examination and Determination of Need for Emergency Treatment.
A person taken to a facility shall be examined by a physician within two hours of arrival in order to determine if the person is severely mentally disabled within the meaning of section 301 [FN1] and in need of immediate treatment.

If it is determined that the person is severely mentally disabled and in need of emergency treatment, treatment shall be begun immediately.

If the physician does not so find, or if at any time it appears there is no longer a need for immediate treatment, the person shall be discharged and returned to such place as he may reasonably direct.

The physician shall make a record of the examination and his findings.

In no event shall a person be accepted for involuntary emergency treatment if a previous application was granted for such treatment and the new application is not based on behavior occurring after the earlier application.

(c) Notification of Rights at Emergency Examination.
Upon arrival at the facility, the person shall be informed of the reasons for emergency examination and of his right to communicate immediately with others.

He shall be given reasonable use of the telephone.

He shall be requested to furnish the names of parties whom he may want notified of his custody and kept informed of his status.

The county administrator or the director of the facility shall:
(1) give notice to such parties of the whereabouts and status of the person, how and when he may be contacted and visited, and how they may obtain information concerning him while he is in inpatient treatment; ?and
(2) take reasonable steps to assure that while the person is detained, the health and safety needs of any of his dependents are met, and that his personal property and the premises he occupies are secure.

(d) Duration of Emergency Examination and Treatment.
A person who is in treatment pursuant to this section shall be discharged whenever it is determined that he no longer is in need of treatment and in any event within 120 hours, unless within such period:
(1) he is admitted to voluntary treatment pursuant to section 202 of this act;
or
(2) a certification for extended involuntary emergency treatment is filed pursuant to section 303 of this act.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7303. Extended involuntary emergency treatment certified by a judge or mental health review officer–not to exceed twenty days
(a) Persons Subject to Extended Involuntary Emergency Treatment.
Application for extended involuntary emergency treatment may be made for any person who is being treated pursuant to section 302 whenever the facility determines that the need for emergency treatment is likely to extend beyond 120 hours.

The application shall be filed forthwith in the court of common pleas, and shall state the grounds on which extended emergency treatment is believed to be necessary.

The application shall state the name of any examining physician and the substance of his opinion regarding the mental condition of the person.

(b) Appointment of Counsel and Scheduling of Informal Hearing
Upon receiving such application, the court of common pleas shall appoint an attorney who shall represent the person unless it shall appear that the person can afford, and desires to have, private representation.

Within 24 hours after the application is filed, an informal hearing shall be conducted by a judge or by a mental health review officer and, if practicable, shall be held at the facility.

(c) Informal Conference on Extended Emergency Treatment Application.
(1) At the commencement of the informal conference, the judge or the mental health review officer shall inform the person of the nature of the proceedings.

Information relevant to whether the person is severely mentally disabled and in need of treatment shall be reviewed, including the reasons that continued involuntary treatment is considered necessary.

Such explanation shall be made by a physician who examined the person and shall be in terms understandable to a layman.

The judge or mental health review officer may review any relevant information even if it would be normally excluded under rules of evidence if he believes that such information is reliable.

The person or his representative shall have the right to ask questions of the physician and of any other witnesses and to present any relevant information.

At the conclusion of the review, if the judge or the review officer finds that the person is severely mentally disabled and in need of continued involuntary treatment, he shall so certify.

Otherwise, he shall direct that the facility director or his designee discharge the person.

(2) A record of the proceedings which need not be a stenographic record shall be made.

Such record shall be kept by the court or mental health review officer for at least one year.

(d)Contents of Certification.
A certification for extended involuntary treatment shall be made in writing upon a form adopted by the department and shall include:
(1) findings by the judge or mental health review officer as to the reasons that extended involuntary emergency treatment is necessary;
(2) a description of the treatment to be provided together with an explanation of the adequacy and appropriateness of such treatment, based upon the information received at the hearing;
(3) any documents required by the provisions of section 302;
(4) the application as filed pursuant to section 303(a); [FN2]
(5) a statement that the person is represented by counsel;
and
(6) an explanation of the effect of the certification, the person’s right to petition the court for release under subsection (g), and the continuing right to be represented by counsel.

(e) Filing and Service.
The certification shall be filed with the director of the facility and a copy served on the person, such other parties as the person requested to be notified pursuant to section 302(c), and on counsel.

(f)Effect of Certification.
Upon the filing and service of a certification for extended involuntary emergency treatment, the person may be given treatment in an approved facility for a period not to exceed 20 days.

(g) Petition to Common Pleas Court.
In all cases in which the hearing was conducted by a mental health review officer, a person made subject to treatment pursuant to this section shall have the right to petition the court of common pleas for review of the certification.

A hearing shall be held within 72 hours after the petition is filed unless a continuance is requested by the person’s counsel.

The hearing shall include a review of the certification and such evidence as the court may receive or require.

If the court determines that further involuntary treatment is necessary and that the procedures prescribed by this act have been followed, it shall deny the petition.

Otherwise, the person shall be discharged.

(h) Duration of Extended Involuntary Emergency Treatment.
Whenever a person is no longer severely mentally disabled or in need of immediate treatment and, in any event, within 20 days after the filing of the certification, he shall be discharged, unless within such period:
(1) he is admitted to voluntary treatment pursuant to section 202;
or
(2) the court orders involuntary treatment pursuant to section 304.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7304. Court-ordered involuntary treatment not to exceed ninety days
(a) Persons for Whom Application May be Made.

(1) A person who is severely mentally disabled and in need of treatment, as defined in section 301(a), may be made subject to court-ordered involuntary treatment upon a determination of clear and present danger under section 301(b)(1) (serious bodily harm to others), or section 301(b)(2)(i) (inability to care for himself, creating a danger of death or serious harm to himself), or 301(b)(2)(ii) (attempted suicide), or 301(b)(2)(iii) (self-mutilation).

(2) Where a petition is filed for a person already subject to involuntary treatment, it shall be sufficient to represent, and upon hearing to reestablish, that the conduct originally required by section 301 in fact occurred, and that his condition continues to evidence a clear and present danger to himself or others. In such event, it shall not be necessary to show the reoccurrence of dangerous conduct, either harmful or debilitating, within the past 30 days.

(b) Procedures for Initiating Court-ordered Involuntary Treatment for Persons Already Subject to Involuntary Treatment.

(1) Petition for court-ordered involuntary treatment for persons already subject to treatment under sections 303, 304 and 305? [FN2] may be made by the county administrator or the director of the facility to the court of common pleas.

(2) The petition shall be in writing upon a form adopted by the department and shall include a statement of the facts constituting reasonable grounds to believe that the person is severely mentally disabled and in need of treatment. The petition shall state the name of any examining physician and the substance of his opinion regarding the mental condition of the person. It shall also state that the person has been given the information required by subsection (b)(3).

(3) Upon the filing of the petition the county administrator shall serve a copy on the person, his attorney, and those designated to be kept informed, as provided in section 302(c), including an explanation of the nature of the proceedings, the person’s right to an attorney and the services of an expert in the field of mental health, as provided by subsection (d).

(4) A hearing on the petition shall be held in all cases, not more than five days after the filing of the petition.

(5) Treatment shall be permitted to be maintained pending the determination of the petition.

(c) Procedures for Initiating Court-ordered Involuntary Treatment for Persons Not in Involuntary Treatment.–(1) Any responsible party may file a petition in the court of common pleas requesting court-ordered involuntary treatment for any person not already in involuntary treatment for whom application could be made under subsection (a).

(2) The petition shall be in writing upon a form adopted by the department and shall set forth facts constituting reasonable grounds to believe that the person is within the criteria for court-ordered treatment set forth in subsection (a). The petition shall state the name of any examining physician and the substance of his opinion regarding the mental condition of the person.

(3) Upon a determination that the petition sets forth such reasonable cause, the court shall appoint an attorney to represent the person and set a date for the hearing as soon as practicable. The attorney shall represent the person unless it shall appear that he can afford, and desires to have, private representation.

(4) The court, by summons, shall direct the person to appear for a hearing. The court may issue a warrant directing a person authorized by the county administrator or a peace officer to bring such person before the court at the time of the hearing if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person will not appear voluntarily. A copy of the petition shall be served on such person at least three days before the hearing together with a notice advising him that an attorney has been appointed who shall represent him unless he obtains an attorney himself, that he has a right to be assisted in the proceedings by an expert in the field of mental health, and that he may request or be made subject to psychiatric examination under subsection (c)(5).

(5) Upon motion of either the petitioner or the person, or upon its own motion, the court may order the person to be examined by a psychiatrist appointed by the court. Such examination shall be conducted on an outpatient basis, and the person shall have the right to have counsel present. A report of the examination shall be given to the court and counsel at least 48 hours prior to the hearing.

(6) Involuntary treatment shall not be authorized during the pendency of a petition except in accordance with section 302 or section 303.

(d) Professional Assistance.–A person with respect to whom a hearing has been ordered under this section shall have and be informed of a right to employ a physician, clinical psychologist or other expert in mental health of his choice to assist him in connection with the hearing and to testify on his behalf. If the person cannot afford to engage such a professional, the court shall, on application, allow a reasonable fee for such purpose. The fee shall be a charge against the mental health and mental retardation program of the locality.

(e) Hearings of Petition for Court-order Involuntary Treatment.–A hearing on a petition for court-ordered involuntary treatment shall be conducted according to the following:
(1) The person shall have the right to counsel and to the assistance of an expert in mental health.

(2) The person shall not be called as a witness without his consent.

(3) The person shall have the right to confront and cross-examine all witnesses and to present evidence in his own behalf.

(4) The hearing shall be public unless it is requested to be private by the person or his counsel.

(5) A stenographic or other sufficient record shall be made, which shall be impounded by the court and may be obtained or examined only upon the request of the person or his counsel or by order of the court on good cause shown.

(6) The hearing shall be conducted by a judge or by a mental health review officer and may be held at a location other than a courthouse when doing so appears to be in the best interest of the person.

(7) A decision shall be rendered within 48 hours after the close of evidence.

(f) Determination and Order.–Upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the person is severely mentally disabled and in need of treatment and subject to subsection (a), an order shall be entered directing treatment of the person in an approved facility as an inpatient or an outpatient, or a combination of such treatment as the director of the facility shall from time to time determine. Inpatient treatment shall be deemed appropriate only after full consideration has been given to less restrictive alternatives. Investigation of treatment alternatives shall include consideration of the person’s relationship to his community and family, his employment possibilities, all available community resources, and guardianship services. An order for inpatient treatment shall include findings on this issue.

(g) Duration of Court-ordered Involuntary Treatment.

(1) A person may be made subject to court-ordered involuntary treatment under this section for a period not to exceed 90 days, excepting only that: Persons may be made subject to court-ordered involuntary treatment under this section for a period not to exceed one year if the person meets the criteria established by clause (2).

(2) A person may be subject to court-ordered involuntary treatment for a period not to exceed one year if:
(i) severe mental disability is based on acts giving rise to the following charges under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code:? [FN4] ?murder (§ 2502); ?voluntary manslaughter (§ 2503); ?aggravated assault (§ 2702); ?kidnapping (§ 2901); ?rape (§ 3121(1) and (2)); ?involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (§ 3123(1) and (2)); ?arson (§ 3301); ?and
(ii) a finding of incompetency to be tried or a verdict of acquittal because of lack of criminal responsibility has been entered.

(3) If at any time the director of a facility concludes that the person is not severely mentally disabled or in need of treatment pursuant to subsection (a), he shall discharge the person provided that no person subjected to involuntary treatment pursuant to clause (2) may be discharged without a hearing conducted pursuant to clause (4).

(4) In cases involving involuntary treatment pursuant to clause (2), whenever the period of court-ordered involuntary treatment is about to expire and neither the director nor the county administrator intends to apply for an additional period of court-ordered involuntary treatment pursuant to section 305 or at any time the director concludes that the person is not severely mentally disabled or in need of treatment, the director shall petition the court which ordered the involuntary treatment for the unconditional or conditional release of the person. Notice of such petition shall be given to the person, the county administrator and the district attorney. Within 15 days after the petition has been filed, the court shall hold a hearing to determine if the person is severely mentally disabled and in need of treatment. Petitions which must be filed simply because the period of involuntary treatment will expire shall be filed at least ten days prior to the expiration of the court-ordered period of involuntary treatment. If the court determines after hearing that the person is severely mentally disabled and in need of treatment, it may order additional involuntary treatment not to exceed one year; if the court does not so determine, it shall order the discharge of the person.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7402. Incompetence to proceed on criminal charges and lack of criminal responsibility as defense
(a) Definition of Incompetency.–Whenever a person who has been charged with a crime is found to be substantially unable to understand the nature or object of the proceedings against him or to participate and assist in his defense, he shall be deemed incompetent to be tried, convicted or sentenced so long as such incapacity continues.

(b) Involuntary Treatment of Persons Found Incompetent to Stand Trial Who are Not Mentally Disabled.–Notwithstanding the provisions of Article III of this act, a court may order involuntary treatment of a person found incompetent to stand trial but who is not severely mentally disabled, such involuntary treatment not to exceed a specific period of 60 days. Involuntary treatment pursuant to this subsection may be ordered only if the court is reasonably certain that the involuntary treatment will provide the defendant with the capacity to stand trial. The court may order outpatient treatment, partial hospitalization or inpatient treatment.

(c) Application for Incompetency Examination.–Application to the court for an order directing an incompetency examination may be presented by an attorney for the Commonwealth, a person charged with a crime, his counsel, or the warden or other official in charge of the institution or place in which he is detained. A person charged with crime shall be represented either by counsel of his selection or by court-appointed counsel.

(d) Hearing; ?When Required.–The court, either on application or on its own motion, may order an incompetency examination at any stage in the proceedings and may do so without a hearing unless the examination is objected to by the person charged with a crime or by his counsel. In such event, an examination shall be ordered only after determination upon a hearing that there is a prima facie question of incompetency. Upon completion of the examination, a determination of incompetency shall be made by the court where incompetency is established by a preponderance of the evidence.

(e) Conduct of Examination; ?Report.–When ordered by the court, an incompetency examination shall take place under the following conditions:

(1) It shall be conducted as an outpatient examination unless an inpatient examination is, or has been, authorized under another provision of this act.

(2) It shall be conducted by at least one psychiatrist or licensed psychologist and may relate both to competency to proceed and to criminal responsibility for the crime charged.

(3) The person shall be entitled to have counsel present with him and shall not be required to answer any questions or to perform tests unless he has moved for or agreed to the examination. Nothing said or done by such person during the examination may be used as evidence against him in any criminal proceedings on any issue other than that of his mental condition.

(4) A report shall be submitted to the court and to counsel and shall contain a description of the examination, which shall include:
(i) diagnosis of the person’s mental condition;
(ii) an opinion as to his capacity to understand the nature and object of the criminal proceedings against him and to assist in his defense;
(iii) when so requested, an opinion as to his mental condition in relation to the standards for criminal responsibility as then provided by law if it appears that the facts concerning his mental condition may also be relevant to the question of legal responsibility; ?and
(iv) when so requested, an opinion as to whether he had the capacity to have a particular state of mind, where such state of mind is a required element of the criminal charge.

(f) Experts.–The court may allow a psychiatrist or licensed psychologist retained by the defendant and a psychiatrist or licensed psychologist retained by the Commonwealth to witness and participate in the examination. Whenever a defendant who is financially unable to retain such expert has a substantial objection to the conclusions reached by the court-appointed psychiatrist or licensed psychologist, the court shall allow reasonable compensation for the employment of a psychiatrist or licensed psychologist of his selection, which amount shall be chargeable against the mental health and mental retardation program of the locality.

(g) Time Limit on Determination.–The determination of the competency of a person who is detained under a criminal charge shall be rendered by the court within 20 days after the receipt of the report of examination unless the hearing was continued at the person’s request.

(h) Definition.–As used in this section, the term “licensed psychologist” means an individual licensed under the act of March 23, 1972 (P.L. 136, No. 52), known as the “Professional Psychologists Practice Act.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7403. Hearing and determination of incompetency to proceed; ?stay of proceedings; ?dismissal of charges
(a) Competency Determination and Burden of Proof.–Except for an incompetency examination ordered by the court on its own motion as provided for in section 402(d), the individual making an application to the court for an order directing an incompetency examination shall have the burden of establishing incompetency to proceed by a preponderance of the evidence. The determination shall be made by the court.

(b) Effect as Stay–Exception.–A determination of incompetency to proceed shall effect a stay of the prosecution for so long as such incapacity persists, excepting that any legal objections suitable for determination prior to trial and without the personal participation of the person charged may be raised and decided in the interim.

(c) Defendant’s Right to Counsel; ?Reexamination.–A person who is determined to be incompetent to proceed shall have a continuing right to counsel so long as the criminal charges are pending. Following such determination, the person charged shall be reexamined not less than every 90 days by a psychiatrist appointed by the court and a report of reexamination shall be submitted to the court and to counsel.

(d) Effect on Criminal Detention.–Whenever a person who has been charged with a crime has been determined to be incompetent to proceed, he shall not for that reason alone be denied pretrial release. Nor shall he in any event be detained on the criminal charge longer than the reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that he will attain that capacity in the foreseeable future. If the court determines there is no such probability, it shall discharge the person. Otherwise, he may continue to be criminally detained so long as such probability exists but in no event longer than the period of time specified in subsection (f).

(e) Resumption of Proceedings or Dismissal.–When the court, on its own motion or upon the application of the attorney for the Commonwealth or counsel for the defendant, determines that such person has regained his competence to proceed, the proceedings shall be resumed. If the court is of the opinion that by reason of the passage of time and its effect upon the criminal proceedings it would be unjust to resume the prosecution, the court may dismiss the charge and order the person discharged.

(f) Stay of Proceedings.–In no instance, except in cases of first and second degree murder, shall the proceedings be stayed for a period in excess of the maximum sentence of confinement that may be imposed for the crime or crimes charged or ten years, whichever is less. In cases of a charge of first or second degree murder, there shall be no limit on the period during which proceedings may be stayed.

(g) Procedure When Person Is Discharged.–If the person of the defendant is discharged pursuant to subsection (d), but the charges remain open pursuant to subsection (f), the court discharging the defendant shall, on its own motion or on the motion of the Commonwealth or on the motion of the defense, order the defendant to submit to a psychiatric examination every 12 months after said discharge of the person, to determine whether the defendant has become competent to proceed to trial. If such examination reveals that the defendant has regained competency to proceed, then a hearing shall be scheduled and the court shall determine, after a full and fair hearing, whether the defendant is competent to proceed. If the defendant is adjudged competent, then trial shall commence within 90 days of said adjudication. If such examination reveals that the defendant is incompetent to proceed, the court shall order the defendant to submit to a new competency examination in 12 months.

Pennsylvania Statutes Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 7502. Repeals
(a) The definition of “mental disability” in section 102, and sections 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 416, 418, 419, 420 and 426, act of October 20, 1966 (3rd Sp.Sess., P.L. 96, No. 6), known as the “Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966, [FN1]” are hereby repealed, except in so far as they relate to mental retardation or to persons who are mentally retarded.
Section 29 of the act of December 6, 1972 (P.L. 1464, No. 333), known as the “Juvenile Act, [FN2]” except so far as it relates to mental retardation or to persons who are mentally retarded, is hereby repealed.

(b) All acts and parts of acts are repealed in so far as they are inconsistent herewith.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 4305. Duties of the administrator
The county mental health and intellectual disability administrator shall have the power and his duty shall be:
(1) To administer the county mental health and intellectual disability program.
(2) To insure that county mental health and intellectual disability services required by this act are available.
(3) To provide staff services to the County Mental Health and Intellectual Disability Board.
(4) To make such reports to the department in such form and containing such information as the department may require.
(5) To develop, together with the County Mental Health and Intellectual Disability Board, annual plans for the mental health and intellectual disability programs required by this act.
(6) To submit to local authorities annual plans and estimated costs for the provision of services, establishment and operation of facilities, and other related matters for review, approval and transmittal to the department.
(7) To review and evaluate facilities, and to cooperate with the department in the maintenance of established standards.
(8) To maintain effective liaison with governmental and private community health and welfare agencies and organizations and State operated facilities.
(9) To submit an annual report to the local authorities, the board and the department reporting all activities of the program and his administration thereof.
(10) To analyze and evaluate mental health and intellectual disability needs and services in the county and recommend improvements to the County Mental Health and Intellectual Disability Board and local authorities, conduct such research studies, and take such steps and adopt such measures as are necessary for the proper discharge of his duties.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 4603. Immunities
No person and no governmental or recognized nonprofit health or welfare organization or agency shall be held civilly or criminally liable for any diagnosis, opinion, report or any thing done pursuant to the provisions of this act if he acted in good faith and not falsely, corruptly, maliciously or without reasonable cause; provided, however, that causes of action based upon gross negligence or incompetence shall not be affected by the immunities granted by this section.

Title 50 P.S. Mental Health § 4605. Penalties
The following acts are hereby declared to be crimes and any person found guilty thereof shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or to undergo imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, except that if such acts shall be committed by corporation, partnership or association, the officers and directors of such corporation or the members of such partnership or association, its agents and employes who knowingly participated in such acts shall also be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as hereinbefore provided:

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to deliver or cause to be delivered any alcoholic or other intoxicating or narcotic substance to any person in a facility without the knowledge or consent of the director thereof.

(2) It shall be unlawful for anyone to directly or indirectly, sell, give or furnish to any person admitted, committed or detained in a facility, any weapon or other instrument which may be used to inflict injury unless the instrument is a tool of the activity in which the person has permission to engage.

(3) It shall be unlawful for any person to aid or assist any person committed in any facility to make or attempt to make his escape therefrom, or connive in any way at such escape or attempt at escape.

(4) It shall be unlawful for any person, corporation, partnership or association to wilfully cause or conspire with or assist another to cause the unwarranted detention or commitment of any person under the provisions of this act, or the denial to any person of any of the rights accorded to him under the provisions of this act.

(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to disclose without authority the contents of any records or reports touching upon any matter concerning a person who has been admitted, committed or detained pursuant to the provisions of this act.

(6) It shall be unlawful for any physician to knowingly make any false statement, certificate or report which aids in or causes a person to be admitted, committed or detained pursuant to the provisions of this act.

Chapter 12. Mental Health and Intellectual Disability Act of 1966
Article I. Preliminary Provisions
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4101. Short title
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4102. Definitions

Article II. Responsibilities of the State
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4201. General powers and duties of the department
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4202. State facilities
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4203. Qualifications of directors of State facilities

Article III. Responsibilities of Counties
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4301. General powers and duties of local authorities; ?mental health and intellectual disability program and services
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4302. Establishment of County Mental Health and Intellectual Disability Board
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4303. Duties of the County Mental Health and Intellectual Disability Board
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4304. County mental health and intellectual disability administrator; ?appointment
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4305. Duties of the administrator

Article IV. General Provisions Relating to Facilities; Admissions and Commitments
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4401. Applications for admission or commitment; to whom made
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4402. Voluntary admission; application, examination and acceptance; duration of admission
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4403. Voluntary commitment; application, examination and acceptance; duration of commitment
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4404. Commitment on application by relative, etc.; physicians’ certificates; review
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4405. Commitment for emergency detention
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4406. Civil court commitment
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4407. Commitment of person charged with crime and released on bail
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4408. Commitment of person charged with crime and detained in a penal or correctional institution
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4409. Effect of commitment on pending criminal proceedings; duration of commitment; ?authority of attorney for the Commonwealth
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4410. Commitment in lieu of sentence of person adjudged guilty of crime
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4411. Commitment of person undergoing sentence and detained in a penal or correctional institution
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4412. Transfer of State prisoners without court approval; retransfers; further commitments
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4413. Commitment of persons acquitted of crime because of insanity
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4414. Deportation of persons charged with or sentenced for crime
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4415. Commitment or transfers to facilities of the United States Government or of another State; reciprocal agreements
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4416. Transfers between facilities
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4417. Powers and duties of directors
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4418. Duration of admission or commitment; ?in general
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4419. Leaves of absence
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4420. Discharge by department
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4421. Transportation of mentally disabled persons
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4422. Mechanical restraints prohibited; ?exceptions
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4423. Rights of persons admitted or committed
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4424. Funds of persons admitted or committed to State operated facilities
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4425. Escapes
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4426. Habeas corpus; discharge by order of court

Article V. Financial Obligations; Liabilities and Payments
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4501. Liability of mentally disabled persons
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4502. Liability of persons owing a legal duty to support
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4503. Contingent liability of State and local government; intention of act
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4504. Powers of secretary to determine liability and establish criteria
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4505. Liability of county
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4506. Collection of costs
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4507. Liability of the Commonwealth
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4508. Relief of county from obligation to insure service; State’s obligation; liability in such cases
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4509. State and county grants and payments
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4510. Supplemental grants
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4511. Interim grants for mental health and intellectual disability services
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4512. Deadline for establishment of county mental health and intellectual disability program; failure to comply with minimum standards; penalties

Article VI. Miscellaneous Provisions
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4601. Forms to be used under this act
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4602. Record of persons admitted or committed
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4603. Immunities
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4604. Report of psychological examination
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4605. Penalties
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4606. Administrative Agency Law to apply
Article VII. Repeals; Interim Powers; Appropriations; Effective Date
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4701. Repeals
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4702. Interim powers of the department
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4703. Appropriation
PA ST 50 P.S. § 4704. Effective date

2017
05.24

[ Email to Township Manager Barry Luber and Warrington Township Supervisors Shirley Yannich (Chair), Fred R. Gaines (Vice Chair), Matt W. Hallowell, Sr., Carol T. Baker, Millie A. Seliga ]

Barry,

Last evening you suggested that there had been attempts by police to contact me.
I checked the phone records. There have been NO CALLS from the police.

If they were trying to conceal the number from which they were calling, they were successful. BUT, WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?

WHY WOULD THEY MISLEAD YOU?

WHY WOULD THEY STAND IN THE SAME ROOM AS ME AND STILL FAIL TO ADDRESS THEIR NONRESPONSE? Or even to introduce themselves.

Why not use email? Or are they afraid of revealing further questionable actions.
Web statistics track IP addresses. (BTW, The suggestion of anonymity on CRIMEWATCH was also misleading.)

Officer Kelly demonstrated his precognitive abilities getting an award for finding a truck BEFORE it was reported stolen. Perhaps that explains why he failed to follow the law, failed to obtain any warrant, failed to adhere to procedures, falsified the paperwork, and failed to appear for the hearing where he would be unable to justify his determined and aggressive effort to ambush, abduct and hold me hostage. The information he provided to all parties created liabilities. The information he prevented from those same people shows his determination to ignore the law, deny liberty, ignore rights, and leverage his misdeeds into liability for all involved. Perhaps he foresaw that the matter would be ignored?

This matter is serious. There is a growing question about the failure of the township personnel to act/react in their professional and personal capacity.

There should be little requirement for me to point out what the police did which was WRONG. I would expect that their investigation would reveal what they did correctly and the law/procedure upon which their actions were based. That in itself may explain why they have been unable to produce such a statement or report.

Also, I have previously mentioned that I do not have a phone (or voicemail), so why would anyone be trying to contact me by phone?

I await your reply though it seems the police only communicate to yourself and the supervisors – and direct them to say nothing – and listen to less. You may recall I began by trying to meet with Mrs Baker to review what occurred. Had that meeting occurred, you might have been better informed of the number of discrepancies and frauds involved.

Thank you,
Terance Healy

www.work2bdone.com/live

2017
05.23

Presentation to Warrington Township Supervisors
Shirley Yannich (Chair) Fred R. Gaines (Vice Chair) Matt W. Hallowell, Sr.
Carol T. Baker Millie A. Seliga Barry Luber (Township Manager)

PURPOSE: Informing the Township Supervisors who are responsible for the local Police.

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.

After presenting the matter to the Warrington Township Supervisors, I was directed to communicate with Warrington Police Chief Friel.

On May 10, 2017, I sent the following email to Chief Friel along with the two page statement provided to the Supervisors.

Last evening I made the following statement to the Township Supervisors.

I would appreciate knowing who directed you to the web page referenced at the bottom of the statement. Web statistics indicate that single web page which was accessed directly from the same IP address where your email had originated.

Your information could make this nightmare end, or permit it to continue.  

The volume of discrepancies in the paperwork indicates that this was a planned ambush, abduction and hostage taking situation designed to undermine my credibility and crush my spirit.  The tactical misuse of mental health procedures and personnel had been used regularly while I lived in Montgomery County.  

Creating shared liability and using attorney client privilege (Rule 1.6) has been used for over as decade to undermine the Rule of Law and all Constitutional Rights.

I will be requesting further investigation by Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania Attorney General and federal authorities.  The issue was presented to him after being fully documented in a statement filed on March 30, 2016.

There has been no response from Chief Friel. On May 17, 2017, I followed up with Chief Friel,

It has been a month since the Supervisors were made aware, and informed you, of the outrageous illegal and unconstitutional actions by four Warrington Township police officers.

It has been a week since the issue was formally and publicly presented to the Township Supervisors.

There has been no response from you to that matter, or the astounding question of your directly accessing a 6 year old web page at work2bdone.com which was titled  
 “PETITION FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE CAROLYN TORNETTA CARLUCCIO FOR CONSPIRACY, CORRUPTION, FRAUD, INTIMIDATION, CONFLICT OF INTEREST and DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS / PROCEDURE and DENIAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS” 

The failure of the police to abide by the law which they purported to apply created extreme liabilities for everyone they sought to involve including Doylestown Hospital, The Lenape Valley Foundation, The Horsham Clinic, Bucks County, Bucks County Mental Health Department, the Warminster Police…

Your earlier email suggested you were taking responsibility for investigation.  When might I expect your determination? 

There has been no response.

The banner of my web site describes life when a victim of injustice is denied any protection of the law and all constitutionally protected rights are ignored.

I am a sane man dealing with an absolutely insane situation. Every person in a position to help has acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter… they each make the situation worse… NO ONE HELPS

I am asking for the immediate direct intervention of the Warrington Supervisors in this matter. Appropriate actions would be escalation to the Bucks County District Attorney or the Pennsylvania Attorney General, Josh Shapiro.

I am requesting the immediate suspension of the four officers involved.

I am requesting the resignation of Chief Friel for his failure to address the serious crimes committed by his officers.

EVERY PERSON IN A POSITION TO HELP HAS ACTED IMPROPERLY IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF PROCEDURES AND THE LAW PREVENTING THE RESOLUTION OF ANY MATTER.

I have met with an attorney who was outraged by the police actions and their aggressive and determined efforts to commit and conceal their crime and obstruct justice by spreading liability to all organizations and people involved.

At the beginning of the meeting tonight, we recited the Pledge of Allegiance. The final phrase… LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. The actions of the officers denied my liberty and the failure to address the matter prevents justice.

I would appreciate the Supervisors immediate efforts in this regard.

Thank You,

Terance Healy
Warrington, PA 18976

www.work2bdone.com/live



THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE FROM POLICE. No EMAIL. No Letter. No Contact.

One might think Chief Friel would introduce himself while standing in the same room as me while surrounded by what appeared to be the majority of his police officers.

BUT, HE MADE NO EFFORT TO ACKNOWLEDGE MY PRESENCE OR ADDRESS HIS HANDLING OF THE MATTER…. while he handed out ribbons to the men who attacked me.

I publicly address the Warrington Township Supervisors for the second time at 1:14:00

2017
05.16

Chief Friel,

It has been a month since the Supervisors were made aware, and informed you, of the outrageous illegal and unconstitutional actions by four Warrington Township police officers.

It has been a week since the issue was formally and publicly presented to the Township Supervisors.

There has been no response from you to that matter, or the astounding question of your directly accessing a 6 year old web page at work2bdone.com which was titled
“PETITION FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE CAROLYN TORNETTA CARLUCCIO FOR CONSPIRACY, CORRUPTION, FRAUD, INTIMIDATION, CONFLICT OF INTEREST and DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS / PROCEDURE and DENIAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS”

The failure of the police to abide by the law which they purported to apply created extreme liabilities for everyone they sought to involve including Doylestown Hospital, The Lenape Valley Foundation, The Horsham Clinic, Bucks County, Bucks County Mental Health Department, the Warminster Police…

Your earlier email suggested you were taking responsibility for investigation. When might I expect your determination?

Thank you,
Terance Healy

RE: Response to Chief Friel, Warrington Township Police

cc: auditorgen@paauditor.gov,
admin@palawfund.com,
pacleb@pacle.org,
yudichak@pasenate.com,
wozniak@pasenate.com,
Anthony Hardy Williams ,
tartaglione@pasenate.com,
swagner@pasen.gov,
“PA Senator Sean D. Wiley” ,
senatorleach@pasenate.com,
senatorblake@pasenate.com,
pbrowne@pasen.gov,
mscavello@pasen.gov,
andy@pasenate.com,
alloway@pasen.gov,
brewster@pasenate.com,
boscola@pasenate.com,
brennac@phillynews.com,
bbumsted@tribweb.com,
dwhite@pasen.gov,
dargall@pasen.gov,
mbrooks@pasen.gov,
lsmucker@pasen.gov,
hughes@pasenate.com,
jscarnati@pasen.gov,
jrafferty@pasen.gov,
jeichelberger@pasen.gov,
kward@pasen.gov,
kitchen@pasenate.com,
kwatson@pahousegop.com,
lmccrystal@phillynews.com,
val@montcopa.org,
josh@montcopa.org,
joe@montcopa.org,
mgibbons@calkins.com,
nralston@pa.gov,
sgreenleaf@pasen.gov,
senatorteplitz@pasenate.com,
wendy.saltzman@abc.com,
lbaker@pasen.gov,
cbartolotta@pasen.gov,
cmcilhinney@pasen.gov,
rtomlinson@pasen.gov,
vance@pasen.gov,
costa@pasenate.com,
farnese@pasenate.com,
fontana@pasenate.com,
senatorhaywood@pasenate.com,
SenatorSchwank@pasenate.com

2017
05.10

Chief Friel,

Last evening I made the following statement to the Township Supervisors.

I would appreciate knowing who directed you to the web page referenced at the bottom of the statement. Web statistics indicate that single web page which was accessed directly from the same IP address where your email had originated.

Your information could make this nightmare end, or permit it to continue.

The volume of discrepancies in the paperwork indicates that this was a planned ambush, abduction and hostage taking situation designed to undermine my credibility and crush my spirit. The tactical misuse of mental health procedures and personnel had been used regularly while I lived in Montgomery County.

Creating shared liability and using attorney client privilege (Rule 1.6) has been used for over a decade to undermine the Rule of Law and all Constitutional Rights.

I will be requesting further investigation by Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania Attorney General and federal authorities. The issue was presented to him after being fully documented in a statement filed on March 30, 2016.

Terance Healy

2017
05.09

Presentation to Warrington Township Supervisors
Shirley Yannich (Chair) Fred R. Gaines (Vice Chair) Matt W. Hallowell, Sr.
Carol T. Baker Millie A. Seliga Barry Luber (Township Manager)

PURPOSE: Informing the Township Supervisors who are responsible for the local Police.

On April 9, 2017 at about midnight, four Warrington Township Police officers responded to an anonymous report transferred from Doylestown Township Police.

Officers: 75-45 Brian Kelly (Investigating Officer)
75-27 Daniel Sadowski (Assisting Officer)
75-46 Jamie Valeriano (Assisting Officer)
75-51 Erin McNeeley (Assisting Officer)

I was awoken from sleeping by very hard knocking on the door. I went to the window to ask what was the cause of the alarm. I was them blinded by the four armed officers flashlights and subjected to taunts and leading questions and remarks from the officers where each repeatedly attempted to have me state that I was suicidal.

This continued for over an hour. Requests for them to stop the loud knocking on the door were met with the taunt that “What was I going to do? Call Police?”

Police indicated they would knock all night long. Police indicated they did NOT have a warrant.
I agreed to let Officer Kelly into the house to assure him that all was well.

At the moment I unlocked the door, I was tackled backward onto the steps. All four officers entered and violently removed me from the house. I was then thrown down on the front lawn, held in place and handcuffed. I was then put in a police car wearing only a t-shirt and shorts.

I asked if I was being charged with a crime. I was informed NO.
I asked if I was being arrested. I was informed NO.
I asked if I was going to be read my rights. I was informed NO.
I was then transported to Doylestown Hospital by the Police.

Officer Kelly had prepared the paperwork – a farce pursuant to Section 302 which would create a liability for all involved.

Each person knowing what they were doing was wrong. Yet, doing it anyway.
Each person recognizing that procedure was NOT being followed. Yet, participating anyway.
Each person able to put an end to the event. Yet, failing to take any actions to stop it.

Liabilities were caused for Warrington Township, Doylestown Hospital, Lenape Valley Foundation, the Horsham Clinic, and all participating individuals involved.

The officers failed to follow the Pennsylvania Law pursuant to Mental Health Procedures Act Section 302. During the conversation through the window, the police had indicated multiple times that
– they were not aware of any previous incidents;
– they did not have a warrant;
– no crime had been reported.
Those conditions are necessary for the police to act under Section 302. Police failed to abide ANY of the conditions of the law which they were attempting to apply to the situation.

I was prevented from leaving Doylestown Hospital. I was stripped. My clothing taken and replaced with paper clothing without strings. In a single isolated room, I was under observation. Pain from the assault prevented sleep and comfort.

When I asked for a magazine, I was offered a coloring book and crayons. SERIOUSLY.

I was prevented from communicating with my Mother who was left at the home. (Further violations of the procedures.)

After 5 hours, against my wishes I was strapped down and immobilized onto a gurney. I was then transported to The Horsham Clinic.

The Horsham Clinic further ignored the procedures involved in a Section 302. I was again stripped. I was held hostage and housed with severely mentally disturbed people, drug addicts and prostitutes at The Horsham Clinic.

I was not released until Tuesday evening, where again the procedures were a farce.

An Appeal was filed on Monday April 17, 2017. (available on www.Work2BDone.com/live)
“The Legislative policy reflected in the Mental Health Procedures Act is to require that strict conditions be satisfied before a court order for commitment shall be issued. Such a policy is in accord with the recognition that commitment entails a massive deprivation of liberty.”

The failure of the police to adhere to the law and the established procedure results in the denial of due process protections and the deprivation of constitutional rights.

My attempts to present the matter to the Township have been strongly discouraged. Most recently via an email from Warrington Township Police Chief Daniel J. Friel.

In his email, Chief Friel suggests that I am aware that “one of my [sic] friends called police”. I do NOT know the identity of the caller.

Chief Friel had viewed the www.Work2BDone.com web site. Specifically viewing a single post titled “PETITION FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE CAROLYN TORNETTA CARLUCCIO FOR CONSPIRACY, CORRUPTION, FRAUD, INTIMIDATION, CONFLICT OF INTEREST and DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS / PROCEDURE and DENIAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS” dated March 12, 2011.

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE LAWLESS AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS OF THE POLICE IS IMMEDIATELY REQUESTED.

Terance Healy
Warrington, PA 18976

I publicly address the Warrington Township Supervisors at 1:22:00

2017
05.04

STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON MAY 4, 2017

The criminal allegations are unfounded. I have not previously and do not intend to waive any rights under Pennsylvania Law, the Pennsylvania Constitution or the Constitution of the United States.

Currently, there is a pending Appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania regarding the ex parte assignment of the Public Defender without proceeding, testimony, or evidence where the Superior Court elected to not review the matter.

With regard to representation by the Public Defender’s Office, the employees of the Public Defender’s office have neglected to respond to any telephone calls, emails, or office visits. Copies of recent emails are attached.

The assignment of the Public Defender was done with the intent to sabotage the rights of the Defendant and to hinder and undermine any defense.

Defendant requests the immediate removal of the Court Appointed Public Defender (who had been previously removed after usurping the case in September 2015).

Where the court has ordered the uninterested Public Defender to represent me, the result has left me unrepresented and not permitted to represent myself.

The Pennsylvania General Assembly has noticed the efforts to ‘chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for redress of grievances’. Further declaring it ‘in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process.’

I am being denied protection of the law. My Constitutional rights are being denied and ignored.
I survive. I persevere. I am a Defendant in this matter. I am required to defend.

Terance Healy

This morning the Court immediately  admitted to a lack of jurisdiction.  There will be no further proceedings in Norristown until the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has ruled on the appeal.

Rule 1.6 is falling.   JUSTICE IS COMING.

NOTE TO OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER:
Where was the PUBLIC DEFENDER THIS MORNING??? The person who should have immediately advised the court over a month ago about the lack of jurisdiction while the appeal is pending. Now scheduled twice for no purpose.This is my life, my liberty and my rights. The Public Defender acting as an uninvolved spectator clearly shows a most UNZEALOUS representation.
I take it seriously.
%d bloggers like this: