A Terroristic Divorce

( PDF )

IN THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NORRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA

Terance Healy	:
	: #2013-29976
v.	:
	:
David R. Miller	:
Jennifer K. Miller	:

CIVIL COMPLAINT – ACTION IN EJECTMENT

JURISDICTION

1. The Court has jurisdiction in ths matter as the matter is being brought in the county where the land is located, ia a matter relating to civil trespass, where there are no criminal charges currently being filed by the Plaintiff; where there is no financial considerations currently being sought by the Plaintiff.

OWNERSHIP

2. Pursuant to Rule 1054, Plaintiff, Terance Healy, asserts his ownership of the property located at 110 Banbury Avenue, North Wales, PA 19454.

3. The Deed to the Property lists the Plaintiff as Grantee. [ Exhibit A ]

4. The instruments filed regarding the Property identified by Montgomery County as Parcel #46-00-00467-11-7 confirms the transfer of the title to the Plaintiff recorded on 1/16/1996.

5. A list of instruments recorded by the Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds which related to the property/parcel is attached. [ Exhibit B ]

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE

6. The transfer of the deed to the Miller’s represents a fraudulent conveyance of the property;
a) Fraud: A person represents that they are the true owner of the land, but they are not.
b) Forgery: A person has given a forged Deed.
c) A Bad Power of Attorney: A person claims to have “power of attorney” but does not have the legal authority to act for another person; the power of attorney if invalid; the power of attorney is not properly executed and or notarized.
d). misrepresentation of marital status.
e) Undue Influence
f) Mistakes were made recording legal documents
g) Falsified title records
h) Representations on legal documents are invalid or incorrect.

NOTICE TO TRESPASSERS

7. Notice having been provided as a courtesy on July 26, 2013 at the property. (1) stapled to the front door frame, (2) stapled to the garage door frame and (3) stapled to the Mail box post. [ Exhibit C ]

8. No notice is required by law.

9. Receipt of Notice having been acknowledged by phone from Montgomery Township Police, officer McGuigan.

10. Plaintiff makes no allegation of Criminal Trespass at this time. This is a civil matter, Police involvement is unnecessary and outside their jurisdiction.

DAMAGES

11. Plaintiff is not currently seeking damages, however does not waive damages and reserves that right which may be asserted upon gaining access to the property.

COMPLAINT – CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

12. Plaintiff provides this Honorable Court with a copy of a document filed on August 8, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which challenges the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and has been served upon Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General and the Attorneys General of the United States. [ Exhibit D ]

13. “The Rules of Professional Conduct set out the minimum ethical standards for the practice of law and constitute a set of rules which all lawyers must follows.” – The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

14. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information causes a denial of the constitutionally protected rights to petition the Government for redress of grievances (First Amendment); causes a denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without duie process of law (Fifth Amendment); which causes the denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law by a State (Fourteenth Amendment).

15. Plaintiff believes that Defendant is a currently practicing legal professional who ‘must follow’ the Rules of Professional Conduct, and as such Plaintiff asserts that any misrepresentation made by Defendant will be lawfully ignored by this Honorable Court resulting in the denial of Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights.

16. The potential of a represented party intentionally introducing an act of fraud or misconduct which triggers the loss of constitutionally protected rights when facing a Pro Se litigant creates a situation which would demand strict actions regarding misconduct.

17. Those lawful practices endorsed and enabled by the Rules of Professional Conduct are unconstitutional and as such are a nullity.

18. Plaintiff does NOT ALLEGE knowledge of any prior misconduct by the Defendants, and is respectfully not acting with the intent to disparage, undermine or disrespect the Defendants or adversely affect the integrity of this Honorable Court.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable court issue an Order for Ejectment and permit the Plaintiff to safely return to the property of which he has been lawfully granted exclusive use and occupancy.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy

---

---

CASE DOCUMENTS
Civil Complaint – Action in Ejectment ( PDF )

Emergency Praecipe for Immediate Eviction / Order of Possession( PDF )

Emergency Praecipe for Immediate Eviction/Order of Possession (Addendum)( PDF )

Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and Defendant’s Memorandum of Law ( PDF )

Plaintiff Responds to Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and Defendant’s Memorandum of Law
( PDF )

Todd Krautheim and Terance Healy appeared at the Bucks County Commissioners meeting this morning and presented the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and requested the support of the county in presenting the issue and the challenge to those who can help with the resolution of the matter.

Krautheim explained and again requested the assistance of the County Commissioners in the matter. The Bucks County Commissioners are Robert G. Loughery, Charles H. Martin, and Diane M. Ellis-Marseglia.

Krautheim further explained the loss of rights. The loss of constitutionally protected rights is something difficult for Americans to comprehend.

Healy and Krautheim responded to the questions.

Healy and Krautheim’s experiences were discussed briefly. The issue is not the experience, but the resultant loss of rights. The example of Cash for Kids scandal in Luzerne County was offered as an extreme case. No one understood how Cash for Kids could have happened, and gone ignored for so long, and affected so many children and families. Suddenly, there was a reason being presented and the room seemed to understand. There was no lawful approach to the scandal.

Healy explained the problem law being enacted through an unlawful action by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Further explaining how the legislature could not lawfully address the law once enacted. They explained how the Attorney General could not take lawful action against the law. Actually, three PA Attorneys General could not address the issue. Tom Corbett. Linda Kelly. Kathleen Kane.

Someone asked which Governor had signed the law. There had been no governor’s signature. The law was enacted by the Supreme Court in an action which usurped the authority of the legislature and the governor.

The inaction of Attorney General Kathleen Kane was profered as political rhetoric. Healy immediately addressed the AGs lawful responsibility to follow the law. Yes, the Attorney General had to ignore the injustice.

The room fell silent when it was stated that the identical law – RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION – had been enacted in every US State…. and the author of the rule was the American Bar Association. Even the lawyers were silent.

Copies of the challenge were hand delivered to the Commissioners and made available to everyone in attendance.

The Commissioners pointed to a representative from the local newspapers with the suggestion of that being the first place to pursue further action.

It was then explained that while copies of the Challenge Document were hand delivered to each local newspaper in Bucks and Montgomery County, and the Philadelphia television stations had also received copies… there had been no word about the challenge in any media.

The meeting ended with alot of people having questions on their mind and a definitive interest in reading about this injustice spreading across the United States, and the resolution just beginning to see the light of day.

Healy and Krautheim appreciated the opportunity to present the issue, and additionally that the usual restriction on time for public comments was not an issue. The genuine interest of the commissioners and the audience in the room was greatly appreciated…. and a sign of hope. People have understood that the constitution was being ignored, but lacked the understanding of how to visualize it. It was demonstrated in Bucks County. Justice is coming.

The Judiciary is not constitutionally or lawfully permitted to write, make or enact law.

SO HOW DID THE 1987 SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA GET AWAY WITH IT?

Can someone in the Pennsylvania legislature please explain how the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania enacted a law?
Title 204 Chapter 81?

…and how THAT law prevented the legislature from changing the law?
Title 204 Chapter 81?

…and how THAT law also prevents the executive branch from enforcing the law?
Title 204 Chapter 81?

And NOW inform the USA how it happened in every state?
It seems the State Supreme Courts have some ‘splaining to do.

Because the courts acted without authority and in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions… and the resulting injustice in undeniable… and the criminal misconduct and corruption were BEYOND LAWFUL PROSECUTION??? Protected and concealed by an illegal, unlawful, improperly enacted and executed law, which they failed to enforce.

EVIL IS NOT ILLEGAL. But it seems the State Supreme Court made it lawful. And who could declare it unlawful, but themselves. And who could expose the unlawfulness, when lawyers were not lawfully permitted to act? A couple of Pro Se litigants terrorized to the point of extinction.

IT’S CALLED UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS. and THAT’S NOT VALID.

Now who is gonna back up the Pro Se litigants that have lawfully filed this Challenge in Federal Courts?

And who is going to arrest the 1987 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and the Governor and Attorney General?

The nightmare of unconstitutional unprosecuted malicious and deliberate injustice and abuse of power under color of law is ending in the USA because it was always unconstitutional… and now it is clear why, when, where, who and how it happened.

NOW that it is exposed as unconstitutional. Lawyers may step up and assist without fear of disbarment for failing to follow Rule 1.6. Step Right UP! EXPOSE THE INJUSTICE.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct affects everyone… most certainly the unaware.

How would the alumni of Penn State University like to see the resurrection of the legacy of Joe Paterno?

Rule 1.6 prevented criminal prosecution of Jerry Sandusky and resulted in the fall of Joe Paterno for supposed inaction. Let’s hope they have not melted down that statue.

The Rule requires judicial misconduct to be concealed and ignored at every level of law enforcement within the state. Federal prosecutors rarely get involved unless invited by an Attorney General. This is not about immunity… it is all about misconduct. Unlawful misconduct. CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT.

Not one lawyer on or off campus could do anything to restore the reputation of Paterno. They are bouind by Rule 1.6 and face disbarrment for any violation of it.

BTW, Plaintiffs did not go to Penn State. Plaintiffs are also not lawyers. And they have demonstrated standing and a proper cause for relief in Federal Court.

Paterno was a legend who did not deserve to be destroyed. There was nothing he could have done to cause the legal prosecution of Jerry Sandusky. Rule 1.6 prevented lawful action to prosecute, but it also excused the misdirection and the tragedies which occurred to the direct and indirect victims.

www.work2bdone.com/live

www.facebook.com/groups/ChallengeRule1.6/

ChallengeRule16.blogspot.com