A Terroristic Divorce

Filed in Superior Court – PDF version

When the Appellant presented one unstapled original and a copy of a NOTICE / COMPLAINT of UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS to the Prothonotary of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on November 7, 2014, with the request that ten (10) original copies presented at the same time be time stamped by the clerk for distribution in this matter.

THE REQUEST WAS DENIED.

The clerk for at the Prothonotary window indicated that only 4 copies could be stamped.

Appellant respectfully requests, the Rule of Law, the Pennsylvania Statute, the Rule of Appellate Procedure or the procedure within the Internal Operating Procedures of the Superior Court which prevents the clerk from the 10 second task of time-stamping original copies for distribution in this matter.

Where the document (NOTICE/COMPLAINT) being filed that day was indicating the fraud in the furtherance of a fraud being committed in violation of the Constitutional rights of the Appellant, Appellant appends this additional action to the list of intentional and deliberate actions by the Prothonotary and Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Respectfully,
Terance Healy

Filed in Superior Court – PDF version

ISSUE #1
The Docket in this matter incorrectly indicates that the Appellant Brief was filed on September 3, 2014, where the brief had been filed on September 2, 2014.

Copy of Time Stamped First page attached.

Appellant requests the correction of the Docket.

ISSUE #2
The Docket in this matter incorrectly indicates that on October 7, 2014 “Reproduced Record Filed Late”

Copy of Docket attached.

Where there is no requirement for a Pro Se In Forma Pauperis to file any Reproduced Record indicated within the Rules of Appeallate Procedure, nor is any time requirement indicated, Appellant respectfully requests the correction of the docket to more correctly indicate “Reproduced Record Filed”

Respectfully,
Terance Healy

Filed in Superior Court – PDF Version

The Docket in this matter indicated the entry of a “Consideration Letter”. Copy of Docket attached.

Further, the docket indicated a NEXT EVENT TYPE: RESPONSE TO CONSIDERATION LETTER RECEIVED with a Due Date of September 23, 2014.

Appellant requests a copy of the Consideration Letter.

Appellant requests a copy of the Response provided.

Respectfully,
Terance Healy

Filed in Superior Court – PDF Version

The Appellant hereby informs the court of the entry of an unsigned MEMORANDUM (annotated copy attached) where the integrity of this Honorable Court has been affected by a clearly evident and apparent refusal to address or acknowledge that the lower court lacked jurisdiction and authority to issue the procedurally defective and void ab initio Order dated May 9, 2011.

Where referring to the defective and void ab initio order as a ‘divorce decree’ foolishly avoids and fails to address or resolve the well-documented procedural defect;

Where Appellant at every opportunity has presented, documented and petitioned the court for resolution, yet every opportunity has been deliberately and intentionally neglected and ignored by the court;

Where the failure of every party who has presented, or asserted, the defective and void order for enforcement has neglected to provide any of the requisite information demonstrating proper and valid support of jurisdiction – as none exists;

Where the evidence which demonstrates the defect and the resulting lack of jurisdiction under Pennsylvania Law is clear upon the court record, well-documented within the petitions and briefs filed, and demonstrated by the exhibits and sworn testimony to the Court;

Where each judge has deliberately and intentionally neglected, avoided and ignored the procedurally defective lack of jurisdiction within their subsequent orders and opinions;
— Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio Opinion dated October 18, 2011
— Judge Garrett Page Opinion dated June 28, 2013
— Judge Gail Weilheimer Opinion dated July 18, 2014

Where there is no method by which jurisdiction may be provided retroactively;

The Appellant respectfully requests to be advised of the intended course of action of this court toward a resolution to the matter;

It is not acceptable to foolishly disrespect the litigants and further sacrifice the integrity of the judiciary.

The lower court’s deliberate neglect and failure to address the defect and the resulting lack of jurisdiction demonstrates that their judicial independence had been compromised and justice undermined throughout the matter. The egregious abuse of power under color of law by the members of the Montgomery County Judiciary can only be described as a farce. A very cruel farce.

Failing to address the lower courts reprehensible and systemic lapse in integrity does nothing to absolve the judiciary of responsibility for their actions or to resolve the damage and harm caused to their victim.

Yes, I know what the lower court has done. I survived the abuse. I am attempting to escape it.

I am prevented from life while any resolution is prevented.

I have no choice but to proceed through the only course of action which is available to me while experiencing a systemic failure of judicial integrity and independence.

My constitutional rights have been denied. I have no protection of the law.

Every possible recourse has been prevented by a law which has tragically made it mandatory for legal professionals to participate in furtherance of fraud against the victim of fraud while preventing any resolution. The judiciary has been undermined and judicial independence has been compromised.

Removing the ‘fraud provisions’ from the Kutak Commission’s ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct made fraud legal and mandatory and prevented disclosure to rectify the fraud.

Concealing a mandate for fraud in a document which purports to be an ‘ethical standard for legal professionals’ neither makes the fraud legal, nor ethical, nor constitutional.

I did not choose to be abused to the point where a systemic problem would be exposed demonstrating the usurpation of the authority of the judicial branch and a judiciary held hostage and controlled by the American Bar Association and their affiliated organizations.

I have had no choice. I survived.

Justice Delayed is justice denied.

Respectfully,
Terance Healy