A Terroristic Divorce

Fraudulent conveyance
Forgery
False swearing
Title insurance scam

Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds successfully battled MERS.  Producer of documents like the following… Beginner level PowerPoint but with spellcheck turned off?

Fraud in the furtherance… Rule 1.6 nondisclosure only protects the lawyers. 

Judge without authority by law have no jurisdiction… and perpetuating frauds upon the courts does not provide jurisdiction.

Even Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio knows that there is no retro- active jurisdiction and she’s dumber than a steaming pile of dirt.
Her husband has tried to conceal her crimes ala Special Prosecutor.
The MontCo judiciary have tried piling on retaliatory orders.
The Central legal staff of the Superior Court have tried.
The Eastern District US clerks gave tried.
The Third Circuit clerks tried as well.
The county attacked the Attorney General for investigating (using a falsely leaked premise)
And the Pennsylvania DA’s attacked the Governor for exposing it from a perspective where no one gave a damn… Death row inmates.

But, they cannot turn JurisFICTION into jurisdiction… No matter how hard they try. NO MATTER HOW AGGRESSIVELY THEY RETALIATE.

Americans can tell the difference between MURDER and suicide by cop.

When it came time for a vote on the McDade Murtha Amendment, where congress had heard the most profoundly patriotic explanations for the necessity of passing the law… Misinformation which would prevent federal intervention where Rule 1.6 would undermine the law and every persons constitutional rights.

Making all federal law enforcement and federal investigators comply with an improperly enacted unconstitutional state law enacted by the judiciary – who neglected any review for constitutionality AND somehow prevented any state  legislature or governor from noticing their usurpation of ALL governmental authority.

Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich walked out.  Gingrich refused to call the vote on a law which would hurt all Americans… and fill prisons.

Decades later, Imagine Newt’s surprise at a book signing when asked to address the unconstitutionality of the very law which he wouldn’t bring upon the American people.

Imagine the efforts to continue his silence.

One blog reported on the efforts of the US Attorney’s to prevent the injustice. They and many former and future US Attorneys General, including Eric Holder, tried to stop it… BUT the lawyers were already obligated to not reveal the ‘core secret’ by state laws.

Gingrich is not a lawyer obligated by Rule 1.6

He was avoiding the shame of what was about to occur. Likely threatened aggressively by the obligated minions of the American Bar Association who had already infiltrated and obstructed and interfered with justice in every jurisdiction.

Judge Andrea Duffy

Please provide proof of jurisdiction in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for Judge Duffy’s orders in the attached.

Please include each element of procedure required for subject matter jurisdiction.  This should include all documents issued up to and including the scheduling of the Arraignment which was hijacked by four clerks from Court Administration.

No need to reference participation in the fraudulent conveyance of the property at 110 Banbury Avenue; efforts involved in the initial fraud; the false allegations against the lawful owner; or the abuse of power under color of law which is further supported by the MORTGAGE SATISFACTION document which also appears to be a forged false document.

Judge’s statement of jurisdiction should be mailed to Terance Healy immediately.

Failure to provide the requested document will be evidence of a lack of jurisdiction to issue any orders in the matter and an admission to acting without jurisdiction AND abuse of power under color of law.

Thank You.

Faxed to Judge Andrea Duffy.
Additional pages

Click to access CCF06112015_00000.pdf

Computers are non functional. Few bootable options.

Tablet still dead.

Phones cant connect or type/spelling makes comm impossible.

Mortgage Satisfaction appears to be fraud forgery. What better way to satisfy a fake mortgage for a fraudulent conveyance? While accusing owner of threats?

Using a stupid fool of a cop to handle reports and accusations by proxy.

Invalid orders bycorrupted judges for bail and arraignment.

No arraignment BUT coerced under duress and threat to sign waiver. Evenwhere it contradicts statement filed before the proceeding which was never REAL.
Blame assigned to Court Admin – they are Judge Duffy’s bosses.

Judge Duffy IS JUST A LOWLY DISTRICT JUDGE who cant decide to wash her ass without Admin approval. Not cute when her corruption affects my constitutional rights AND she acts outside the law with NO jurisdiction. Yes, they really are THAT stupid and THAT corrupt.

Montgomery County Detectives assigned the case. Their secret boss will intervene? Again? As always.

And it seems there has been a suggestion that the Courts have blinked in the showdown with the Attorney General. Yes. Someones been reading the faxes that took 4 days to send out.

Justice is coming.

The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct were adopted by Order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated October 16, 1987 effective April 1, 1988.

There was no review for constitutionality. The Executive and Legislative branches claim no responsibility or ability to address the actions of the judiciary.

?? Third grade civics CHECK AND BALANCES – FAIL ??
Article V Section 10 C does not permit the judiciary to trample on my constitutional rights.
Article V Section 10 C does not permit the judiciary to overreach and prevent the efforts of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court.

Those who paraphrase Article V Section 10(c) of the Constitution of Pennsylvania neglect those phrases in the paragraph which contradict their shortsightedness.

Rule 1.6 Revised effective January 1, 2005
Rule 1.6 Revised effective January 6, 2005
Rule 1.6 Revised effective March 17, 2005
Rule 1.6 Revised effective April 23, 2005

Rule 1.6 Revised effective July 1, 2006

Rule 1.6 Revised effective September 20, 2008

Rule 1.6 Revised effective April 3, 2009
Rule 1.6 Revised effective May 2, 2009

Rule 1.6 Revised effective April 9, 2012
Rule 1.6 Revised effective April 18, 2012
Rule 1.6 Revised effective June 16, 2012
Rule 1.6 Revised effective July 4, 2012

Rule 1.6 Revised effective November 21, 2013

Rule 1.6 Revised effective February 9, 2015
Rule 1.6 Revised effective February 28, 2015

In 1983, the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association established an education and training division
called the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Institute.

Do you suppose they teach that when a judge lacks subject matter jurisdiction a distroct attorney must ignore crimes which lay waste to a persons life?

Where there is no ability to create jurisdiction where there was none,
and
no availability for retroactive jurisdiction,
and
where a District Attorney has concealed the absence of LAW and the corruption of an entire county judiciary (and seeks election to the judiciary),
prosecution of the victim who survive the catastrophic loss of life, liberty, law and justice should be commenced…
even where prosecution exposes the procedures used by the DA to undermine defendants in criminal cases which allow the county prisons to be maintained at full capacity.

Is the misuse of Grand Juries to conceal, threaten and intimidate an advanced placement course at this institute?

Montgomery County Judiciary and Law Enforcement are corrupt beyond any potential reform or redemption.

The Commonwealth Attorneys Act does not indicate that the Attorney general must ignore the corruption of the courts. The Rules of Professional Conduct – which includes unconstitutional Rule 1.6 – REQUIRES ACTION BY ALL LAWYERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

I believe the ‘not my jurisdiction’ statement has long been proven unacceptable. The corruption of the judiciary is pervassive and mandatory until someone takes a stand to address their undoing.

Kathleen Kane, as a human being and the most fierce Attorney General Pennsylvania has ever elected, in the interest of the ideals expressed in the Pennsylvania Constitution, the US Constitution and the Rules of Professional Conduct… PLEASE SHUT DOWN THE REPUGNANT ABOMINATION KNOWN AS THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY JUDICIARY AND THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

The ‘worst kept secret in Pennsylvania’ pleads for justice and relief from their terroristic efforts which undermine life and liberty.

Where every possible recourse is prevented to a person denied all rights and any protection of the law, it is the responsibility of the lawyers to take action in the interest of justice.

The Commonwealth Attorneys Act doesn’t specify any of the crimes which you have prosecuted so directly and successfully. Restore Justice to Pennsylvania and the entire US.

After almost 3,000 days of terror and litigation without possibility for law or justice, I humbly and sincerely beg,

Terance Healy

I need assistance. I need this package faxed to the following phone numbers. I have tried, but nothing gets through.

717-787-8242 Attorney General
610-278-3832 Sheriff
215-855-1975 Judge
610-278-3095 District Attorney
717-772-8284 Governor
215-343-8150 Representative
717-783-8934 Representative
215-657-1885 Senator
215-674-3755 Representative

http://work2bdone.com/live/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CCF06112015_00000.pdf

The Waiver of Arraignment is the trigger. I am not saying that they pull that trigger on everyone, BUT THEY COULD. The potential for the loss of all rights is created under a false pretense in a courthouse where resistance is aggressively addressed.

You can find the victims in the prisons fed from Montgomery County. Those other District Attorneys who have been aggressively attacking the Governor… Hmmm… maybe they have similar programs in their counties?

Where everyone who was forced to sign a Waiver of Arraignment could be the victim of the silence under Rule 1.6 Confidentiality.

I watched 100 people give up their rights the other day. I understand that event happens 2-3 times per week in Video Room #1 at the Courthouse. Most had no comprehension of what had occurred, BUT not one person left smiling. There was a feeling that something was wrong. They had somehow just made a critical mistake. They had no alternative. Sheeple?

I have witnessed that line numerous times over the years and never imagined it was the setup which could undermine anyone’s rights.

The Letter to Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

It is time to shut down the corruption of career lawmen who know how to destroy lives and screw with others.

Who is responsible for filtering the technology which prevents electronic communications from reaching our government? governor? attorney general? senators? legislators? law enforcement?

Rule 1.6 affects litigants when their case is affected by an injustice. The coercion of a WAIVER OF ARRAIGNMENT qualifies as an injustice which would trigger loss of protection of the Rule of Law and All Constitutional Rights.

This is how Rule 1.6 affects every unrepresented defendant in a criminal case in Montgomery County.

The victims of injustice rarely learn or recognize the trigger point where Rule 1.6 undermines justice. Yesterday, I witnessed the trigger point.

Whether you are aware of it, or not, RULE 1.6 undermines justice FOR EVERYONE.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane
Harrisburg, PA

Sheriff Russell Bono
Montgomery County Court House

District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman
Montgomery County Court House

With regard to #MJ-38118-CR-0000096-2015 (aka # 3151-15)

Yesterday, June 10, 2015, I appeared for an Arraignment as directed by NOTICE OF ARRAIGNMENT. Copy Attached.

Prior to the Arraignment I filed a STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON JUNE 10, 2015. Copy Attached. Clearly an arraignment was necessary.

The courts derive their jurisdiction by law. The courts lack jurisdiction in this matter, yet the District Attorneys Office has made NO effort to provide the courts with jurisdiction.

In Video Room #1, four women were aggressively and directly depriving each of the 100 people who arrived for a 9:30 Arraignment of their rights to the Arraignment. Under threat of Bench Warrant and Arrest the mandate to sign a WAIVER OF ARRAIGNMENT was coerced under duress from each person. There was no opportunity to address any issue, or receive any information relating to criminal charges. Copy attached.

These four women were depriving people of the Law (Rule 571) aggressively, under duress and without consequence in the Courthouse where duped into appearing for an Arraignment.

These four women were depriving the courts of jurisdiction by interfering with the administration of justice and coercing a waiver of an arraignment under duress. They were doing so boldly and without consideration of any affect of their actions upon the rights of the people and upon the courts.

These four women were stripping the people of their rights to be informed of the charges they face under direct threat where their actions would further pervert and undermine justice should a Bench Warrant be issued without any cause or jurisdiction based on the refusal to waive rights secured by the Laws of the Commonwealth and protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

Those who enforce the invalid orders issued without jurisdiction often do so without verification.
They place the lives liberty and freedom of people in jeopardy while affecting the integrity and reputation of law enforcement personnel. It undermines the judiciary.

I wish to file a criminal complaint and request immediate investigation by your office.

Terance Healy

What occurred on the day of the arraignment had absolutely no resemblance to the proceeding described in Rule 571.

I watched as the well over 100 people scheduled for simultaneous arraignment at 9:30 AM on June 10, 2015 were ushered single file into a room whereupon they were coerced under threat of IMMEDIATE ARREST to sign a Waiver of Arraignment.

I am here. I AM AT THE ARRAIGNMENT. The entire purpose of the arraignment is to make certain a defendant in a criminal case is properly informed of the charges against him and his rights and applicable laws.

Why would I waive arraignment when this case needs to be arraigned.

There was NO DISCUSSION OF THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
There was NO EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES.
There was NO ‘INFORMATION’PROVIDED NOR FILED.
There was NO INDICATION OF THE TIME LIMITS FOR FILING MOTIONS.
There was NO COPY OF THE ‘INFORMATION’ PURSUANT FOR RULE 562

Rule 571(D) fails to address where a defendant is not represented by counsel.

Where any defendant represented by counsel must understand the nature of the charges; must understands the rights and requirements contained in 571(C) before being permitted to waives the right to appear for arraignment which must be signed by defendant and attorney.

The unrepresented defendant is coerced to sign a Waiver of Arraignment under threat of immediate Arrest.
– where the information has not been filed, SIGN THE WAIVER OR BE ARRESTED.
– where there has been no discussion of the right to be represented by counsel, SIGN THE WAIVER OR BE ARRESTED.
– where the charges indicated on the paperwork “see Transcript” and a transcript has not been provided, SIGN THE WAIVER OR BE ARRESTED.
– where the Court is without jurisdiction to conduct an arraignment, SIGN THE WAIVER OR BE ARRESTED.

Where a Statement has been filed indicating the Challenge to Jurisdiction and the failure to provide the information regarding the charges and the failure of the Court to follow the procedures defined in the RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

Where the person who has indicated SIGN THE WAIVER OR BE ARRESTED, is neither a lawyer; nor a judge; nor able to take any corrective action to address any failure; cannot inform the defendant of the charges; cannot discuss his rights within the context of the situation WHICH IS THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF THE ARRAIGNMENT.

YOU SIGN THE WAIVER OR BE ARRESTED or BE ARRESTED FOR NOT SIGNING THE WAIVER.

I had already filed my Statement in anticipation of a failure to be heard, my waiver indicates each of the failures to follow procedure and law which demonstrates the lack of jurisdiction for any proceedings before the Court.

There was NO OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS OR RESOLVE ANY ISSUE.

Had I opted for the BE ARRESTED, there was no guarantee of any timely appearance before any judge,.

The NOTICE OF ARRAIGNMENT was pointless. There was no arraignment. No issues addressed. Nothing was accomplished. EXCEPT I SIGNED A WAIVER SO THAT I WOULD NOT BE ARRESTED.

The determined inability and refusal to address the lawlessness within their system while ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS are performed without any verification of jurisdiction threatens the lives, liberty and freedom of every person.

As has been demonstrated in the Civil and Family Courts once an injustice occurs the effort required under Rule 1.6 Confidentiality and Nondisclosure will undermine the protection of the Rule of Law and usurp every right protected by the US Constitution leaving the litigant with no recourse, no relief, no future.

Where the injustice can occur by the failure of a Magisterial District Judge; or by a clerk whose single minded focus and motivation is to coerce unrepresented defendants to SIGN THE WAIVER OR BE ARRESTED.

The Law and Constitution undone by someone who has nothing to lose and who is placing your liberty and freedom in the balance without any comprehension of the ramifications of the actions which they are coercing under extreme duress because SIGN THE WAIVER OR BE ARRESTED has a line out the doorway up two flights of stairs and down the hall.

Laws? Constitution? She doesn’t have time for that.

Rule 571. Arraignment.

(A) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (D), arraignment shall be in such form and manner as provided by local court rule. Notice of arraignment shall be given to the defendant as provided in Rule 114 or by first class mail. Unless otherwise provided by local court rule, or postponed by the court for cause shown, arraignment shall take place no later than 10 days after the information has been filed.

(B) In the discretion of the court, the arraignment of the defendant may be conducted by using two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication. When the counsel for the defendant is present, the defendant must be permitted to communicate fully and confidentially with defense counsel immediately prior to and
during the arraignment.

(C) At arraignment, the defendant shall be advised:
(1) of the right to be represented by counsel;
(2) of the nature of the charges contained in the information;
(3) of the right to file motions, including a Request for a Bill of Particulars, Motion for Pretrial Discovery and Inspection, a Motion Requesting Transfer from Criminal Proceedings to Juvenile Proceedings Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6322, and an Omnibus Pretrial Motion, and the time limits within which the motions must be filed; and.
(4) if the defendant fails to appear without cause at any proceeding for which the defendant’s presence is required, including trial, that the defendant’s absence may be deemed a waiver of the right to be present, and the proceeding may be conducted in the defendant’s absence.

If the defendant or counsel has not received a copy of the information(s) pursuant to Rule 562, a copy thereof shall be provided.

(D) A defendant may waive appearance at arraignment if the following
requirements are met:
(1) the defendant is represented by counsel of record and counsel concurs
in the waiver; and
(2) the defendant and counsel sign and file with the clerk of courts a
waiver of appearance at arraignment that acknowledges the defendant:
(a) understands the nature of the charges;
(b) understands the rights and requirements contained in paragraph (C)
of this rule; and
(c) waives his or her right to appear for arraignment.

Comment
The main purposes of arraignment are: to ensure that the defendant is advised of the charges; to
have counsel enter an appearance, or if the defendant has no counsel, to consider the defendant’s right
to counsel; and to commence the period of time within which to initiate pretrial discovery and to file
other motions. Although the specific form of the arraignment is not prescribed by this rule, judicial
districts are required to ensure that the purposes of arraignments are accomplished in all court cases.
Concerning the waiver of counsel, see Rule 121.
Nothing in this rule is intended to preclude judicial districts from providing written notice of the
arraignment to the defendant at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing when a case is held for
court. See Rule 543.
Under paragraph (A), in addition to other instances of ‘‘cause shown’’ for delaying the arraignment,
the arraignment may be delayed when the defendant is unavailable for arraignment within the 10-day
period after the information is filed.
Within the meaning of paragraph (B), counsel is present when physically with the defendant or
with the judicial officer presiding over the arraignment.
Under paragraph (B), the court has discretion to order that a defendant appear in person for the
arraignment.
Under paragraph (B), two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication is a form of advanced
communication technology.
Paragraph (C)(4) requires that the defendant be advised of the consequences of failing to appear
for any court proceeding. See Rule 602 concerning a defendant’s failure to appear for trial; see also
Commonwealth v. Bond, 693 A.2d 220, 223 (Pa. Super. 1997) (‘‘[A] defendant who is unaware of the
charges against him, unaware of the establishment of his trial date or is absent involuntarily is not
absent ‘without cause.’’’).
Paragraph (D) is intended to facilitate, for defendants represented by counsel, waiver of appearance
at arraignment through procedures such as arraignment by mail. For the procedures to provide notice
of court proceedings requiring the defendant’s presence, see Rule 114.
See Rule 596 for the procedures for requesting transfer from criminal proceedings to juvenile proceedings
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6322 in cases in which the defendant was under the age of 18 at
the time of the commission of the alleged offense and charged with one of the offenses excluded from
the definition of ‘‘delinquent act’’ in paragraphs (2)(i), (2)(ii), and (2)(iii) of 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302. See
also Rules 595 (mandatory status conference), 597 (procedures when motion filed), and 598 (place of
detention).
Official Note: Formerly Rule 317, adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; paragraph
(b) amended November 22, 1971, effective immediately; paragraphs (a) and (b) amended
and paragraph (e) deleted November 29, 1972, effective 10 days hence; paragraphs (a) and (c)
amended February 15, 1974, effective immediately. Rule 317 renumbered Rule 303 and
PRETRIAL PROCEDURES IN COURT CASES 234 Rule 571
5-93
(366963) No. 465 Aug. 13
amended June 29, 1977, amended and paragraphs (c) and (d) deleted October 21, 1977, and
amended November 22, 1977, all effective as to cases in which the indictment or information is
filed on or after January 1, 1978; Comment revised January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983;
amended October 21, 1983, effective January 1, 1984; amended August 12, 1993, effective September
1, 1993; rescinded May 1, 1995, effective July 1, 1995, and replaced by new Rule 303.
New Rule 303 adopted May 1, 1995, effective July 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 571 and amended
March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended November 17, 2000, effective January 1, 2001;
amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002; amended March 3, 2004, effective July 1,
2004; amended August 24, 2004, effective August 1, 2005; amended May 1, 2007, effective
September 4, 2007, and May 1, 2007 Order amended May 15, 2007; amended July 31, 2012,
effective November 1, 2012; amended May 2, 2013, effective June 1, 2013.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Report explaining the August 12, 1993 amendments published at 22 Pa.B. 3826 (July 25, 1992).
Final Report explaining the May 1, 1995 changes published with the Court’s Order at 25 Pa.B.
1944 (May 20, 1995).
Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published
with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1478 (March 18, 2000).
Final Report explaining the November 17, 2000 amendments concerning a defendant’s waiver of
appearance at arraignment published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 6184 (December 2, 2000).
Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 amendments concerning advanced communication technology
published with the Court’s Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).
Final Report explaining the March 3, 2004 amendments updating the cross-references correlative
to the March 3, 2004 changes to the motions rules published with the Court’s Order at 34 Pa.B. 1561
(March 20, 2004).
Final Report explaining the August 24, 2004 addition of paragraph (E) and the correlative Comment
provisions published with the Court’s Order at 34 Pa.B. 5025 (September 11, 2004).
Final Report explaining the May 1, 2007 deletion of paragraph (E) and the correlative Comment
provisions published with the Court’s Order at 37 Pa.B. 2503 (June 2, 2007).
Final Report explaining the July 31, 2012 amendments concerning requests for transfer from
criminal proceedings to juvenile proceedings published with the Court’s Order at 42 Pa.B. 5340
(August 18, 2012).
Final Report explaining the May 2, 2013 amendments concerning notice of consequences of failing
to appear published the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 2710 (May 18, 2013).
Source
The provisions of this Rule 571 amended November 17, 2000, effective January 1, 2001, 30 Pa.B.
6183; amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002, 32 Pa.B. 2582; amended March 3, 2004,
effective July 1, 2004, 34 Pa.B. 1547; amended August 24, 2004, effective August 1, 2005, 34 Pa.B.
5016; amended May 1, 2007, effective September 4, 2007, 37 Pa.B. 2496; amended July 31, 2012,
effective November 1, 2012, 42 Pa.B. 5333; amended May 2, 2013, effective June 1, 2013, 43 Pa.B.
2704. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (363584) to (363586)

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.

I have NOT made any waiver verbally nor in writing.

I have not signed any Waiver of Counsel. There has been no colloquy.

My appearance at this,. or any, proceeding should not be misconstrued in any way to suggest or indicate any waiver of any protection of the law or the constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which provide for the jurisdiction of the courts.

The attorney for the Commonwealth and the Montgomery County District Attorney have been contacted to address these issues which affect the proceeding on this date. THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE.

I appear at this time to file the following motions in this matter, and in the interest of resolving necessary issues which will permit me to prepare to present defend myself .

I had signed the Notice indicating that I would appear and I am doing so. I am the only signer to the document which indicates that a failure to appear would result in a Bench Warrant being issued for my Arrest.

If I am reading the form properly, were I to fail to appear, I would have subjected myself to the Bench Warrant and Arrest. In any case, I hereby rescind my acknowledgement of the Notice and any implied or inferred agreement or waiver of law or constitution.

It would be inappropriate for me to be arrested AGAIN as there are jurisdictional issues which have been neglected that remain to be addressed. Perhaps that is why the Magisterial Court did not issue nor sign an ORDER.

The NOTICE TO APPEAR FOR ARRAIGNMENT which indicates the proceeding schedule for this day, indicates the criminal offense(s) as SEE TRANSCRIPT.

As a copy of any transcript has not been provided with the Notice, nor at any time subsequent to the notice being issued, Defendant indicates to the court the incomplete information without which he could not hope to be fully prepared to present any defense.

Defendant respectfully requests copies of the transcripts of the proceedings in the Magisterial District Court which occurred on the following dates:

March 26, 2015
April 9, 2015
April 24, 2015

Rule 500. Preservation of Testimony After Institution of Criminal Proceedings clearly indicates that in the interest of justice a witness testimony be preserved by either a judge – who would further indicate the grounds on which the order is based; OR by Agreement of the Parties.

This issue had been raised at the Magisterial District Court , yet was neglected by the judge.

According to records in the Court Reporters office, the attorney for the Commonwealth, had requested the court reporter. There was no discussion of this issue prior to any proceeding. There was no agreement between the parties prior to the proceeding.

Defendant requests the applicable Rule of Law which permits the attorney for the Commonwealth to take such action in direct violation of Pennsylvania Rule 500(b).

Defendant requests the Court provide a statement of the basis for its jurisdiction in this matter.

The statement should indicate the law under which jurisdiction is provided to the court.

Where there can be no waiver of jurisdiction, the Defendant challenges the jurisdiction of the court to proceed in this matter and respectfully requests any further proceedings not be scheduled until the issue of jurisdiction has been properly and lawfully addressed.

The statement should directly address all elements of jurisdiction of the Magisterial District Court including but not limited to the following:
– There was no Waiver of Counsel.
– The Statement of Defendant on April 9, 2015 which indicated the non-waiver of counsel or representation. The non-waiver of any rights being clealy indicatedn in the document and verbally in th Court. (Attached)
– There was no colloquy at any time conducted before during or after the proceedings.
MOTION FOR DOCUMENT

Defendant respectfully requests a current (and perhaps Final) copy of the Complaint which has been filed in this matter.

Defendant also reminds the attorney for the Commonwealth the she has not provided the Rule of Law
– which permits the complaint to be modified after testimony has been taken.
– which permits the complaint to be modified without the signature of the District Attorney.

The Attorney for the Commonwealth having been asked to identify the client she represents has indicated that she has no client.

Defendant respectfully asks for the identity of all client(s) represented by the attorney for the Commonwealth to whom the attorney may have a lawful responsibility for action, inaction, confidentiality and nondisclosure, or any other professional responsibility or duty pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Where the Attorney for the Commonwealth has indicated that she has “no client”, I respectfully ask for a statement indicating proper and lawful standing to bring this matter before the court.

The information and events which have been neglected prevents the court from proper jurisdiction to proceed with the ARRAIGNMENT.

As I anticipate a considerable volume of motions being required in this matter relating to discovery, and where those documents may not be readily available, or easily obtainable, or may have been secured by a Grand Jury.

I respectfully request the permission of the Court to begin filing those motions even while the ARRAIGNMENT is prevented and delayed to permit the Commonwealth to address the issues presented in this document.

Regarding the issue of Waiver of Counsel, and other rights protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States, at issue is Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information which causes the loss of any protection of the law and permits all constitutional rights to be ignored.

All legal professionals are mandated to follow the improperly enacted and collaterally unconstitutional law and prevented from any ability to address the matter. Rule 1.6 removed the lawyers discretion from nondisclosure and confidentiality.

Enacted without the ‘fraud provisions’, the resulting Law excuses ‘fraud in the furtherance’ and ‘fraud to prevent rectification’ concealed by its requirement of confidentiality and nondisclosure.

FOR EXAMPLE:
Rule 1.6 has prevented the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 in the Eastern District Court by lawyers within the clerks office. Local Rules include the Rules of Professional Conduct in the state where the court is located.

Rule 1.6 has prevented review by the Judiciary in the subsequent Appeal filed in the Third Circuit by lawyers within the clerks office. Local Rules include the Rules of Professional Conduct in the state where the court is located.

Rule 1.6 had delayed and prevented multiple Appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Delayed by the Montgomery County Judiciary. Prevented by the Central Legal Staff in the Superior Court.

Where the Rules of Appellate Procedure Rules require notification and action by the state Attorney General. The office of the Attorney General was notified. Documents submitted to the court and ordered by the court have been prevented and denied to the litigants. The docket has been redacted.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane has indicated that she has received ‘secret orders from unidentified courts’ which require her, personally, to neglect the responsibilities of the office of Attorney General. Were those orders issued to the Attorney General, the Legislature and the Governor would become informed.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality and Nondisclosure further prevents prosecution of the unlawful and unconstitutional actions by every department of the Federal Government. The McDade Murtha Amendment enacted by Congress requires federal investigators and federal lawyers to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct in the jurisdiction where they are working.

Further information is available online and within the court records.

Terance Healy