08.11
PDF version
#3151-15
#MJ-38118-CR-0000096-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
Terance Healy
STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON AUGUST 10, 2015
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 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.
ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE ISSUES DIRECTLY WERE UNANSWERED
The attorney for the Commonwealth and the Montgomery County District Attorney have been contacted to address those issues which affect the proceeding on this date. THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE.
I appear at this time in the interest of resolving necessary issues which will permit me to prepare to represent and defend myself.
This document incorporates and includes the following documents filed in this matter in their entirety:
– Statement of Defendant on April 9, 2015
– Letter to District Attorney Risa Ferman
– Notice to Appear for Arraignment
– Statement of Defendant on June 10, 2015
– Letter to Attorney General Kathleen Kane on June 11, 2015
– Waiver of Arraignment – coerced under duress on June 10, 2015
– Challenge to Jurisdiction dated June 19, 2015
– Letter dismissing a Private Criminal Complaint dated June 23, 2015
NON-WAIVER OF COUNSEL
I do NOT waive the right to be represented by an attorney/lawyer/counselor.
I am destitute and cannot afford an attorney.
Every attorney within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is mandated by the Rules of Professional Conduct UNLESS and UNTIL they recognize the unconstitutionality of the law enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
A waiver of counsel with the knowledge of potential “dangers and disadvantages of self-representation” cannot be executed where comprehension, acknowledgement and experience demonstrate the affect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information which causes the facts to be ignored.
Defendant recognizes that this Court will likely proceed without regard for the procedures and laws established in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and THAT DELIBERATE AND BLATANT DISREGARD will be ignored at every level of the Court pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.
The Defendant recognizes that the judiciary have improperly enacted Rule 1.6 into law without authority.
The Defendant recognizes that the judiciary have mandated CONFIDENTIALITY with regard to the improperly enacted and collaterally unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.
The Defendant has communicated the issue to the Pennsylvania Legislature as the Legislature has the sole authority to suspend a law pursuant to the Constitution Of Pennsylvania.
The Defendant has communicated the issue to Governor Thomas Wolf as the governor has the authority to call the Legislature to Harrisburg to address the issue.
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Kathleen Kane, has been kept informed of the matter as her responsibilities include review of the constitutionality of laws within the commonwealth.
Kathleen Kane has indicated in the media that ‘secret orders from unidentified courts’ mandate that she personally neglect the responsibilities of the Office of the Attorney General to which she was elected.
– Those orders correspond to actions in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania where the responsibilities to address the constitutionality of a state law pursuant to Rule 521 has resulted in the unavailability of orders and documents in several cases. The Superior Court has not substantiated their actions in law.
THE DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE LAWS AND THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND THE NEGLECT BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND THE ATTORNEY FOR THE COMMONWEALTH CAUSE A DENIAL OF THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW FOR THE DEFENDANT AND IGNORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT…
… while concealed and remaining unaddressed pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
The actions of the Court in this matter are UNEXPLAINED and/or UNSUBSTANTIATED where issues which have not been addressed by the District Attorney deny the court of proper subject matter jurisdiction in this matter due to deliberate procedural errors, the failure to follow procedures and laws, and the failure to address the rights of the defendant protected by the constitution of the United States.
The following topics require more research and effort on the part of the Defendant who has not been provided time to research and prepare while attempting to address the issues involved in the matter before this Court.
In the interest of keeping the Court advised and informed of issues and questions which are raised regarding the matter, the Defendant respectfully provides the following listing:
1. The Defendant requests to be formally informed of the Charges against him.
2. The ‘Arraignment’ paperwork indicates “SEE TRANSCRIPT” yet, the Defendant has not been provided the transcripts for the matter.
3. The revised copies of the complaint have not been signed by the District Attorney as required by law.
4. Their appears to be a conflict of interest with the Montgomery County Judiciary. A majority of the judges having been directly involved in matters which relate to this case since 2007.
5. Their appears to be a conflict of interest where the matters directly relate to ‘secret orders from unidentified courts’ which prevent Kathleen Kane from her elected responsibilities as Attornry General of Pennsylvania.
6. There appears to be a direct conflict of interest where the Montgomery County District Attorney has neglected to address, investigate, prosecute or respond to criminal complaints which relate to the matter and which demonstrate the ‘confidential’ neglect caused by Rule 1.6.
7. The Defendant requests the Court excuse the costs of subpoenas which must be served in this matter to properly prepare a defense. Subpoenas must be served upon the entire Pennsylvania Legislature, several courts which have neglected to provide documents, the Office of the Attorney General, county and local law enforcement agencies, and others.
8. The Defendant has not received complete documentation in the INFORMATION recently received from the District Attorneys office which has been contacted and refused to address the missing documents and pages.
9. An apparent forgery of the signature of Risa Vetri Ferman appears on the incomplete INFORMATION when compared to the signature which appears on the Complaint served upon Kathleen Kane in recent days.
10. Where the incomplete information prevents the Defendant from preparing an effective and complete defense to the, as yet, informal charges identified, Defendant requests the Court address the failure to of the District Attorneys office to follow procedures and laws and provide a deadline for the production of items which have been available for the preparation of the case against him.
DEATH THREAT
Within the INFORMATION paperwork provided was a five page document from a witness in the matter which demonstrates an effort to provision, plan and train to kill the Defendant based on irrational, paranoid and delusional events.
The District Attorney’s Office have had this document since March and failed to advise the Defendant of this credible threat to his life.
The witness is living in the Defendant’s Home and has not produced any documents which contradict the documented, reported and neglected fraudulent conveyance of the property, or demonstrate a ‘purported’ lawful ownership of the property.
The Office of the District Attorney has refused to address the issue.
The Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas has improperly denied jurisdiction with prejudice.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania documents are incomplete, unsubstantiated, and unsigned. The paperwork supports the decision of the lower court.
Where access to the courts is being improperly prevented by an incorrect lack of jurisdiction, the matter was raised in February to the Governor and the Legislature to address this lack of jurisdiction. It is my understanding that this document is the basis for the criminal charges.
Yet, a letter which clearly plans, provisions and trains for the Defendant’s execution based on detailed deluded and paranoid ideations has been ignored.
The true threat in this matter is being ignored. Rule 1.6 has that influence on the integrity of the judiciary and the legal profession while under a confidential mandate to undermine and deny the constitutional rights of litigants.
Respectfully Submitted,
Terance Healy
