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 HELPED… NO ONE COULD HELP… until the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
The unsigned Per Curiam Order is below…
– nothing about unanimous decision of the Justices.
– no indication of the individual decisions of the Justices. Affirm? Abstain?
– no official seal, raised or otherwise, or any other mark.
Just what makes this Court Order a true, correct and valid Court Order?
The Disciplinary Docket is not available to the public.
The Special Committee on Senate Address is tightly focused on whether the ‘suspension’ of AG Kathleen Kane significantly impairs her ability to carry out her personal duties or the function of the Attorney General’s office.
The Committee includes six senators with half of them being Lawyers on the Judiciary Committee and the President Pro Tempore who is a member of all commmittees.
Chairman John Gordner, R-Columbia County LAWYER, Judiciary Committee @SenatorGordner
Senator Lisa Baker, R-Luzerne County @SenLisaBaker
Senator Art Haywood, D-Montgomery County LAWYER, Judiciary Committee @SenatorHaywood
Senator Judy Schwank, D-Berks County @SenJudySchwenk
Senator Sean Wiley, D-Erie County @SenatorWiley
Senator Gene Yaw, R-Lycoming County LAWYER, Judiciary Committee @SenatorGeneYaw
Senator Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson County @SenatorScarnati
Committee Website: Special Committee on Senate Address Website
EMAIL: senateaddress@pasen.gov
The email link is designed to provide an opportunity “for folks to provide information on a confidential basis that they think would be helpful and appropriate to the committee.”
The committee will schedule a public hearing in November to hear directly from legal professionals about what an attorney with a suspended law license “can do and can not do.”
| Judiciary Committee Stewart J. Greenleaf, Majority Chair Daylin Leach, Minority Chair Majority Minority |
QUESTIONS:
1) What about those ‘secret orders from unidentified courts’ which specifically ordered Kathleen Kane, the person, to personally neglect the responsibilities of the Office of the Attorney general?
2) Has the Legislature been provided the ‘secret orders from unidentified courts’ which prevent the Attorney General from the responsibilities of the Office of the Attorney General as defined in the Commonwealth Attorneys Act?
3) If the Supreme Court has suspended the law license of the Attorney General, WHY DID THEY NEGLECT TO SIGN THE ORDER? Who affirmed? Who dissented? Who abstained?
4) If the suspension order is valid, why have the Supreme Court Justices indicated that their order should not be construed to remove Kathleen Kane from office.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania # 3151-2015
v.
Terance Healy
Notice is hereby given that Terance Healy, Defendant, Appellant above named, has received a copy of the attached 2 page letter which purports to be from the Honorable Judge William R. Carpenter Jr.
The letter relates to an Appeal filed on October 20, 2015.
The letter contradicts the verbal statement and acknowledgement of Judge Carpenter in open court on October 14, 2015 relating to the Appeal to the Superior Court..
On October 14, 2015, Judge Carpenter had granted permission for the interlocutory appeal to proceed.
Judge Carpenter had neglected to address the elements of jurisdiction as agreed on September 16, 2015.
The letter is improper and, while not ex parte, DOES NOT CONFORM to the Rules of Appellate Procedure as it attempts to prevent any review by the judges of the Superior Court.
The letter is not proper, lawful, or constitutional, as it seeks to deny and prevent access to the courts for redress of grievances.
The letter, if authentic, indicates that the judge has a conflict of interest in this matter which prevents the Court from addressing the defects in procedure which result in a lack of jurisdiction for the Court in this matter.
| The Court is acting without proper jurisdiction in this matter and has declined to address the issues of failure and neglect by the Attorney for the Commonwealth.
The Office of the District Attorney and the attorney representing the Commonwealth have failed to adhere to the Law, The Rules of Criminal Procedure, while ignoring rights protected and secured by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. |
_________________________________
Terance Healy
THE TIRESOME GAMES INVOLVED IN PAPER TERRORISM…
For the Appeal filed on October 20, 2015, Judge Carpenter has granted an Order for filing fees ONLY.
This prevents the production of the court transcripts which are necessary for the issues relating to the appeal.
THIS CREATES A LITTLE CONFUSION.
Had the Court not approved the IFP, THE APPEAL WOULD AUTOMATICALLY MOVE FORWARD TO THE SUPERIOR COURT.
The Superior Court would have been required to review/approve the IFP.
By limiting the Order to provide only the filing fees, the Court has prevented the timely production of the Transcripts.
Issued without any proceeding, this same tactic prevented the production of the Transcripts in the Appeal in Healy v Healy. Each Court Reporter was directly personally contacted and instructed by the Court to NOT COMPLY with an Order already issued and to write letters which indicated their non-compliance.
The Court then struck it’s own order WITHOUT ANY PROCEEDING OR EXPLANATION OR RECOURSE. The Court ignored petitions requesting a hearing on the matter to provide reasons or explanations.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania # 3151-2015
v.
Terance Healy
Notice is hereby given that Terance Healy, Defendant, Appellant above named, hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the order entered in this matter on the 22nd day of October 2015.
There was no proceeding.
The attached Order is not signed by Judge William R. Carpenter.
The attached Order has been rubber stamped with the judge’s signature.
The attached Order prevents the production of transcripts of proceedings which are necessary for review regarding the related appeal.
The Court is acting without proper jurisdiction in this matter and has declined to address the issues of failure and neglect by the Attorney for the Commonwealth.
The Office of the District Attorney and the attorney representing the Commonwealth have failed to adhere to the Law, The Rules of Criminal Procedure, while ignoring rights protected and secured by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.
As required by established procedure, Terance Healy, Defendant, Appellant above named, hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
This procedural action should not be interpreted or misconstrued so as to provide jurisdiction to the Court of Common Pleas.
Pursuant to Pa R.A.P. 904( c ), I, Terance Healy, notifies that as no proceeding was conducted, there is no transcript available.
The subject Order dated 22nd day of October 2015 order has been entered in the docket as evidenced by the attached copy of the docket entry.
______________________________
Terance Healy
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania # 3151-2015
v.
Terance Healy
Notice is hereby given that Terance Healy, Defendant, Appellant above named, hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the order entered in this matter on the 14th day of October 2015.
Verbal Notice of this Appeal having been provided to the Court during the proceeding which occurred on October 14, 2015 to which Judge Carpenter acknowledged by further responding that he would issue a Bench Warrant should Defendant not appear as ordered.
The Order dated 14th October 2015 was a subsequent order to one ‘issued’ on October 7, 2015.
An Order dated 7th October 2015 had not been provided to the Defendant prior to the scheduled appearance date. It appears to be a fraudulent document with an image of the judge’s signature placed on the document. A forgery, not mailed through the United States Postal Service to avoid the federal crime of Mail Fraud.
The first version of the Order dated 14th October 2015 having been provided by the Attorney for the Commonwealth with the same image of the judge’s signature. A forgery hand-delivered by the Attorney for the Commonwealth to avoid the federal crime of Mail Fraud.
These fraudulent and forged documents both incorrectly ordering an appearance in ninety years in the year 2105.
The FINAL APPEALABLE copy of the Order dated 14th October 2015 contains a valid signature by the judge.
The Court is acting without proper jurisdiction in this matter and has declined to address the issues of failure and neglect by the Attorney for the Commonwealth. The Office of the District Attorney and the attorney representing the Commonwealth have failed to adhere to the Law, The Rules of Criminal Procedure, while ignoring rights protected and secured by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.
As required by established procedure, Terance Healy, Defendant, Appellant above named, hereby appeals to
the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. This procedural action should not be interpreted or misconstrued so as to provide jurisdiction to the Court of Common Pleas.
Pursuant to Pa R.A.P. 904( c ), I, Terance Healy, certify that the order for transcripts is attached.
Transcript of October 14, 2015
Transcript of September 16, 2015
Transcript of August 10, 2015 – Pre-Trial Conference
Transcript of June 10, 2015 – Arraignment
Transcript of April 24, 2015 with exhibits – Preliminary Hearing
Transcript of April 9, 2015 with exhibits – Preliminary Hearing
Transcript of March 26, 2015 with exhibits – Preliminary Hearing
The subject Order dated 14th day of October 2015 order has been entered in the docket as evidenced by the attached copy of the docket entry.
Terance Healy
As I stated in Court on September 16, 2015, there is no need to file a MOTION TO CHANGE ADDRESS with the court to change my address.
The address on file is correct.
I would get the documents, IF THEY MAIL THEM TO ME.
THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS FOR THE DELIBERATE FAILURE TO MAIL LEGAL DOCUMENTS.
1. You fail to appear at a proceeding you didn’t know about.
You get admonished by the judge, or a bench warrant is issued and you are arrested, you get undermined because NO EXPLANATION is accepted.
2. You appear a a proceeding you were NOT supposed to know about.
If you show up because you learn of the proceeding, they suggest YOU have provided false information, or moved. (As happened on September 16, 2015)
They may ask you to sign a change of address which is NOT necessary, BUT THAT CHANGE OF ADDRESS can provide a court with jurisdiction where it had none. This unnecessary ‘courtesy’ is done to undermine a litigant. Why would you need to file a change of address when they have your correct address? THERE IS A REASON.
Once you ask the Court to do anything for you in a matter, you have just submitted yourself to the jurisdiction of the Court. You have agreed to the authority of the Court in the matter. If jurisdiction was lacking, you just gave it to the Court and waived your rights just by signing a change of address.
Some courts mandate every Pro Se litigant to file a change of address at each proceeding. That’s ridiculous… but it gives the court jurisdiction over you in case it was lacking.
This is why I file statements before each proceeding. The statement asks nothing of the Court and gets your information on the record without all the pesky interruptions when you try to speak.
2. You fail to comply with an Order.
You can be found in contempt. Although the requirement for contempt is that you are fully aware of the order and the possible punishment for noncompliance. You will be threatened and intimidated for something where you may not have known about it.
3. The documents are fraudulent.
The docs you receive (hand delivered) may not actually be copies of the documents filed with the court.
If mailed, the crime of mail fraud is committed. A federal crime.
4. The documents are forged.
The docs you receive (hand delivered) may be forged documents which were not really signed by any judge. Rubber stamps or pictures of the judge’s signature are used.
If mailed, the crime of mail fraud is committed. A federal crime.
The United States Postal Service will deliver mail as long as there is any element of the address available to indicate destination. It may be shredded by a machine, but the peices will be delivered … Even in a plastic bag.
The following letter was delivered to the Postmaster in Warrington, PA. He suggested I send the same information to Norristown. Seems a large volume of complaints of non-delivery relate to legal documents. He now understands why that happens.
When the documents are evaluated, clearly the failure relates to that issue expressed in open court.
If the documents are placed in the mail, I will get them.
The lawyers think people are stupid. No, the people just trust the system and the professionals who violate it. Lawyers show little respect for TRUST…. And they will use it against you if it serves their purpose.
There is no effort to determine who failed to mail any document from the Court, Clerk, or District Attorney. The metadata exists, but they are not going to share the information willingly. Getting a court order to expose the corruption of the court… NOT VERY LIKELY.
Think about the over 45 million foreclosures based on fraudulent documents and robosigned deeds. No one was ever prosecuted. The fraud concealed behind the lawyers and the Attorney Client privilege.
They threw another sneaky dud and were caught.
Now, I can go to Supreme Court in Harrisburg… It reveals the problem of Rule 1.6 to the source while requesting the Supreme Court order the Court to address jurisdiction and the deliberate negligence by the District Attorney.
They secretly scheduled an evaluation for yesterday. So they accused me of missing it. They have no case so everything they do is about making it about an administrative issue.
BUT, AS ALWAYS IS THE CASE… They scheduled it wrong… 90 years from now wrong. They forged the judges signature. (Robosigned) and neglected to enter it on the docket or mail it to me.
The judge neglected to indicate necessary elements of jurisdiction which was a condition of my agreement.
When asked, the judge said he had jurisdiction. (Ignored the elements necessary)
So when they rescheduled it the same way, forged, and 90 years in the future… I POINTED IT OUT. (Funny it was already prepped and forged beforehand.). So there retyped it… Still with the jurisdiction elements but SIGNED BY THE JUDGE.
RESULT: An order signed by judge lacking jurisdiction.
Appeal to Superior Court could be intercepted by Court Staff… And delayed for months.
So the result will take the matter directly to Supreme Court…to order the judge to indicate the necessary elements of jurisdiction.
Pointing out all of those failures concealed by Rule 1.6 which show a lack of jurisdiction… All documented before the court and IGNORED.
Every head turned when I asked for DA Risa Ferman to be summoned to the court to address the misconduct and unconstitutional acts of her ‘clients’ WHICH ARE CONCEALED PURSUANT TO RULE 1.6.
THEY ADDRESSED EVERYTHING DURING THE “ROLL CALL”. A change in procedure to get me out of the courthouse before I talked to more people. I did make a few stops though.
Copies of backdated orders, incorrectly reflected on the docket. So many timestamps in their fraudulent practices. Tsk tsk tsk.
JUSTICE IS COMING.
#3151-15
#MJ-38118-CR-0000096-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
Terance Healy
STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON OCTOBER 14, 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. The inability to be represented by counsel is affected by an improperly enacted and collaterally unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.
Rule 1.6 causes a complete and absolute denial of any protection of the law and all constitutionally protected rights are ignored.
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.
FAILURE OF ATTORNEY FOR COMMONWEALTH
The attorney for the Commonwealth has neglected to follow the instructions of this Court on September 16, 2015.
The elements indicating the attention to Law which provide for proper jurisdiction of this court have been neglected and ignored.
It was agreed that the Office of the District Attorney would provide the Court with an evaluator of competence. The attorney for the Commonwealth has neglected to follow the instructions of the Court.
FAILURE OF PUBLIC DEFENDER
The attorney from the Public Defenders Office has neglected to follow the instructions of this Court on September 16, 2015.
The attorney who usurped authority from the Public Defenders Office has failed to follow the instructions of the Court to remove himself from the matter.
ACTIONS OF COURT ADMINISTRATION
Court Administration continues to schedule the Defendant to appear before this Court under threat where failure to appear
– would be construed as a waiver;
– cause the revocation of bail;
– result in the issuance of a Bench Warrant;
– be deemed as a broad waiver of all rights under the law and Constitution.
ADMINISTRATIVE RESOLUTION – MISDIRECT
THIS DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL NEGLECT AND HARASSMENT WHICH DEMANDS THE CONSTANT ATTENTION OF THE DEFENDANT IS AN OBVIOUS ATTEMPT TO MISDIRECT FROM THE ISSUES.
DENIAL OF PROTECTION OF LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (Rule 1.6)
The Attorney for the Commonwealth, the Public Defender, and Court Administration have an Attorney Client relationship with the District Attorney which prevent prosecution for their abuse, harassment and corruption pursuant to nondisclosure mandated by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.
Rule 1.6 has collaterally denied and prevented any protection under the Rule of Law and the rights protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitution.
As such, Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional, a nullity. ,
Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Constitution Article V Section 10 (c) the Judiciary was NOT authorized to enact any law which affected the substantive rights of any litigant.
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
– Statement of Defendant on August 10, 2015.
– Statement of Defendant on September 16, 2015.
DELIBERATE ACTIONS WHICH UNDERMINE/PREVENT APPEAL
The documents in this matter neglect to indicate the elements necessary for the jurisdiction of this court.
The failure of the attorney for the Commonwealth to follow the laws and procedures of the Commonwealth cause a lack of jurisdiction for this court to review or decide on this matter.
The documents in this matter have not been docketed in a timely manner.
The documents in this matter have not been provided to the Defendant.
The documents in this matter have not been signed by the judge.
These deliberate failures prevent timely appeal and additionally prevent any review where jurisdiction is lacking to review the matter on Appeal.
DELIBERATE NEGLECT AND FAILURE BY THE ATTORNEY FOR THE COMMONWEALTH
The attorney for the commonwealth is a client of the District Attorney.
The attorney-client privilege aspect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information prevents any actions to address the deliberate failures to follow the Law, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the US Constitution where the attorney deliberates neglecting her responsibilities is represented by the District Attorney.
DELIBERATE NEGLECT AND FAILURE BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
A Public Defender has indicated that he has been assigned to the case and has begun filing documents. He has not contacted the Defendant, nor has he returned calls, nor has he provided copies of the documents purportedly filed on the behalf of the Defendant.
The Public Defender is a client of the District Attorney.
The attorney-client privilege aspect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information prevents any actions to address the deliberate failures to follow the Law, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the US Constitution where the attorney deliberates neglecting his responsibilities is represented by the District Attorney.
The Documents provided within the INFORMATION are incomplete. The District Attorney’s Office has neglected to address the reported issues, or to return calls and messages.
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.
PARTICIPATION BY THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
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 witness has used to the fraudulent conveyance of the property to obtain benefits from the title insurance satisfying their mortgage while still not possessing a valid deed to the property.
NEGLIGENCE BY THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
The Office of the District Attorney has refused to address the fraudulent conveyance or the actions of the witness which have permitted them to profit from their involvement in the crime.
ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS THE INVALID DEED
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.
ACCESS TO THE COURTS / GOVERNMENT
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 my 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
The hard questions MUST BE ASKED.
The man in the white hat [literally]… J. Whyatt Mondesire. Did he overhear a ‘Rule 1.6’ conversation before being removed from Kathleen Kane’s Preliminary Hearing at the request of prosecutors Michelle Henry and Kevin um Steele?
Was Mondesire a part of the Conspiracy to undermine Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane? As victim damaged by the purported ‘leak’.
It is reasonable to believe that someone with his civil rights background, upon learning the true basis for the case against the AG was the furtherance of corruption and rights violations under Rule 1.6, would NOT participate any further. He would contact people to expose the conspiracy.
An unconstitutional Confidentiality law is being used to conceal an unconstitutional Confidentiality law.
Fraud and forgery concealed by that unconstitutional Confidentiality is being used to falsely accuse and prosecute Attorney General Kathleen Kane who has the responsibility to address the constitutionality of laws with the Commonwealth.
Where Kane is prevented from disclosure UNTIL presenting her defense IN COURT, the disinformation by Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman undermines the integrity and authority of the Office of the Attorney General and challenges the authority of the Executive and Legislative branches.
The aggressive fraudulent prosecution which is concealed and excused by the Rule 1.6 protected witnesses (Attorney Client Privileged former OAG staff) demonstrates the systemic effort to undermine the government through abuse of power under color of law by District Attorneys – more obligated to conceal corruption than to preserve protect and defend the US Constitution.
Media manipulation of @SupremeCtofPA is adversely affecting the integrity of the court.
@GovernorTomWolf CALL @PaLegislature TO ASSEMBLE!
Fraud upon the @SupremeCtofPA is adversely affecting the integrity of the Judiciary.
@GovernorTomWolf CALL @PaLegislature TO ASSEMBLE!
Fraud and manipulation of @SupremeCtofPA has undermined the independence of the court.
@GovernorTomWolf CALL @PaLegislature TO ASSEMBLE!
Negligence by leadership of @PaLegislature is undermining the Rule of Law & Constitution.
@GovernorTomWolf CALL @PaLegislature TO ASSEMBLE!
Chief Justice Saylor of @SupremeCtofPA has indicated that @PaLegislature must act.
@GovernorTomWolf CALL @PaLegislature TO ASSEMBLE!
Fraud/Forgery concealed by confidentiality adversely affecting the integrity of @PACourts
@GovernorTomWolf CALL @PaLegislature TO ASSEMBLE!
PA Law and Constitution have been undone by improper and unconstitutional Confidentiality
@GovernorTomWolf CALL @PaLegislature TO ASSEMBLE!
Only the Legislature has the authority to suspend a law.
@GovernorTomWolf CALL @PaLegislature TO ASSEMBLE!
– Suspend Rule 1.6
– End unconstitutional lawlessness and corruption.
– restore JUSTICE
