A Terroristic Divorce

Notice is hereby given that Terance Healy, Defendant, Appellant above named, hereby informs the Superior Court of Pennsylvania that the above listed Trial Court Docket includes a variety of errors, mistatements and ommissions.

AT ISSUE

The Trial 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.

The validity of the entries to the trial Court Docket cannot be confirmed by the Clerk of Courts.

The failure to include documents filed with the Clerk of Courts cannot be explained by the Clerk of Courts.

The failure to enter filed documents in a timely manner onto the Court Docket cannot be explained by the Clerk of Courts.

These actions, errors and omissions are deliberate abuses which seek to interfere, obstruct and prevent
the timely actions of the Defendant/Appellant./

These actions, errors and omissions have been brought to the attention of the Trial Court, the District Attorney, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Senators and Representatives of the Pennsylvania General Assembly

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 Appeals filed on October 20, 2015 and October 27, 2015.

The letter specifically pertains to the Appeal filed on October 27, 2015. HOWEVER, the letter fails to address any order being appealed or the issues relating to any pending appeal. Instead, the letter addresses issues/orders not currently under appeal.

THE LETTER FAILS TO ADDRESS ANY ISSUE RELATING TO THE CURRENT APPEALS IN THIS MATTER.

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

Pursuant to Rule 521 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellant hereby notifies the Attorney General that the above referenced matter before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania raises the issue of the constitutionality of a statute.

The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who must follow the US Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Rules of Professional Conduct which were enacted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s authority to enact law is limited to situations where ‘such rules are consistent with this Constitution [Pennsylvania] and neither abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of any litigant.’

The Rules of Professional Conduct enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have substantially affected the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Attorney General to act to address injustice and corruption within the courts. The Rule 1.6 mandate of ‘confidentiality of information’ with regard to client information undermines ‘everything’ where an attorney general’s clients include (1) the public, (2) the Pennsylvania government, (3) the Office of the Attorney General, (4) government agencies and departments statewide, (5) personnel within those agencies and departments, (6) and themselves.

The attorney general is prevented and obstructed from law enforcement responsibilities by a mandate to maintain ‘confidentiality’ of ‘client’ information where it adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary, the reputation of legal professionals, self-incriminates, or negatively affects their client.
The result, the Rules of Professional Conduct collaterally affect and negate ‘the substantive rights of the litigant’. Specifically, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information causes a mandatory conspiracy of silence within the courts which ignores the damage and harm caused to litigants and prevents resolution.

The Supreme Court lacked authority to enact Rule 1.6 into law as the substantive rights of this litigant, and others, have been ‘abridged’, ‘modified’, denied and ignored.

The unconstitutional situation has now been raised in a lawful manner by litigants who are not prevented by law from exposing the matter and have filed with the government to address the issue.

WHILE PROVEN UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ‘SECRET ORDERS FROM UNIDENTIFIED COURTS’ prevent Kathleen Kane, personally, from the responsibilities of her elected office.

As such, it remains the responsibility of the Attorney General to represent the People, to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution and the state Constitution, and to recognize that collaterally Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional to the People.

The act of sedition which enacted Rule 1.6 and mandated the silent participation of all legal professionals, perverted the judiciary, sacrificed the personal integrity of every judge, and undermined justice can no longer be ignored and excused because of the intimidation and threats of disciplinary action by the corrupt who have deliberately violated the public trust.

Unconstitutional Rule 1.6 is repugnant and a nullity which can pose no threat of disciplinary action. Any threat of disciplinary action for revealing the injustice, corruption and sedition by the judiciary is a false threat.

Injustice does not end injustice. It extends it.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy

cc: Internet – Work2bDone.com/live
Superior Court of Pennsylvania #900 EDA 2014 Healy v Miller
Superior Court of Pennsylvania #1330 EDA 2014 Healy v Healy
Superior Court of Pennsylvania #OBSTRUCTED Healy v Healy
Montgomery County #2007-12477 Healy v Healy
Montgomery County #2013-29976 Healy v Miller
Third Circuit Court of Appeals # 13-4591 Healy, Krautheim v The Attorneys General
Eastern District of Pennsylvania #13-4614 Healy, Krautheim v The Attorneys General