A Terroristic Divorce

THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN DENIED THE PROTECTION OF THE RULE OF LAW, AND DENIED CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS SINCE 2007.

The Defendant presents the following document, exhibits and attachments which relate DIRECTLY to the criminal matter immediately before this Honorable Court as evidence to support the statement.

Evidence dating back to the Summer of 2007 is additionally contained in the court records of the following matters:
#2007-12477 Healy v Healy
#2007-32095 Healy v Healy
#2007-32114 Healy v Healy
#104-EDM-2011 Appeal to Superior Court
#1330-EDA-2013 Appeal to Superior Court
#401-MT-2013 Kings Bench Supreme Court
#155-MM-2013 Kings Bench Supreme Court

#13-4614 Eastern District of Pennsylvania – The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
#13-4591 Third Circuit Court of Appeals

#2013-29976 Healy v Miller
#900-EDA-2014 Appeal to Superior Court

The charges are unfounded.

Jurisdiction has been challenged. The District Attorney has failed to provide a statement indicating the elements of jurisdiction necessary for the Court to proceed.

Lack of jurisdiction has been greatly exacerbated by the failure of the District Attorney
– to abide the laws of the Commonwealth
– to proceed in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure
– to address or respond when notified and informed of negligence

The lack of jurisdiction, deliberately caused by the District Attorney, has been leveraged by the District Attorney to undermine the authority and independence of the Court.

LOCATION

The purported ‘crime’ did not occur in Montgomery County.

THE PURPORTED THREAT

The Letter to the Governor of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Attorney General.
– The letter was written in Warrington, Bucks County.
– The document was sent by email, Facebook messenger.
– The document was mailed via US Postal Service to Harrisburg
– The document was posted on the internet to a web site which is hosted on a server located in Houston, Texas.

The document written by the Defendant requested law enforcement actions which are part of the responsibilities of the Executive branch. Governor Tom Wolf and Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

The document written by the Defendant requested a review by the General Assembly to address where the Court of Common Pleas had incorrectly indicated a lack of jurisdiction; the incorrect ‘lack of jurisdiction’ which was ‘affirmed’ without ANY review by the Superior Court (Central Legal Staff).

BRIEF HISTORY ( HEALY v MILLER )

The Common Pleas Court had dismissed an Ejectment Action filed to gain possession of the property – a necessary prerequisite to quiet the title and strike fraudulent documents recorded by the Recorder Of Deeds.

The Court further dismissed ALL Motions to address fraudulent paperwork as ‘moot’.

The Court dismissed incorrectly indicating a lack of jurisdiction.

On Appeal to the Superior Court , the decision was affirmed. Actions by the Central Legal Staff prevented judicial review of any and every issue related to the Appeal. The Judiciary had effectively removed themselves from the matter.

The Defendant was to have been misdirected into believing there was no recourse to recover his property. Instead, the Defendant recognized that the concealed corruption of the improper affirmed decision had only removed the Judiciary from ANY FURTHER INVOLVEMENT in the matter.

Recourse for the Defendant remained in seeking the Executive branch enforcement of the law through the Governor and the Office of the Attorney General.

Also, the Defendant informed the General Assembly regarding the purported ‘lack of jurisdiction’ which would required their attention to the laws which provide the courts with proper jurisdiction.

Legislative power is vested in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Defendant included the entire Senate and the House of Representatives in the distribution of the letter.

The Defendant was aware that his letter to the Executive and Legislative branches of government would expose a deliberate corruption of the courts by judges and administrative staff in the Judicial branch.

The letter written by the Defendant is specifically protected by Pennsylvania Constitution Article 1 Section 7.

The letter was responsibly written to the government seeking assistance.

The letter was not maliciously or negligently made.

The letter relates to the official conduct of officers in public capacity seeking investigation, information and assistance to enforce the law.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

The District Attorney prosecution of the Defendant for an activity which is specifically protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution is improper, and has been brought for the purpose of harassing and terrorizing an individual who has properly and lawfully sought the actions and effort of law enforcement.

The District Attorney had/has failed to prosecute the fraudulent conveyance and related crimes. The District Attorney has offered no explanation or response.

The District Attorney has prevented an investigation commenced by Montgomery County Detectives on the evidence and at the behest of the RECORDER OF DEEDS. The District Attorney has offered no explanation or response.

The District Attorney has also acted to prevent the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation after the RECORDER OF DEEDS had assisted the defendant by making introductions to the proper contacts at the FBI. The District Attorney has offered no explanation or response.

The interference by the District Attorney with other law enforcement agencies extends beyond the criminal affirmance of the current District Attorney and two previous office holders:
– denies the Defendant of life, liberty and freedom;
– prevents equal protection under the law;
– denies constitutional rights;
– conceals and protects direct and documented threats to murder the Defendant;
– permits the Defendant to be further victimized and threatened without recourse.

The prosecution of the Defendant has proceeded without regard for law, process, procedures, or rights. The District Attorney is attempting convert the matter, using chaos and disinformation, leading to an administrative penalty in a fabricated situation beyond the information, control or influence of the Defendant. (IE, Bench Warrant, Arrest, Contempt, Failure to Appear…)