A Terroristic Divorce

THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER WON’T READ ANYTHING I HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT MY CASE.

Here’s why…

The unconstitutional actions, collateral affect and the actual experience are clearly presented and demonstrated.

A witness involved in the unconstitutional experience, and a party affected by the unconstitutional law, have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Rule 1.6.

The entire staff would become ‘witness involved’.

So how did they know not to read … if they have not read it?

The unconstitutional affect of the confidentiality law has been exposed and documented.

Who ever is directing the lawyers in the public defenders office “not to read” is actively obstructing my representation in the matter
and
attempting to undermine my constitutional rights
and
undermining the independence of the judiciary.

The entire staff are ALREADY ‘witness involved’.
THEY KNOW THEY KNOW. I KNOW THEY KNOW.

WHO THINKS THEY CAN UN-RING THIS BELL?

Why would anyone seek to deny protection of the rule of law? to deny constitutional rights?

JUSTICE HAS ARRIVED.

They should have told Public Defender Denise Marrone that disclosing that she would not, has not and never read my case WAS ALSO CONFIDENTIAL. It suggests that she knows exactly what she wasn’t reading… and why.

Who told her?

No appearance. No representation. Yet, Marrone attends a Call of the Trial List (Chambers Request) while purporting to represent me. She only prevents me from representing myself. A shill, purporting to represent me, participating in the efforts which deny my rights and seek to prevent them further. Clearly, HONEST SERVICES FRAUD. Obstruction of … Marrone obstructs most everything.

All things considered… my liberty is at risk. Marrone purporting to represent me, by not providing representation. I have never ever trusted her. Never.

In 2008, Marrone participated in an effort which had Judge DelRicci throw me in jail – there was no court order. The judge would only find this out month’s later. “What do you mean there is NO ORDER. Didn’t I put you in jail?” Tackled and shackled violently, (First time I has seen my kids in a year) I was pushed past them by deputies. Months later, DelRicci’s staff would confirm – “No order.” Opposing counsel laughed – “No order.” Non-disclosure doesn’t permit any apology. Rule 1.6 non-disclosure concealed Judge Rhonda Lee Daniele’s ‘secret order‘ while affecting every proceeding for years, including custody. Through recusals and reassignments non-disclosure undermined the integrity of the entire Montgomery County Bench. A Farce.

I wanted to learn the reason everyone thought it was acceptable to mistreat a person so badly… to annihilate every aspect of their personal, professional and financial existence. In 2013, I realized that Rule 1.6 fit EVERY situation. Confidentiality mandates good people to participate in non-disclosure.

In 2015, I was fully Rule 1.6 aware and taking every possible precaution. Ignoring the established process, Judge Duffy triggers Rule 1.6. She capitulated her JURISDICTION. Fraudulent entries to the docket advanced the matter to a Court without jurisdiction. Rule 1.6 Non-disclosure. No Rules. No Rights. Without any protection of the law and without rights, I have been threatened and abused for three years in a court without jurisdiction suffering the abuse insults and indignation served up by Lauren McNulty. An unstoppable force leveraging non-disclosure to ignore the law and undermine my rights.

So who is telling the Public Defender not to recognize Rule 1.6 Injustice?

Since January 27, 2016, “no great injustice” provides for non-Representation which prevents self-representation and denies ANY REPRESENTATION.

Would I trust my liberty to representation by Denise Marrone? NEVER.

(Be careful Montco Courthouse… there’s likely a subpeona for my web site stats from the DA’s office.)

THE AFFECT OF RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY

There’s THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. Lawyers present The Truth, and Nothing But the Truth, however Rule 1.6 can mandate non-disclosure of The Whole Truth. At risk: Protection of the Rule of Law, and constitution rights.

It is without any implication or suggestion of negative intent; nor any belief in motivation based on malice that I present the following activity in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas. The Honorable Judge James M. McMaster presiding. January 5, 2018.

A PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS APPOINTED COUNSEL was filed on 11/16/2017 by Bradley Bastedo, Senior Chief Deputy Public Defender, Bucks County.

The Petition and a RULE TO SHOW CAUSE praecipe was filed on December 18, 2017 and served along with correspondence from Christine A. King, Public Defender, Bucks County, to the Defendant.

A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE RETURNABLE AT HEARING was ordered for 01/05/2018 by Judge McMaster.

A RESPONSE to RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW FROM REPRESENTATION was filed by the Defendant on 01/05/2018.

In his petition to withdraw, Attorney Bastedo indicates “emails and a phone call from Terance Healy” (at para #9) as reason for withdrawal.

Further, Bastedo indicates that Ms. Christine King, Public Defender of Bucks County had “likewise received such emails and who directed that counsel should file this petition.” (at para #10)

Attorney Bastedo and Attorney King are professionally licensed attorneys in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and as such they practice pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct initially promulgated into law in 1987 by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

The Response filed by the Defendant presents issues which could not be presented by the attorneys in their documents pursuant to a confidentiality mandate under Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

“There was no immediate explanation for the actions of all involved to have completely disregarded the Mental Health Laws and gone off the rails. A false suicide intervention.” (at Response Page 3 para 4)

“Brad indicated he may have to consult a lawyer for himself in order to continue representing me” (at Response Page 3, para 5)

“Brad indicated he had been contacted to drop the case, to withdraw, from people within the courthouse. He never mentioned them by name. He indicated some email exchanges regarding his representation.” (at Response Page 3 para 6)

“The suggestion that the volume of email was the conflict was unfair.” (at Response Page 4, para 6)

County Commissioner “Diane Marseglia responded. Our email exchanges lead to an introduction to the Public Defenders Office to handle the appeal.” (at Response Page 2 para 12)

“December 6, 2017, at the County Commissioners meeting, I asked the Commissioners why this action was occurring. They indicated they had helped me enough. They admitted to their effort to withdraw the Public Defender. Their suggestion of organizations to whom they had just donated thousands of dollars seemed mindlessly indicative of the control. The meeting is recorded.” (at Response Page 4, para 8)

“The Commissioners fund both the Public Defender and the Mental Health Department. I had requested meetings with them to inform them of my experience.” (at Response 4 para 11)

“After learning the reality of the story which they did not want to hear, the Commissioners acted to end further legal representation.” (at Reponse Page 4 para 12)

“The use of involuntary commitment as a weapon has little or no regard for the law. Once triggered, it creates a liability for everyone who becomes involved.” (at Response Page 5 para 4)

“The disregard for the law caused a complete disregard for constitutional rights.” (at Response Page 5 para 7)

“Rule 1.6 Confidentiality prevents exposure of corruption in government. Confidentiality prevents exposure of the clients misdeed. A District Attorney represents himself, his staff and his office. If he discovers a crime by a staffer, confidentiality prevents him from exposing his client. District Attorneys discretion avoids prosecution for a crime. Confidentiality Mandate is not discretionary.” (at Response Page 5 para 8)

“The victim of those staffer crimes is left without recourse.” (at Response Page 5 para 10)

“It is possible for others to prey on the victim further. They can leverage confidentiality to protect their crimes from prosecution as well.” (at Response Page 5 para 11)

“The victim has no recourse. The best he can attempt is survival.” (at Response Page 5 para 3)

“The chaos involved in the matter before this court cannot be compared to the experience or the current events in Montgomery County.” (at Response Page 8 para 3)

“It is with both confidence of the facts and fear for credibility that I submit the recent filing in Montgomery County where there is no Rule of Law and No Constitutional Rights. STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON JANUARY 2, 2018.” (at Response page 8 para 6)
* Included as part of the STATEMENTS OF DEFENDANT

Judge McMasters queried Attorney Bastedo, and Attorney Colin Jenei who discussed the email.

Indicating awareness of the confidential nature of specifics, Judge McMasters confirmed with the Attorneys his recollection and belief that the courts have established that interference with representation by public officials is NOT ACCEPTABLE. The attorneys agreed.

Judge McMasters DENIED the Petition to Withdraw.

---

The information regarding the Commissioners actions was not presented to the court by attorneys mandated by confidentiality.

Confidentiality directly affected the matter which was before the court and threatened to undermine the representation of the Defendant. The right to representation guaranteed by the US Constitution.

The Public Defenders Office would not have been able to provide another lawyer, and would not be permitted to indicate the true reason pursuant to the confidentiality mandate. The right to representation was being affected by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

A great volume of the expenditures approved by the County Commissioners are done to pay for lawyers involved in efforts throughout the county and state. Had the public defender been permitted to withdraw, the Defendant would not likely be able to find representation unaffected by the County Officials. The right to representation could be undermined by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

Confidentiality caused the Defendant to challenge diligence as defined in Rule 1.3.
Confidentiality affected effective communications with the Defendant as provided in Rule 1.4.
Confidentiality prevented exposure of the conflict of interest described in Rule 1.7.
Confidentiality prevented full candor to the tribunal as required by Rule 3.3.

Confidentiality of Information is a broad scope of confidentiality, including attorney-client privilege, incorporated by cross reference throughout the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information provides an unstated excuse for lawyers to neglect the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Maintaining confidentiality was an essential reason that Attorney Bastedo ceased communicating with the Defendant.

In August 2017, it was indicated in court and on the record, the Police Officer did NOT prepare the form or check the box indicated. That violation, a crime defined in the Mental Health Act, triggered liabilities for every person and organization that would become involved in further denial of constitutional rights.

FALSE SUICIDE INTERVENTION On April 9, 2017 at about midnight, four Warrington Township Police officers responded to an anonymous report transferred from Doylestown Township Police. They acted outside of any lawful process or procedure, in direct and deliberate violation of Pennsylvania Law and without regard to rights protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. I was woken, ambushed, beaten, abducted, stripped and held for days without any consequence to the police who acted without a warrant while violating the laws and the Constitutions and creating liabilities for all other organizations and people they involved.

Sent by fax to Judge Carpenter, Judge DelRicci (1st of the 22 judges in my case affected by Rule 1.6), Judge Duffy (I could do NOTHING to stop her from triggering Rule 1.6)

Hon. William R. Carpenter	January 8, 2018
Court of Common Pleas
Montgomery County
Norristown, PA 19404
RE: #3151-2015	MOTION FOR RECOURSE PDF

“There is no great injustice caused by the January 27, 2016 order…” “having appointed a Public Defender to represent him.” – Judge William R. Carpenter

In his Opinion dated March 9, 2016, where the issue of jurisdiction is not addressed, Judge Carpenter suggests, “There is no great injustice caused by the January 27, 2016 order in which this Court rescheduled the call of the trial list in this matter, having determined Healy to be incompetent and having appointed a Public Defender to represent him.”

Permitting an assault upon the Defendant’s competence, and permitting an aggressive and malicious prosecutor to prevail where every law applicable to the situation is ignored and offers no protection, is an egregious improper incomprehensible and vile personal attack on the self-esteem, character, reputation and the emotional well-being of the Defendant who has persevered through a malicious prosecution conducted outside any Rule of Law or any Rule of Criminal Procedure.

Abuse of power under color of law with intent to cause severe emotional distress.

There could be no more accurate description for the crime committed by Lauren McNulty regarding the persistent pursuit of the contrived allegation, which she has stalled and delayed for three years. Protection in her persistent abusive prosecution secured by an attorney-client relationship with District Attorney Kevin Steele, and previously by District Attorney Risa Ferman.

The Participation in the crime by this Honorable Court while without jurisdiction to hold hearings in the matter in unconscionable, and inescapable for the Defendant who while represented by a court appointed Public Defender has not been permitted to address the court.

JUDICIAL NOTICE: Before this Court, this Defendant is without any voice.

Where this Court has failed to state that jurisdiction is proper, the Defendant challenges the court for an explanation of why there has been a complete and absolute neglect and disregard to indicate proper jurisdiction at any time in the last three years – through three appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania – through one appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court – while jurisdiction has been challenged at every opportunity.

The neglect to address jurisdiction by the District Attorney in this Court and through three appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The District Attorney avoiding any indication of jurisdiction by filing a “No Answer Letter” with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
JUDICIAL NOTICE: Non-disclosure of jurisdiction

Court Ordered representation requires at least some representation.

The absence of any evidence of representation by the Public Defender indicates they have provided NO REPRESENTATION.

Effectively, the Court ordered representation (NO REPRESENTATION) denied the Defendant of ANY representation. It serves to prevent the Defendant from representing himself.

JUDICIAL NOTICE: Before this Court, this Defendant is denied any right to defend.

There has been NO REPRESENTATION provided by the Public Defender Office.

There have been no motions or documents filed by the Public Defender Office.

The Public Defender has indicated a refusal to communicate with the Defendant.
– they will not meet
– they will not discuss the case
– they will not speak via telephone
– they will not respond via email
– they will not read any statements filed by the Defendant
– they will not review the case with the Defendant
– they will not plan the defense with The Defendant
– they will not participate in the defense
– they will not permit the Defendant to participate in his defense.

THE PUBLIC STATEMENTS OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER REGARDING THE REFUSAL TO COMMUNICATE WITNESSED AND CONFIRMED.
– Affidavit of Joan P. Healy
– Affidavit of Todd M. Krautheim, YWF

To allege Ineffective Representation by Counsel regarding the Public Defender would require that there had to be SOME representation to show their ineffectiveness.

BUT, the Public Defender provided NO REPRESENTATION;
failed to challenge the competency decision – no hearing, no evidence, no testimony, no chance to defend;
failed to challenge their assignment;
failed to file briefs and two appeals were dismissed;
secretly attempted to withdraw the third appeal and was denied;
secretly raised the third appeal to the Supreme Court while neglecting the issue of jurisdiction (Failing to use the word jurisdiction.);
failed to appear for several proceedings – leaving the Defendant to fend for himself;
has filed no motions in this matter;
has not met with the Defendant to plan a defense;
refuses to communicate with the Defendant;
will not identify the attorney assigned to represent the Defendant;
will not respond to email;
will not respond to phone calls;
has conducted no discovery;
has prepared no witness;
has not reviewed the Information;
has made no effort to represent the Defendant at any time;
AND AS OF THIS DATE THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSIGNED PUBLIC DEFENDER REMAINS UNKNOWN.

There has been MASSIVE injustice demonstrated having appointed a Public Defender.

Lauren McNulty petitioned for the Defendant to be declared incompetent and appointment of a public defender.
– Her request was granted to the exclusion of the stated intentions of the Defendant.
– Her request was granted to the exclusion of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Mental Health Act.
– The decision was based on neither evidence, testimony, law nor experience.
– Her request was granted while the report for which she paid over $7700.00 was not yet written.
– It was her’s for the asking.

JUDICIAL NOTICE: Actions without regard for established procedures or the Rule of Law.

The court appointed Public Defender sabotaged documents filed by the Defendant, and further as indicated in hundreds of emails, The Public Defender failed to respond or permit the Defendant to participate in his own defense.

The Public Defender didn’t participate either. The Chief Public Defender persists in his refusal to identify the attorney assigned.

“There is no great injustice caused by the January 27, 2016 order…” “having appointed a Public Defender to represent him.”

The Defendant strongly disagrees with that Opinion of the Court. [WITH EMPHASIS ADDED]

The negligence and sabotage by the Public Defender for the last two years contradicts the judges opinion WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE and shows their CONTEMPT for his assignment.

The Public Defender was acting against the interests of the Defendant, an active participant in an abuse of power by the District Attorney from which the Defendant could not be heard, and from which the Defendant could not defend.

Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Defendant
…since 2007

SUMMARY
JUDICIAL NOTICE: Non-disclosure of jurisdiction
Non-disclosure of information relating to jurisdiction.

JUDICIAL NOTICE: Before this Court, this Defendant is without any voice.
Defendant is prevented from addressing the court.

JUDICIAL NOTICE: Before this Court, this Defendant is denied any right to defend.
Prevented by Court Appointed Representation – which has provided NO REPRESENTATION. The Defendant is denied any ability to present a defense.

JUDICIAL NOTICE: Actions without regard for established procedures or the Rule of Law.
The exclusion of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Mental Health Act.

Attorney-Client Privilege
Protection from prosecution secured by an attorney-client relationship with the DA.

Confidentiality the non-disclosure of information by lawyers.
Confidentiality denies the Defendant of ANY protection of the law.
Confidentiality denies the Defendant of EVERY constitutional right.
Confidentiality undermines the Rule of Law and the system of justice.
Confidentiality leverages the judiciary held hostage.
Confidentiality permits an abusive prosecutor to avoid prosecution.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, which includes attorney-client privilege, provides for a broader scope of confidentiality by cross-reference and referral throughout the Rule of Professional Conduct.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information mandates non-disclosure where the information will adversely affect the integrity of the Court; adversely affect the reputation of the Department/Firm; adversely affect the integrity of the legal profession; or adversely affect the client.

The defendant is without any protection of the law, all constitutional rights are not available.

A Judiciary Held Hostage
Confidential efforts which cause a court to proceed without jurisdiction demonstrate the leverage of the prosecutor over the court and the judiciary. The Court, recognizing a lack of jurisdiction which must be held confidential, is held hostage, losing any judicial independence and decisions leveraged.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.
One Law has undermined the Judiciary, the Rule of Law and the US Constitution.

Once injustice is triggered under Rule 1.6, a person has no protection of the law, and all constitutional rights are ignored. There is no recourse. There is no releif. Ever.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The unconstitutional actions, collateral affect and the actual experience clearly presented and demonstrated. A witness involved in the unconstitutional experience, and a party affected by the unconstitutional law, have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Rule 1.6.

IMPROPERLY ENACTED

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rulemaking authority exists “… if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant…”

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information collaterally subverts the rule of law and the constitution, and prevents the rights of a litigant. As such, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court lacked any rulemaking authority for the confidentiality mandate.

MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is unconstitutional, no law, a nullity, repugnant to the constitution. It need not be abided. It can provide no authority, nor can it provide any defense.

Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable court affirm the information provided;
and
Send notice to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court of these findings for their action to remove an improperly enacted and unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information;
and
Send notice to the Governor and Legislature intended to prevent any further attempts to coerce or threaten the continued non-disclosure of the unconstitutional collateral affect of an improperly enacted and unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Where no longer prevented by an improperly enacted and unconstitutional Confidentiality of Information, the Defendant requests this honorable court indicate the lack of jurisdiction for this matter within this court and order the immediate dismissal of the matter.

MOTION FOR REFERRAL FOR STATE / FEDERAL PROSECUTION

Where no longer prevented by an improperly enacted and unconstitutional Confidentiality of Information, the Defendant respectfully requests this honorable Court, provided with absolute immunity, refer the matter for criminal prosecution to state and federal authorities.

MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE ARREST

Where no longer prevented by an improperly enacted and unconstitutional Confidentiality of Information, the Defendant requests this honorable Court contact the Montgomery County Sheriff and order for the IMMEDIATE ARREST and detainment of

Lauren McNulty, Kevin Steele, Risa Ferman, Dean Beers, Denise Marrone

who have conspired and participated to involve this honorable Court in their criminal abuse of power under color of law;
and
crimes denying the Defendant of his constitutional protections;
and
actions to undermine the authority and reputation of the Judiciary which sought to adversely affect the Public Trust in the entire system of justice.

Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Defendant
…since 2007

Note to Judge Duffy:
I knew the risk. I did my best to inform you of the necessity to protect my constitutional rights. And your ability to do so. You capitulated to the pressures of… lawyers? You permitted Rule 1.6 to be triggered in this matter, to hold the court hostage while harassing and terrorizing the Defendant.

ENTRY OF FRAUDULENT DATA INTO STATE COMPUTERS

Employees in the Magisterial District Court in Montgomeryville, PA have admitted to their part in the entry of false data into court docket computer system.

The Information which they entered they knew to be incorrect.

The knew that did not have any document, statement or record to support the entry.

They chose to ignore that the information which they were entering was false. They entered it anyway.

They acted to workaround the computer system programming which would not forward the case to the next court without the entry.

False Entry #1:
Waiver of Counsel 03-26-2015 Filer: Terance P. Healy Applies to: Terance P. Healy, Defendant

The existence of the document is false.
The date is false.
The filer is false.
These actions were done to affect the case of the Defendant. (Applies to:)

Court Employees admitted there were no documents to support their entry.
They acted for the purpose of moving the case forward.
Evidence which indicates the data is false exists in written statements by the Defendant and verbal statements by the Defendant.
Evidence which indicates the data is false exists in the Court transcript for the proceeding.

False Entry #2:
Waiver of Preliminary Hearing 03-26-2015 Filer: Terance P. Healy Applies to: Terance P. Healy, Defendant

The existence of the document is false.
The date is false.
The filer is false.
These actions were done to affect the case of the Defendant. (Applies to:)

Court Employees admitted there were no documents to support their entry.
They acted for the purpose of moving the case forward.
Evidence which indicates the data is false exists in written statements by the Defendant and verbal statements by the Defendant.
Evidence which indicates the data is false exists in the Court transcript for the proceeding.
Evidence which indicates the data is false exists within the court docket where a Preliminary was scheduled for multiple dates and times AFTER the date of the entry.
03-26-2015 @ 11:15 am
03-26-2015 @ 11:30 am
03-27-2015 @ 11:00 am
04-02-2015 @ 11:30 am
04-09-2015 @ 10:00 am
04-24-2015 @ 9:30 AM

“There is no great injustice caused by the January 27, 2016 order…” “having appointed a Public Defender to represent him.” – Judge William R. Carpenter

In his Opinion dated March 9, 2016, where the issue of jurisdiction is not addressed, Judge Carpenter suggests, “There is no great injustice caused by the January 27, 2016 order in which this Court rescheduled the call of the trial list in this matter, having determined Healy to be incompetent and having appointed a Public Defender to represent him.”

Permitting an assault upon the Defendant’s competence, and permitting an aggressive and malicious prosecutor to prevail where every law applicable to the situation is ignored and offers no protection, is an egregious improper incomprehensible and vile personal attack on the self-esteem, character, reputation and the emotional well-being of the Defendant who has persevered through a malicious prosecution conducted outside any Rule of Law or any Rule of Criminal Procedure.

Abuse of power under color of law with intent to cause severe emotional distress.

There could be no more accurate description for the crime committed by Lauren McNulty regarding the persistent pursuit of the contrived allegation, which she has stalled and delayed for three years. Protection in her persistent abusive prosecution secured by an attorney-client relationship with District Attorney Kevin Steele, and previously by District Attorney Risa Ferman.

The Participation in the crime by this Honorable Court while without jurisdiction to hold hearings in the matter in unconscionable, and inescapable for the Defendant who while represented by a court appointed Public Defender has not been permitted to address the court.

Before this Court, this Defendant is without any voice. Liberty threatened by a corrupt abuse.

Where this Court has failed to state that jurisdiction is proper, the Defendant challenges the court for an explanation of why there has been a complete and absolute neglect and disregard to indicate proper jurisdiction at any time in the last three years – through three appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania – through one appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court – while jurisdiction has been challenged at every opportunity.

The neglect to address jurisdiction by the District Attorney in this Court and through three appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The District Attorney avoiding any indication of jurisdiction by filing a “No Answer Letter” with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Court Ordered representation requires at least some representation.

The absence of any evidence of representation by the Public Defender indicates they have provided NO REPRESENTATION.

Effectively, the Court ordered representation (NO REPRESENTATION) denied the Defendant of ANY representation. It serves to prevent the Defendant from representing himself.

Before this Court, this Defendant is denied his right to defend. Liberty threatened by a corrupt abuse.

There has been NO REPRESENTATION provided by the Public Defender Office.

There have been no motions or documents filed by the Public Defender Office.

The Public Defender has indicated a refusal to communicate with the Defendant.
– they will not meet
– they will not discuss the case
– they will not speak via telephone
– they will not respond via email
– they will not read any statements filed by the Defendant
– they will not review the case with the Defendant
– they will not plan the defense with The Defendant
– they will not participate in the defense
– they will not permit the Defendant to participate in his defense.

THE PUBLIC STATEMENTS OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER REGARDING THE REFUSAL TO COMMUNICATE WITNESSED AND CONFIRMED.
– Affadavit of Joan P. Healy
– Affadavit of Todd M. Krautheim

To allege Ineffective Representation by Counsel regarding the Public Defender would require that there had to be SOME representation to show their ineffectiveness.

BUT, the Public Defender provided NO REPRESENTATION;
failed to challenge the competency decision – no hearing, no evidence, no testimony, no chance to defend;
failed to challenge their assignment;
failed to file briefs and two appeals were dismissed;
secretly attempted to withdraw the third appeal and was denied;
secretly raised the third appeal to the Supreme Court while neglecting the issue of jurisdiction (Failing to use the word jurisdiction.);
failed to appear for several proceedings – leaving the Defendant to fend for himself;
has filed no motions in this matter;
has not met with the Defendant to plan a defense;
refuses to communicate with the Defendant;
will not identify the attorney assigned to represent the Defendant;
will not respond to email;
will not respond to phone calls;
has conducted no discovery;
has prepared no witness;
has not reviewed the Information;
has made no effort to represent the Defendant at any time;
AND AS OF THIS DATE THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSIGNED PUBLIC DEFENDER REMAINS UNKNOWN.

Judge Carpenter was mistaken. There has been MASSIVE injustice demonstrated having appointed a Public Defender to represent me.

Lauren McNulty petitioned for the Defendant to be declared incompetent and appointment of a public defender.
– Her request was granted to the exclusion of the stated intentions of the Defendant.
– Her request was granted to the exclusion of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Mental Health Act.
– The decision was based on neither evidence, testimony, law nor experience.
– Her request was granted while the report for which she paid over $7700.00 was not yet written.
– It was her’s for the asking.

PARTICIPATION IN THE DEFENSE

The court appointed Public Defender sabotaged documents filed by the Defendant, and further as indicated in hundreds of emails, The Public Defender failed to respond or permit the Defendant to participate in his own defense.

The Public Defender didn’t participate either. The Chief Public Defender persists in his refusal to identify the attorney assigned.

“There is no great injustice caused by the January 27, 2016 order…” “having appointed a Public Defender to represent him.”

The Defendant strongly disagrees with that Opinion of the Court. [WITH EMPHASIS ADDED]

The negligence and sabotage by the Public Defender for the last two years contradicts the judges opinion WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE and shows their CONTEMPT for his assignment.

The Public Defender was acting against the interests of the Defendant, an active participant in an abuse of power by the District Attorney from which the Defendant could not be heard, and from which the Defendant could not defend.

ENTRY OF FRAUDULENT DATA INTO STATE COMPUTERS

Employees in the Magisterial District Court in Montgomeryville, PA have admitted to their part in the entry of false data into court docket computer system.

The Information which they entered they knew to be incorrect.

The knew that did not have any document, statement or record to support the entry.

They chose to ignore that the information which they were entering was false. They entered it anyway.

They acted to workaround the computer system programming which would not forward the case to the next court without the entry.

False Entry #1:
Waiver of Counsel 03-26-2015 Filer: Terance P. Healy Applies to: Terance P. Healy, Defendant

The existence of the document is false.
The date is false.
The filer is false.
These actions were done to affect the case of the Defendant. (Applies to:)

Court Employees admitted there were no documents to support their entry.
They acted for the purpose of moving the case forward.
Evidence which indicates the data is false exists in written statements by the Defendant and verbal statements by the Defendant.
Evidence which indicates the data is false exists in the Court transcript for the proceeding.

False Entry #2:
Waiver of Preliminary Hearing 03-26-2015 Filer: Terance P. Healy Applies to: Terance P. Healy, Defendant

The existence of the document is false.
The date is false.
The filer is false.
These actions were done to affect the case of the Defendant. (Applies to:)

Court Employees admitted there were no documents to support their entry.
They acted for the purpose of moving the case forward.
Evidence which indicates the data is false exists in written statements by the Defendant and verbal statements by the Defendant.
Evidence which indicates the data is false exists in the Court transcript for the proceeding.
Evidence which indicates the data is false exists within the court docket where a Preliminary was scheduled for multiple dates and times AFTER the date of the entry.
03-26-2015 @ 11:15 am
03-26-2015 @ 11:30 am
03-27-2015 @ 11:00 am
04-02-2015 @ 11:30 am
04-09-2015 @ 10:00 am
04-24-2015 @ 9:30 am

SENT BY EMAIL TO:
adaniels@montcopa.org, agur@montcopa.org, akatzman@montcopa.org, akosinsk@montcopa.org, akostyk@montcopa.org, bhalfond@montcopa.org, bkersey@montcopa.org, callman@montcopa.org, cfortune@montcopa.org, chosay@montcopa.org, csweeney@montcopa.org, dgreensp@montcopa.org, djohnson@montcopa.org, “Marone, Denise” , dmontows@montcopa.org, dtheveny@montcopa.org, ebrogan@montcopa.org, edonato@montcopa.org, epeterse@montcopa.org, esieber@montcopa.org, fzeock@montcopa.org, gcardena@montcopa.org, ggriffit@montcopa.org, gnester@montcopa.org, hkranzel@montcopa.org, itorres@montcopa.org, jkravitz@montcopa.org, jlucas@montcopa.org, jthorn@montcopa.org, kgrimsru@montcopa.org, kharbiso@montcopa.org, khudson@montcopa.org, kpemment@montcopa.org, kwagner@montcopa.org, lalexan1@montcopa.org, ljones@montcopa.org, lkash@montcopa.org, lnonnema@montcopa.org, lortiz@montcopa.org, lwilson@montcopa.org, lzitsch@montcopa.org, mcassidy@montcopa.org, mdayoc@montcopa.org, mjohn@montcopa.org, mschanba@montcopa.org, msontchi@montcopa.org, mwarren@montcopa.org, ncasey@montcopa.org, pcassidy@montcopa.org, pdangelo@montcopa.org, pgeorge@montcopa.org, pkeller@montcopa.org, rmadden@montcopa.org, “Roberts, Raymond” , rsimon@montcopa.org, shudson@montcopa.org, tbowman@montcopa.org, tross@montcopa.org, vbellino@montcopa.org, vsimmons@montcopa.org, wburnett@montcopa.org, wmendez@montcopa.org, mamodio@montcopa.org, MSuplicki@montcopa.org, cstuart@montcopa.org, josh@montcopa.org, val@montcopa.org, joe@montcopa.org