OVERVIEW
Petitioner presents to this Honorable Court his experience since 2007 as an American in Pennsylvania without ANY protection of the law and where ALL constitutionally protected rights have been ignored seeking review, intervention and action to address an incredible injustice which has been relentless and pervasive and undermined every aspect of his life which now comes for his liberty.
The Defendant is presenting the facts of his experience. The experience is well documented, all information is supported and can be fully substantiated.
“They can’t do that.” is their dismissal. Defendant begs the courts indulgence as he demonstrates that without ANY protection of the law and where ALL constitutionally protected rights have been ignored, “THEY DID.”
No one would stop them. Some thrived maliciously in the corruption which they were permitted. Sociopaths – They would not stop themselves. A very aggressive retaliatory effort was brought upon anyone who made an effort to end the injustice.
*****
My resilience without anger or malice or violence has been met with relentless lawlessness, litigation and injustice.
People failing to act, concealing information, and making the situation worse without offering any explanation for what might appeared to be malice, disdain, or hate.
In their actions or by their negligence and failure, people proceeded to deny the rule of law and ignore constitutionally protected rights.
I refused to believe that their actions were motivated by me personally or my interaction with them.
In 2013, when an appeal has been raised to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in a venue uncluttered by the issues and chaos in the government offices of Norristown. I found an explanation.
A single point of failure which undermines the constitution and the rule of law, which avoids exposure, and which prevents resolution. Those good people were not ignoring me, not hating me, not failing to do their job in accordance with the procedures and the laws.
In their silence and inaction and efforts to prevent information, they were maintaining confidentiality – professionally; for their office; on the advice of their lawyers; personally.
I realized that one law could undermine all others. A Confidentiality mandate.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.
Rule 1.6 mandated good people to participate in Injustice and to remain silent while it continued. They were unable to even explain that the issue was Confidentiality.
It is within the dignity and integrity of this Honorable Court to address a consequence of previous action and demonstrate for future generations that The Public Trust is placed in this court with the confidence to recognize injustice and the esteem to respond accordingly.
I respectfully present my experience and findings for Judicial Notice to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
The experience shows no protection of the Rule of Law, and more specifically the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The experience shows that constitutional rights are being ignored without thought or consequence.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information is without constitutional consequence for those to whom it directly applies. The collateral impact caused and concealed by Rule 1,6 , causes a devastating loss of constitutional rights, protection of the law and leaves a litigant without recourse.
I respectfully pray for the immediate review and request immediate relief from any further damages from any Rule 1.6 collateral affect upon my constitutional rights and request protection of the rule of law.
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
MANDAMUS PETITION
Actions which protect the integrity of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.
– to stay the proceedings
– to order a statement of jurisdiction in the matter
– to dismiss the matter with prejudice.
– to address the matter of malicious prosecution
Any review or report of this matter by a person mandated by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality would fail to indicate that the problem with confidentiality is being held confidential.
A completely candid review necessitates that it be conducted and the report prepared by a person who is unencumbered by the confidentiality mandate. Under Rule 1.6 Confidentiality, they would not be permitted to present the complete impact.
RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
The Defendant has indicated his belief and experience where Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information causes the loss of ANY protection of the Rule of Law and ignores the denial of constitutionally protected rights.
The Defendant has indicated and asserted that it is his desire to be represented by legal counsel unencumbered by such a mandate of confidentiality which can permit the loss of protection of the rule of law and ignore the denial of constitutionally protected rights.
The Defendant asserts that where that mandate of confidentiality collaterally causes a denial of his constitutional rights, that mandate is unconstitutional.
Where that mandate is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was without authority to enact such a mandate.
“… if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant…”
Article V Section 10(c) Pennsylvania Constitution
“The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts, justices of the peace and all officers serving process or enforcing orders, judgments or decrees of any court or justice of the peace, including the power to provide for assignment and reassignment of classes of actions or classes of appeals among the several courts as the needs of justice shall require, and for admission to the bar and to practice law, and the administration of all courts and supervision of all officers of the Judicial Branch, if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of the peace, nor suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose. All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions. “
In America, a single injustice occurs, however, the confidentiality mandated of all lawyers prevents resolution of that injustice.
Instead, the person loses all protection of law and finds all constitutionally protected rights are ignored.
An unconstitutional situation caused by a law mandated of lawyers, enacted by the Supreme Court of each state, not written by any legislature, not signed by any governor, and unable to be reviewed for constitutionality by the judiciary mandated to maintain confidentiality regarding their own action which improperly enacted a law which has unconstitutional collateral affects upon litigants.
Presented to the courts in every state by The American Bar Association, the bar associations hold the judiciary hostage while interfering with the entire system of justice.
THE AFFECT OF RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY
(An Actual Event)
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.
THE INSTANT MATTER
Not Guilty – No Waivers
Hearing Scheduled for 1/10/2018
Stay
Dismissal
THE INSTANT MATTER – CASE HISTORY
ADA Lauren McNulty knows she will face no consequence for her actions which neglect the Rule of Law and the Rules of Criminal Procedure and serve to deny constitutionally protected rights of the Defendant. As such, there is not even a feigned attempt to abide any procedure, law or right.
The Defendant was aware of the affect of being represented by a person hindered by unknown confidentiality mandates.
REPRESENTATION
March 26, 2015, The Defendant was careful and respectful as he presented his position and supporting information to the Court.
The Defendant did not sign a Waiver of Preliminary Hearing.
The Defendant did not sign a Waiver of Counsel.
The Defendant did not colloquoy.
The Defendant asserted his constitutional right to be represented in the criminal matter. Defendant indicated he wished to be represented by a lawyer unencumbered by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality stating that he was aware that it can cause the loss of protections of the rule of law and ignore constitutional rights.
The US Constitution which protected the right to counsel did not indicate any allowance or availability for that representation to be hindered in any way by a state law.
The Pennsylvania Constitution similarly prevents the Judiciary from any rules which modify the substantive rights of a litigant.
Defendant was aware of the potential for Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information to affect representation, and thus it could “abridge”, “enlarge” or “modify” his substantive federally protected rights.
Defendant queried the Court to determine who had provided the Court Reporter.
Judge Duffy indicated she had not made the requested.
Lauren McNulty indicated she had not made the request.
The Defendant had not made the request.Z
The Reservation sheet would indicate that Lauren McNulty had arranged the Court Reporter.
McNulty had lied.
Judge Duffy continued the matter in order to better understand the information.
April 9, 2015 The Defendant filed a Statement of Defendant on April 9, 2015.
The Defendant did not sign a Waiver of Preliminary Hearing.
The Defendant did not sign a Waiver of Counsel.
The Defendant did not colloquoy.
The Defendant asserted his constitutional right to be represented in the criminal matter. Defendant indicated he wished to be represented by a lawyer unencumbered by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality stating that he was aware that it can cause the loss of protections of the rule of law and ignore constitutional rights.
An Amended Criminal Complaint was presented. There were issues which it raised which needed more time to review and prepare.
Defendant queried the Court to determine who had provided the Court Reporter.
Judge Duffy indicated she had not made the requested.
Lauren McNulty indicated she had not made the request.
The Defendant had not made the request.
The Reservation sheet would indicate that Lauren McNulty had arranged the Court Reporter.
McNulty had lied AGAIN.
Judge Duffy continued the matter in order to better understand the information.
April 24, 2015 The Defendant did not sign a Waiver of Preliminary Hearing.
The Defendant did not sign a Waiver of Counsel.
The Defendant did not colloquoy.
The Defendant asserted his constitutional right to be represented in the criminal matter. Defendant indicated he wished to be represented by a lawyer unencumbered by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality stating that he was aware that it can cause the loss of protections of the rule of law and ignore constitutional rights.
Judge Duffy decided to interpret the appearance of the Defendant for the proceeding as a Waiver of Counsel.
The judge’s interpretation was a direct contradiction of the statements of the Defendant, both written and verbal, on the record, documented in the transcript, as stated that day and on previous dates.
The judge indicated her desire to move the matter out of her court. I was concerned about her haste in the matter and the consequence of an action which neglected the Rules of Criminal Procedure and also ignored the constitutional right to representation.
Perhaps the judge failed to recognize the importance of the jurisdiction of her court. I was concerned that her action would be problematic. In holding the preliminary hearing without abiding the Rules of Criminal Procedure, she lacked proper jurisdiction to pass the matter to the Court of Common Pleas.
As such, the lapse in jurisdiction could not be corrected. The Court of Common Pleas would not have jurisdiction in the matter.
I got the impression that Judge Duffy didn’t believe that the US Constitutional applied in her court.
DOCKET INCORRECTLY INDICATES WAIVER OF COUNSEL
DOCKET INCORRECTLY INDICATES WAIVER OF PRELIMINARY HEARING
An entry in the MDJ Docket indicates Waiver of Preliminary Hearing
03/26/2015 Filer Terance P. Healy Applies to Terance P. Healy
An entry in the MDJ Docket indicates Waiver of Counsel
03/26/2015 Filer Terance P. Healy Applies to Terance P. Healy
These entries are false.
Had there been any waiver of Preliminary Hearing on 3/26/2015, the Preliminary Hearing would not have been rescheduled for:
03/26/2015
03/27/2015
04/02/2015
04/09/2015
04/24/2015
Statements filed with the court and made verbally and transcribed indicated there had been no Waiver of Counsel.
I have attempted to obtain those documents attributed to me and referenced on the MDJ Docket for years. The court appointed public defender has not acknowledged the documents nor provided copies which were requested repeatedly.
It is within the realm of belief that Judge Carpenter has relied on the accuracy of the entry on the docket in determining that jurisdiction is proper in his court.
It is outside the realm of belief where Judge Carpenter failed to indicate jurisdiction is proper in his court and the elements involved are satisfied. He doesn’t, Because he can’t. Because it isn’t.
The challenge to jurisdiction has never been addressed.
– Challenged in statements filed with the Court
– Challenged in three appeals to the Superior Court
– Challenged in an appeal which reached the Supreme Court
– Not addressed or mentioned in the Judges Opinions filed in each of the appeals.
– Not addressed by the Public Defender in any brief or filing in the appeals
– Avoided by the District Attorney by filing a No Answer Letter with the Supreme Court
CLEARLY, THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH JURISDICTION.
CLEARLY, NO ONE WILL ADDRESS THE PROBLEM WITH JURISDICTION.
THE PROBLEM WITH JURISDICTION MAY BE THAT THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION.
A visit on January 5, 2018 to the MDJ court. The staff revealed that there were no documents. I was correct, There were no fraudulent or forged documents. They had made those entries into the system because otherwise the case would not transfer to the Common Pleas Court.
The system was indicating the necessity of those documents for jurisdiction.
Overriding the system, sidestepped the constitutional protection programmed into the system.
Judge Duffy similarly has sidestepped the constitutional protection by her “if you have appeared for court, then you have waived counsel.”
The Court having spent the greater part of the lat three years avoiding any acknowledgment that it lacked jurisdiction.
DA McNulty having spent the last three years in pursuit of actions which attack the character and self-esteem of the Defendant.
The Public Defender failing to act in any way on any issue regarding any topic. The court lacked jurisdiction to order their representation.
The court lacked jurisdiction to order any hearing.
The Court lacked jurisdiction to take any action.
That may be the reason that Judge Carpenter corresponded with the Superior Court trying to undermine the first appeal.
Judge Carpenter did it again to undermine the second appeal.
As there was no jurisdiction, there could be No Formal Arraignment. There wasn’t.
The constant threat of bench warrant being issued for my arrest for not appearing for a proceeding.
When the court, or court admin, failed to mail documents and notices, the postmasters were notified and suggested that if the District Attorney’s office put the item into the mail, then, they will deliver it.
The Criminal Prosecution has become a farce with a single purpose. To threaten and harass by abuse of power under color of law with the intent to cause severe emotional distress.
The Court lacked jurisdiction to order the public defender, did it anyway.
The court lacks jurisdiction to respond to any motions or petitions.
The Public Defenders office has NOT FILED ANY MOTIONS OR PETITIONS with the court.
The farce becomes more evident. The threats become more aggressive.
The recent restart of court scheduling coincides with the discovery regarding the Warrington Township Police Chief.
It also coincides with the testimony in Bucks County which indicates the unlawful and unconstitutional actions involved in a fake suicide intervention staged by Warrington Township Police.
I am told they will seek to revoke bail.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality could be preventing the court from indicating the lack of jurisdiction, and preventing anyone from revealing thje lack of jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is the most essential element in jurisprudence. Without it, the judge has no authority. Without it an Order cannot be enforced.
To perpetuate in proceedings which are a farce because the court and the lawyers in the court may not address the lack of jurisdiction of the court demonstrates the affect which Rule 1.6 can have to annihilate, terrorize, and harass any person without recourse or exit.
Confidentiality is mandated where disclosure would adversely affect the integrity of the court.
Montgomery County Court of Commons Pleas adversely affects the integrity of the court to prevent disclosure of information which would adversely affect the integrity of the court.
The problem with Confidentiality is that it is confidential.
Alleging A Violation of Bail Order
No Recourse – The failure to address the lack of jurisdiction
No Exit – If Bail is revoked, there is no escape, no exit, no recourse, the complete denial of liberty without ANY due process of law where Confidentiality has prevents an initial injustice from resolution.
– Judge Duffy failed to appreciate and recognize the necessity of her jurisdiction.
– A careless capitulation and disregard for the potential injustice which would be attributed to Judge Duffy
APPENDIX A – STATEMENT(s) OF DEFENDANT have been filed with the Court
2015 STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON APRIL 9, 2015
STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON JUNE 10, 2015
STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON AUGUST 10, 2015
STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2015
STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON OCTOBER 14, 2015
STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON NOVEMBER 18, 2015
2016 STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON JANUARY 27, 2016
STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON MARCH 30, 2016
2017 STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON MAY 4, 2017
2018 STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON JANUARY 2, 2018
INSTANT MATTER – CASE HISTORY – MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COURT
INSTANT MATTER – CASE HISTORY – COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NO FORMAL ARRAIGNMENT
On June 10, 2015, the Defendant appeared for the scheduled arraignment and filed a statement with the court clerk.
Upon arrival at the location indicated for the scheduled Arraignment, the Defendant was coerced to sign a Waiver of Arraignment or there would be a bench warrant issued for his arrest.
Defendant was told there was no judge available for the scheduled arraignment.
Under duress, Defendant signed the Waiver of Arraignment including an additional statement indicating his filing of the Statement with the Court clerk.
The Statement of Defendant on June 10, 2015 indicates procedural questions relating to jurisdiction. The statement, filed before the coerced waiver, demonstrated his belief of the necessity for an arraignment in the matter.
There has been no formal arraignment in the matter. There has been no explanation for the failure to conduct an arraignment as required by law.
APPENDIX F – SCHEDULING ORDER, STATEMENT AND COERCED WAIVER – JUNE 10, 2015
The coerced waiver was reported to the Montgomery County District Attorney. An investigation by Montgomery Country Detectives, which never contacted the Defendant, took no action.
APPENDIX G – INVESTIGATION OF COERCED WAIVER
Prior to each proceeding scheduled before the court, the Defendant has filed a “Statement of Defendant”. The statement raises issues, questions and procedural items for the District Attorney or the Court to address, explain or clarify.
District Attorney Risa Ferman, District Attorney Kevin Steele and ADA Lauren McNulty have not responded.
THE PLEA DEAL OFFERED
The Defendant failed to accept a plea deal to “relinquish all rights to his property” in exchange for ALL charges being dropped.
The Defendant alleges malicious prosecution based upon the plea seeking his rights to real property in exchange for relief from prosecution.
A coerced plea could not convey ownership of the property, or prevent a future claim to the property. The offer of ADA Lauren McNulty appeared to be a form of extortion.
Stalking/Harassment charges in the criminal matter relate to the service of legal documents required under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Those documents, the case of Healy v Miller, an action in ejectment seeking possession of the Defendant’s property and a judicial review of the conveyance transaction and related documents.
Upon initial filing and service of the matter, October 2013, the Miller’s contacted police. Montgomery Township Police contacted the Defendant and threatened arrest if he went anywhere near the property.
Upon initial filing and service of the matter, Warrington Township Police dispatched a patrol officer to the home of the Defendant’s mother seeking information regarding his whereabouts, the vehicle he drove, and how often he drove the vehicle. Defendant’s mother felt intimidated and threatened where the officer indicated his disbelief of the information provided.
Defendant contacted both Montgomery Township Police and Warrington Township Police by letter and provided the documents filed in the Montgomery County Court. Why were police involving themselves in a civil matter which had been filed with the court.
APPENDIX C – COPIES OF LETTERS AND INITIAL FILINGS RELATED TO HEALY v MILLER
Terroristic Threat charge relates to the Defendant contacting the Governor, the Attorney General and the Legislature to address the purported lack of jurisdiction for the Common Pleas Court to resolve the matter. The lack of jurisdiction was affirmed by Superior Court. As such, it was necessary for the Legislature to address the issue of jurisdiction for the Court of Common Pleas.
The per curiam decision of the Superior Court affirming the lower court decision was made without argument or appearances in February 2015.
In mid-February 2015, The Defendant was visited at his mother’s home by the Montgomery County Detectives who were investigating the fraudulent conveyance of the property.
The Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds, Nancy Becker, had raised the conveyance issue to their attention and brought the Defendant to their office to escalate the matter seeking investigation.
Detectives indicated there would be no further investigation or ANY report of their findings and that their investigation was ended. They would provide no further information. They would not document their investigation.
The filing of criminal complaints to retaliate, suppress, threaten or intimidate Plaintiffs in civil matters is prevented by law, an Affiant has been used to involve the witnesses involved in the civil matter.
The Criminal Complaint documents indicate this matter was initiated by Warrington Township Police in February 2015. The Defendant was arrested on March 13, 2015.
ADA Lauren McNulty has neglected to indicate to the Court that the matter documented by the Affiant, who then informed the witnesses of the threat, had been raised through a neighboring police department by the father of the witnesses.
The Court and the Defendant were also not informed that the witness’s father was the Chief of Police in neighboring Warrington Township.
The Criminal Complaint indicates the Defendant was the target of an investigation by referring Warrington Township which has never resulted in any action.
The Affiant Report indicates the witnesses were first advised of the threat by the Montgomery Township Police, and not the Warrington Police, and not their father.
There had been no sense of urgency, several weeks had passed, as clearly all involved knew there had been no real threat.
These were further actions against the Defendant.
Having the information provided by the Defendant in court filings, the witnesses would prevail in obtaining the title insurance for their fraudulent conveyance, and loans using the property as collateral, and additional home equity loans.
APPENDIX D – DOCUMENTS RECORDED – MONTGOMERY COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS
The witnesses documented with the ADA their plan and efforts to purchase guns and train to use them while shooting at an image of the Defendant.
APPENDIX E – LETTER Dated March 13, 2015
Where the ADA has no valid case to present, she has not moved for any hearing. The Defendant remains charged with crimes. Hindered without any opportunity to demonstrate his innocence and the fraud of the allegation.
Where presentation of information and issues would exonerate a Defendant who has been falsely charged, the failure to hold any proceeding prevents resolution.
REVOCATION OF BAIL
The current effort was realized on January 2, 2018, after the Defendant was excluded from a conference in the judges chambers.
Defendant heard that there may be an effort to revoke Bail.
It has been three years since the complaint (February 2015) and arrest (March 13, 2015). There has been no bail violation. If there had been, why wait?
The Defendant is to believe the full hearing is to take place. Robosigned Order dated 1/2/2018 sent to Brie Halfond from the Public Defenders Office.
The Defendant has never met Brie Halfond. In the one conversation had with her in March 2017, she indicated that she did not represent the Defendant nor did she know the identity of the public defender to whom the case was assigned. An Appearance for Brie Halfond remains in the matter.
Despite repeated requests for the Public Defenders Office to identify the lawyer to whom his case was assigned, there has been no response or indication from Dean Beers or any member of his staff.
ADDENDUM A – Appearances filed in the matter.
ADDENDUM B – Defendant Email to Public Defender Office
No element of preparedness for a criminal proceeding exists. No arraignment, no discovery, no witnesses, no information.
The court lacks jurisdiction to conduct hearings. The failure to address jurisdiction has been undeniable and ignored.
APPENDIX G – JURISDICTION CHALLENGED
APPENDIX H – JURISDICTION STATEMENT IGNORED
A Hearing is ordered for January 10, 2018. There are enough indications on the document to suggest everything will occur within one proceeding – from jury selection to verdict.
The Defendant has court ordered representation provided by the Public Defender’s Office. Order dated January 27, 2016.
The Order was granted upon the request of ADA Lauren McNulty. There were no Hearings. There was no testimony. There was no evidence. There was no opportunity for the Defendant to address the allegations.
ADA Lauren McNulty has paid $7700.00 for a report by a doctor whose examination was conducted without regard for the law. The Defendant is required to be represented by counsel in the examination. The report from the examination was not provided promptly and in accordance with the law. The report was not provided to the Defendant prior to any proceeding. There was no hearing.
At a Call of the Trial List, the Defendant appeared and filed a statement with the court. When the roll was called, The Defendant stood and indicated he was present and had filed a statement with the Court.
While the Defendant sat in the courtroom. ADA Lauren McNulty went into the judge’s chambers.
A brief time later, the Defendant was informed that he had been declared incompetent by the court and would be represented by the Public Defender Office.
No copy of the Order was provided to the Defendant.
The docket indicates a copy of the Order was delivered to the District Attorney’s Office the same day.
A copy of the order would be mailed weeks later. A scheduling form indicating a proceeding on March 30, 2016 with the notation “ INCOMPETENT”
The Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal on January 29, 2016. The Notice indicates that a copy of the order was not provided, not entered into the docket, and not available at that time.
The docket indicates the delivery of the order on two different dates.
On January 27, 2016 to ADA Lauren McNulty.
On February 9, 2016 to Terance Healy, Defendant.
The court-appointed Public Defender has had no contact or communication with the Defendant to review the case or plan any defense.
The court-appointed Public Defender has neglected to have any contact with or respond to the Defendant at any time.
Any suggestion that an Order for the Public Defender to represent the Defendant results in representation for the Defendant is false.
There has been NO REPRESENTATION provided by the Public Defender Office.
There have been no motions filed by the Public Defender Office.
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.”
To allege Ineffective Representation by Counsel regarding the Public Defender would suggest that there had been ANY representation by counsel.
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 great injustice demonstrated having appointed a Public Defender to represent him.
ADA 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. 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 permit the Defendant to participate in his own defense.
APPENDIX G – EMAILS TO PUBLIC DEFENDER
Of course, the court appointed Public Defender also failed to participate in ANY Defense.
“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 the 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 CONTEMPT for his assignment.
Any reasonable person would believe that this cannot be accomplished. They could however use the proceeding to attempt to revoke bail.
The Bail Agreement relies on the jurisdiction of the Magisterial District Justice.
THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION
At the time of the last revision to Bail, Judge Duffy had ignored the right to counsel and proceeded to the Preliminary Hearing while the Defendant was unrepresented, was requesting representation, was asserting his constitutional right for representation, and acknowledging the necessity for representation.
The constitutional right to representation is established. Without representation, waiver, or colloquoy, the preliminary hearing may not occur.
The suggestion of waiver by appearance in the court is contradicted by the written and filed statement, and verbal and transcribed statements of the Defendant.
The Magisterial District Court entered false data into their computer system indicating a waiver of counsel had been filed by the Defendant and Submitted by the Defendant.
The court staff have admitted they made the entries to cause the system to transfer the case to the common pleas court.
EVIDENCE OF FALSE ENTRIES
The false entries indicate the
Revocation of bail would place the Defendant in custody, without any hearing, and while preventing any opportunity for release where the court lacks jurisdiction in the matter. The Defendant would be incarcerated without opportunity for release.
Revocation of Bail would leverage an intentional and deliberate lack of jurisdiction to deny liberty without due process, without any rule of law, without any constitutional rights and
without opportunity for release where the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, or to ever provide for the Defendant to be released. No escape.
For this reason, I appeal to the Supreme Court for a STAY in this matter before further injustice is done to an innocent Defendant.
The actions of ADA Lauren McNulty are held confidential where District Attorney Risa Ferman, and subsequently District Attorney Kevin Steele, have an attorney-client relationship with their staff which prevents disclosure of their wrongful actions.
The responsibility of the District Attorney to their office, and to the Office of the District Attorney prevents disclosure of the wrongful actions.
Where privilege also prevents the District Attorney from prosecuting those acts, they could have terminated employment. They have chosen not to – permitting her to persist and her relentless malice to continue unchecked and without consequence.
That privilege is defined in the Rules of Professional Conduct with confidentiality mandated pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information even when it has an unconstitutional affect on litigants and denies them any protection of the rule of law.
The Defendant has no recourse, no protection,
INSTANT MATTER – MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
The criminal case is best described as a retaliatory action initiated because of a civil action.
The Defendant is being abused under color of law the intent to cause sever emotional distress.
Elements of extortion exist in the offering of a plea deal.
The complete disregard for the Rule of law, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the US Constitution threaten the liberty of the Defendant while an unstoppable force of abuse persists.
The documentation of issues neglected, which remain unresolved, creates an overwhelming volume of paperwork which the Defendant must maintain.
The Defendant has appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on three occasions.
There is nothing which the Defendant can do to prevent further abuse.
There is one person who has acted openly
– ignoring Rules of Criminal Procedure,
– making false statements to the court,
– filing frivolous petitions challenging competence,
– paying $7700 for professional testimony – inadmissable, no hearing held
– unpreparedness which has delayed resolution for years,
– neglected the responsibility for elements of jurisdiction,
– failed to address or resolve jurisdiction issues,
– failing to address or respond to issues when raised before the court,
– prevailed in compelling court ordered representation by the Public Defender Office without any hearing to sabotage the Defendant and prevent him from having a voice in the matter.
(The determined negligence of the Public Defender – Appendix A)
– repeatedly delayed three appeals within the Superior Court
– waived the Jurisdiction statement when one Appeal reached the Supreme Court.
while persistently acting to undermine the liberty of the Defendant.
McNulty’s abuse of authority under color of law in her role as prosecutor neglect and avoid the Rules of Criminal Procedure, neglect and avoid the Rule of Law, neglect and avoid the constitutional rights of the Defendant.
The District Attorney fails to address the negligence and lawlessness of his staffer which leaves the Defendant without protection of the Rule of Law and with all constitutional rights unavailable – ignored.
As a Government Attorney, The District Attorney, represents the Public; the Government as a whole; the Branch of government in which employed; the Particular agency or department; the Responsible officers who make decisions with an agency or department.
An attorney-client relationship prevents District Attorney Kevin Steele from disclosure of the improper actions of ADA Lauren McNulty.
The mandate of Confidentiality pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information has the collateral affect where it causes the denial of the constitutional rights of the Defendant.
Any law which causes the denial of constitutionally protected rights is unconstitutional.
That mandate
The elements of a malicious prosecution are present, however, the Court is prevented from the information
District Attorney from exposing, disclosing, correcting, resolving or prosecuting actions by her ‘clients’ without their expressed consent.
Recognizing the mandate of non-disclosure which interferes with the ability of the District Attorney to respond to or take actions to correct the negligence by the attorney for the Commonwealth and personnel employed by Montgomery County;
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE V 1.0
Served
Neglected
Undermined
Appealed
Undermined
Worst Kept Secret
Notices
Delivered
Transmitted
CASES (Personal)
DIVORCE
HOUSE
FALSE CRIME
Appeal #1
Appeal #2
Appeal #3
Appeal #3 to Supreme Court
CASES (Related)
FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE #1
FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE #2
FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE #3
REPORTS OF INJUSTICE NATIONWIDE
EFFORTS WHICH MISINFORM & PERMIT INJUSTICE TO PERSIST
EFFORTS WHICH PREVENT GOVERNMENT FROM ACTION
PREVENTION FROM CONTACT WITH THE GOVERNOR
THE FAILURE OF THE LEGISLATURE TO RESPOND
– STATE SENATOR STEWART GREENLEAF
– STATE SENATOR CHUCK MCILHINNEY
– STATE REPRESENTATIVE KATHY WATSON
STATE GOVERNMENT
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
– Bucks County
– Montgomery County
– Josh Shapiro, County Commissioner
– Josh Shapiro, Attorney General of Pennsylvania
Kathleen Kane, personally
ORDERS
REASON
THE CASTOR MANIFESTO
Kathleen Kane, Attorney General of Pennsylvania
FALSE AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
Judge Carpenter’s Court – TRANSCRIPT REVOKED – REDACTED – DENIED
INADMISSABLE EVIDENCE PREVENTING DEFENSE
Doug Gansler
UNENCUMBERED INTENT
DELIVERED
REDACTED DISTRIBUTION BY THE ENCUMBERED ATTORNEY GENERAL
WASHINGTON, DC
COMPETENCE
“If you can keep your head while all around you are losing theirs and blaming it on you.” – Kipling
OVERWHELMING
The belief that the US Constitution does not apply to everyday life in America causes a disregard when asserted by a litigant who has been collaterally affected. ( ie. by a law which applies only to lawyers. )
Safeguards are built into the justice system at the lowest level to prevent injustice. When they are disregarded, the injustice becomes unstoppable, inescapable, and unresolvable where every person in a position to act is mandated to confidentiality and prevented.
A law which applies to all lawyers in the state.
A law which directly applies to the members of law enforcement.
Government lawyers have obligations to the public; and obligations required of their elected office; and obligations to the Office to which they have been elected, their office staff, and themselves.
Confidentiality mandates – and attorney-client privilege – continue to the grave and beyond.
The Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandate protects efforts which prevent release of confidential information. The removal of the two fraud provisions from Rule 1.6 was predicted to have severe consequences. The American Bar Association disregarded warning of the Chairman of the Committee writing the Model Rules.
“Fraud in the furtherance” and “Fraud which prevented resolution” would NOT provide relief from the lawyer’s mandate of confidentiality. A consequence which would permit a victim to be further attacked
A collateral law, which affects constitutional rights, with an impact which may not be evident in the immediate circumstance. When excluded, ignored, subverted, or disregarded A capsulated review of any single issue to the exclusion of the other factors blinds the tribunal causing further injustice.
VERIFICATION
As necessary, I present the whole picture. I offer full support and substantiation of every statement.
They ignored the problem. No, they are maintaining confidentiality.
They failed to follow law. No, they are maintaining confidentiality.
The denied rights. No, they are maintaining confidentiality.
Neglecting their elected office. No, they are maintaining confidentiality.
Failed to inform. No, they are maintaining confidentiality
Covered the problem up. No, they are maintaining confidentiality.
Won’t respond. No, they are maintaining confidentiality.
Didn’t indicate it was confidential. Because THAT is confidential, also.
Confidentiality has undermined the law and the constitution. Actions to maintain confidentiality can be traced to the confidentiality mandated of lawyers, and government lawyers.
Before presentation to the states, the fraud provisions had been removed from Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, efforts which maintain confidentiality are permitted. Fraud to maintain confidentiality is also confidential. There is no recourse.
Like this:
Like Loading...
