A Terroristic Divorce

The judiciary enacted rules which affect the jurisdiction of the courts. You may think that’s their business. It’s not.

The jurisdiction of the courts is the responsibility of the Legislature. The PA Constitution specifically indicates the limits to the judiciary’s rulemaking authority…

There are people who believe that the next phrase in Article V Section 10(c) permits the judiciary to enact their rule and it immediately usurps all other law. (Perhaps if we read it backwards?)

That’s silly. Because that sentence only applies to ‘things’ which have survived those prior exclusionary statements. Otherwise, that phrase would have completely usurped the Legislature.

Now, back up to that other phrase just before jurisdiction.

When a litigant is denied their constitutional rights by a court, the rules instruct in how to appeal to the higher court. The higher court labels the lower court decision as interlocutory and indicates their lack of jurisdiction substantiated by the procedural rule. By rule, a litigant must wait until a FINAL ORDER is issue by the lower court before any appeal will be reviewed. There are rare exceptions which are most often not applicable.

Review of the lower court decision could dismiss the entire matter and end the litigation, but instead the rules require you to endure through all processes and proceedings until every lower court decision is decided and FINAL. At that point, the review of the earlier specific issue is often moot.

Where the review by the appellate court could have served to prevent the prolonged adjudication of the matter, a defendant required to defend has had his constitutional right to liberty, and other rights denied. Should the FINAL determination by a lower court be overturned based on the previously documented issue, the Defendant has been denied constitutionally protected rights. This has occurred because of a Rule, not a Law.

The applicable rule having been demonstrated as having an unconstitutional affect, either collaterally or directly, is unconstitutional.

The rulemaking authority of the judiciary does not permit the rules to “abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant” so the rule is improperly enacted.

There is no branch of government responsible to review the constitutionality of rules enacted by the judiciary. A conflict of interest exists preventing the judiciary from any review of rules enacted under Article V Section 10(c).

It is the constitutional responsibility of General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court. The rulemaking authority of the judiciary may not “affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court“.

The right of appeal indicated in PA Constitution Article 9 provides no indication regarding interlocutory or final decision status having any affect on the jurisdiction of the appellate court. The jurisdiction of the appellate court is prevented by RULE. That RULE affecting the jurisdiction of the court has been improperly enacted by the judiciary where it “affects the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court.”

SO… HOW DO WE GET THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ADDRESS THE OVERREACH BY THE JUDICIARY?
(And how do you do it when ALL LAWYERS must maintain confidentiality?)

George Washington may have used different words to describe the current quagmire in Washington DC, but, he seems to have addressed many of the issues of the current times. There is one message which resounds throughout his address. America requires the attention of the people.

He warns about political parties, fake news, influences from outside countries, how other nations may react to government actions (and how that will affect Americans from those other nations), the corruption that can occur when persons have too much power and authority.

He warns that the government branches must stay within their constitutionally appointed boundaries or the balance of power can result in the government being undermined.

In 1796, George may have just been giving humble advice on government aspect which required attention. The things which can cause problems.

In 2018, the advice of the first American President has been clearly ignored for quite some time. George Washington listed the current Headlines and why they occurred.

The American Government stopped listening to the People, because the People stopped paying attention. The government became so powerful that it was no longer accountable to the people. The balance of power was tilted to the judicial branch. The people failed to reject the ridiculous decisions of the judiciary. The judiciary targeted people to prevent further challenge to their authority. The judiciary grew stronger. The judiciary enacted laws to maintain their power. While only the Legislature could enact laws, the judiciary called theirs RULES.

LAWS enacted by the Legislature and the Executive can be review by the judiciary for constitutionality.

RULES enacted by the judiciary have no review. NONE. The conflict of interest would prevent any review of their own ‘laws’.

One RULE known as 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION required the silence of the lawyers where disclosure would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary. Exposing an unconstitutional rule would definitely affect the integrity of the judiciary.

There are lawyers in the Legislatures in each state. Each mandated by Rule 1.6 and further, any actions which they undertake to prevent exposure are also held confidential.

The problem with an improperly enacted and unconstitutional confidentiality rule is CONFIDENTIAL.

Washington definitely did NOT see this one coming.

Friends and Fellow Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils? Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the twenty-second of April, I793, is the index of my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

United States
19th September, 1796

Geo. Washington

Please allow this letter to inform you that I will no longer submit myself to further abuse absent any rule of Law which serves to deny every constitutional right.

Authority – The right or power to make decisions, to give orders, or to control something or someone.

Due Process – The fundamental, constitutional right to fair legal proceedings in which all parties will be given notice of the proceedings, and have an opportunity to be heard.

Trial – A formal presentation of evidence before a judge and jury for the purpose of determining guilt or innocence in a criminal case, or to make a determination in a civil matter.

Any statement from the court relating how the defect in jurisdiction has been perfected by ignoring the problem for years has yet to be received or filed with any court, appellate court or Supreme Court.

The repeated scheduling of appearances with less than 24 hours notice serves to prevent the Defendant from being informed, knowledgable or prepared for the appearance. It is a violation of Due Process.

The assignment of COURT ASSIGNED NEGLIGENT LAWYERS has deliberately and intentionally served to prevent the Defendant from being heard in any manner. It is a violation of Due Process.

Permitting the entry of Fraudulent documents during the ‘faux trial’ has only served to misinform a jury who was prevented from defense evidence by a COURT ASSIGNED INCOMPETENT LAWYER.

Responses are pending as failure to adjudicate any and all pre-trial motions, mid-trial motions, and post-trial motions where motions have been forwarded to an INCOMPETENT LAWYER ASSIGNED BY THE COURT just two minutes before the trial was to commence.

The court has failed to hear the defendant, or permit the defendant to be heard,
– by assigning lawyers to prevent the filing of statements
– by assigning lawyers to prevent Discovery
– by assigning lawyers to prevent investigation
– by assigning lawyers to neglected and prevent the presentation of ANY defense.
– by assigning lawyers to sabotage the appellate process
– by conspiring with the lawyers assigned seeking to deny the defendant of any protection of the law
– by conspiring with the lawyers assigned seeking to deny the Defendant of any constitutional rights
– by conspiring with lawyers to prevent the scheduling of witnesses
– by conspiring with the District Attorney to cancel the appearance of witnesses notified of the trial.

Note: EVERY LAWYER ORDERED TO REPRESENT THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO MEET, COMMUNICATE OR FILE ANY DOCUMENT ON THE DEFENDANT’S BEHALF OF IN THE DEFENDANT’S INTEREST.
It should also be noted that the fraud by the District Attorney relating to the relationship between purported victim/witnesses and the Warrington Township Police Chief has been exposed. The Miller family lived in Abington, PA at 1568 Marian Road. The entire family attempts to be obscured through the use of a variety of aliases.

The botched false suicide intervention by Warrington Township Police remains before the Bucks County Court. The police officer has admitted that he did not prepare the paperwork. The four police officers involved all neglected to turn on their body cameras. Doylestown Hospital has deleted their video. The violation of constitutional rights by all persons, agencies and organization involved is clear. The corruption and obstruction attempted by the Bucks County commissioners has only begun to be exposed.

Clearly, the defendant’s presence in Montgomery County Court is only required in order to further abuse, slander, defame, bully, threaten, or submit further cruelty in a forum and by a judge without jurisdiction.

Where the court has neglected to address the defects in jurisdiction raised at every ordered appearance. Each ordered appearance since February 2015 where the District Attorney was NOT prepared to proceed resulting in a continuation rescheduling an appearance and yet another threat of a bench warrant.

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
Statement of Defendant on January 27, 2016
Statement of Defendant on March 30, 2016
Statement of Defendant on May 4, 2017
Statement of Defendant on January 2, 2018
Statement of Defendant on January 23, 2018

And multiple appeals to the Superior Court and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Clearly, the court lacks jurisdiction and lacks the integrity required to admit it’s own corruption… and is deliberate and intentional in it’s exhaustive and aggressive efforts to thwart the exposure of an unconstitutional rule enacted by the judiciary in direct violation of Article 5 Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution which serves to undermine the United States Constitution and the rights of every American.

Terance Healy
Defendant
…since 2007

There is no more destructive power than when a judge acts without jurisdiction.

No one will point it out. Even the PennsylvaniaSupreme Court failed to expose Judge Carpenter acting without jurisdiction. That case was a media event. It rests with the Superior Court. The panel asked the big question.. Why didn’t the Supreme Court address this issue when it was before them.

Supreme deferred a definitive statement. Ignored.

Because there was no jurisdiction in the common pleas court.

All the same players are involved in terrorizing me.

Carpenter, Carluccio, Ferman… Evil people.

The responsibility is in the General Assembly,but they are getting the wrong message from their lawyers. They could fix the courts. But, no one checks the courts for valid jurisdiction.

The courts are destroying the USA. And we all see it happening.

Dean,

The question was not rhetorical. I would like to know WHY? Primarily because the pursuit of my death continues unrelenting. Nothing and no one is more powerful than a judge acting without jurisdiction. And now, it just gets more obvious, eh?

Carluccio never had it in 2011. Page enforced it. $300,000. Weilheimer ignored and deflected. Duffy set the game so Carpenter never had it in 2015-2018.

There is no such thing as retroactive jurisdiction. There is no fixing it. There is no stopping ANY / ALL of their aggressive actions against the person who survives the intrusions great and small.

Please enlighten me, why did you participate in the effort to undermine me? What lie did they whisper?

What were they so afraid of me saying that they prevented me from any defense AND from any self defense. Cowards. They wouldn’t survive a week of their torture.

Did they threaten you? I understand. You know I know what they are capable of doing.

Just tell me. Why?

Terance

Sent to the Montgomery County Commissioners and the Public Defender Department.
dbeer@montcopa.org, joe@montcopa.org, val@montcopa.org, 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, dmarone@montcopa.org, 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, rroberts@montcopa.org, 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

Dean,

The only question that remains is WHY? Why would your entire department participate in undermining my case? Doing nothing. Allowing it to persist for two years. There is one part which went against the grain and I am aware of that impact. But clearly, that was the exception to my representation by the Public Defender.

I never tried to involve your group. I would never involve anyone where I believed they would be compelled to undermine me.

I am an honest person trying to survive a truly aggressive attack on my life.

It is hard to fathom what would cause you to act as you have.

Terance

A recap is attached.

PostTrial Recap

Sent to the Montgomery County Commissioners and the Public Defender Department.
dbeer@montcopa.org, joe@montcopa.org, val@montcopa.org, 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, dmarone@montcopa.org, 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, rroberts@montcopa.org, 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

“There is no great injustice caused by the January 27, 2016 order” … “having appointed a Public Defender to represent him.” Judge William Carpenter (Opinion March 9, 2016)

PDF version

Defendant respectfully acknowledges that he failed to realize that in his Opinion dated March 9, 2016, Judge Carpenter was setting the bar establishing a basis to measure justice intended for this Defendant.

March-April 2015, preliminary hearings occurred where the Defendant did not sign any Waiver of Counsel, and the Defendant had asserted and requested his constitutional right to be represented (as required by LAW), the defect affecting jurisdiction was called to the attention of the court and IGNORED. The defect will affect every subsequent event or action. No correction available.

Waiver of Counsel and Waiver of Preliminary Hearing was incorrectly entered on the docket. The false entries into the computer system was indicated and acknowledged. Requests for correction were IGNORED.

The period of time for the crime falsely alleged expanded from a single day to multiple years on three versions of the Criminal Complaint/Affidavit. Requests for the documents were IGNORED.

June 2015, upon arrival for a scheduled Formal Arraignment, the Defendant filed a statement with the Clerk indicating the necessity of an arraignment. The Defendant went to the room indicated, but learned there were no formal arraignments. The Defendant was coerced under duress to sign a Waiver of Arraignment or face a bench warrant. The Defendant signed and noted the situation on the waiver document which was then incorrectly entered on the docket as non appearance. Requests for Correction were IGNORED.

Neither Bill of Information nor Bill of Particulars were provided. Requests for the documents were IGNORED.

August 2015, Defendant appeared for the scheduled pretrial conference. There was no pre-trial conference. There never would be a scheduled pre-trial conference.

September 2015, Defendant appeared for Call of the Trial. It was continued. Defendant indicated the improper entry of an appearance by the Public Defender. The Court ordered the Public Defender withdrawal.

October 2015, ADA requests and receives an Order for a Mental Health examination of Defendant without any hearing yet fails to inform Defendant. Defendant appeared for Call of the Trial list and was chastized for failure to appear for the exam. The exam is rescheduled, defendant indicates the defect with jurisdiction and the necessity of counsel at the exam. Defendant is threatened with Bench Warrant should he not appear for the exam. Defendant appealed AND Defendant attended.
Oct 2015 exam, Defendant indicates the failures to comply with the Mental Health law will serve to prevent the court (lacking jurisdiction) from accepting any subsequent report. Laws would never apply to the matter. Any report would not be written until February 2016.

At January 27, 2016, Call of the Trial List, without hearing, without testimony, without evidence, without that report, from chambers, the Court finds the Defendant incompetent and appoints the Public Defender to represent him. Defendant appealed.

There was never a review as required by the Mental Health Laws. Not every 90 days. Not Ever. None.

March 2016, Defendant appeared for Call of the Trial List. Public Defender did not. Defendant indicated in a statement his belief that the Public Defender was assigned to sabotage his appeals and undermine his defense. No Great Injustice.

The Public Defender refuses to meet, or communicate with the Defendant. The Public Defender fails to file the briefs in two appeals from October and the appeals are dismissed.

Judge Carpenter indicated in his Opinion filed March 9, 2016, “There is no great injustice in this court finding the Defendant incompetent and assigning a Public Defendant to represent the Defendant.”

July 2016, The Public Defender secretly files to withdraw the Appeal of the January 27, 2016 order. The Defendant was not informed, nor provided the document filed. The Withdrawal was denied by the Superior Court. Defendant was not informed.

The Public Defender refuses to meet, or communicate with the Defendant.

Public Defender requests repeated extensions for time to file a brief. Eventually, it would be filed late. Denied review. Public Defender indicated jurisdiction returned to the Common Pleas court and no further effort on the appeal, YET, immediately escalated the appeal to the Supreme Court in February 2017.

The Public Defender refuses to meet, or communicate with the Defendant.

August 2017, after five months where the District Attorney fails to file any brief, the Supreme Court denies the Request to Appeal to Supreme Court on the January 27, 2016 order finding the Defendant incompetent without proceeding, evidence, or testimony and appointing a Public Defender. NO GREAT INJUSTICE? The bar had been set.

Jan 2, 2018, from chambers, Court orders a Trial for January 10, 2018. However, the Public Defender still refuses to meet, or communicate with the Defendant.

Jan 9, 2018, Defendant files Notioce of Appeal for the Order for Trial and informs the court of the issues which are involved.

Jan 11, 2018, The Public Defender files to withdraw as counsel after two years of neglect and inaction and failure which have prevented the Defendant from efforts to assemble defense documents and witnesses.

Court Orders Defendant to appear on January 18, 2018 to explain the Notice of Appeal in person. The Public Defender fails to appear.

Jan 18, 2018, instead of any explanation, Court conducts a ‘surprise’ competency hearing without notice to DA or Defendant. Without any Mental Health exam, evaluation or report, the Court finds Defendant competent and permits the Defendant to represent himself, excuses the Public Defender, the Public Defender files to withdraw (AGAIN) and appoint conflict counsel, the court secretly orders Thomas Carluccio to represent the Defendant, and Orders Call of the Trial List on January 23, 2018.

NO GREAT INJUSTICE having appointed a Public Defender?

Jan 23, 2018, Court withdraws Thomas Carluccio and appoints Philip Press to represent Defendant. While the court has verbally indicated Mr Press is only available as advisor, the FULL assignment prevents documents from being filed with the Clerk. The File from the Public Defender is requested and not provided. Discovery ordered January 2, 2018 is not provided by ADA. Discovery is ordered to be provided again. A Trial is scheduled for February 7, 2018. GREAT INJUSTICE.

The Public Defender refuses to communicate or provide their file. The District Attorney neglects to provide Discovery information. The Defendant requests the Court issue Orders for documents and persons to appear where there is no time for the Subpeona process before the Trial date. IGNORED.

STILL REACHING FOR GREAT INJUSTICE? After three years of stalling, where the Defendant was provided no opportunity to defend, the haste and the rush to Trial is concerning as official means have been prevented opportunities to collect information or prepare any defense.

The Defendant begins to realize, the Court was informing him in 2016 of the target – “Great Injustice”. The Court was not done with that demonstration yet.

The Defendant assembles defense strategy while recognizing his advisor counsel is failing to advise, or accomplish anything to assist.

One week before the Trial, Defendant notifies his witnesses directly of the Trial. The Court would not issue orders for appearance or for documents.

Feb 2, 2018, The Court orders a full list of the Defendants Witnesses and expected information they will provide or confirm AND orders an immediate hearing where any and all pre-trial motions will be addressed. Tasks assigned to advisor are neglected completely.

Feb 5, 2018, Defendant complies with the courts short order, files documents with the Clerk (which are forwarded to the Advisor), and appears for the instant conference. Motions are denied without consideration. Despite previous orders to provide missing discovery documents, the District Attorney ignores. The Judge neglects to address the witness list he had demanded from the Defendant. Court THREATENS arrest if Defendant fails to appear on time for Trial on February 7, 2018.

Feb 5, 2018, 10 PM, the ADA provides a disc with over 3500 pages of documents, email, internet use, etc. The files are a partial package which indicates 12 years of electronic surveillance has occurred. The complete package is never provided.

Advisor Counsel continues to neglect any task assigned, yet, informs defendant that the ADA has excused/dispatched defense witnesses, may drop charges. Advisor files documents concurrently with the ADA falsely indicating the Defendant being arrested for murder and other charges in October 2009.

Feb 6, 2018, the Defendant goes to the Public Defender Office to request the files, including any prepared for January 10 Trial date. Defendant is informed the Public Defender has taken no actions to assemble any defense, or documents, or depositions. Their file, if they had one, would be empty. They offer a box which contains the statements filed at every appearance by the Defendant which have been ignored. Two years of inaction and complete neglect, the Defendant has been sabotaged and undermined (predicted in Statement of Defendant on March 30, 2016). NO GREAT INJUSTICE?

Feb 7, 2018, Defendant appears on time and prepared for Trial, defense exhibits assembled and organized. The Court orders him to sign a Wavier of Counsel. The Defendant indicates he wishes to represent himself. The Court indicates that the Defendant will sign the Waiver of Counsel and be represented by Philip Press, OR NOT SIGN the waiver and representation by Philip Press would be ordered. Defendant did not sign. REPRESENTATION ORDERED. GREAT INJUSTICE? More.

Philip Press fails to communicate or learn the defense strategy and chooses to proceed incorrectly.

The ADA presents a fraudulent deed which she knows to be defective and void.

At pre-trial, the Defendant had reminded the ADA that even if it is certified that only indicates it is recorded. The Recorder of Deeds does not validate, authenticate, confirm or perform any function other than to record. The document is known to the Defendant as defective. It was part of a fraudulent conveyance, where the mortgage was satisfied by the title insurance company just three weeks after he was arrested, three years ago, in 2015.

The Defendant’s claim to the property is the basis of the criminal complaint against him. Attempts to resolve the matter through the courts have been alleged as stalking and harassment.

The Defendant indicates to Philip Press to Challenge the document NOW properly before the Court to address the defect. Defendant provides the documentation necessary to demonstrate the defect and support the challenge. Philip Press neglects and refuses.

At a Break, the Defendant files the challenge document with the Clerk. Philip Press refuses to present the filed, time-stamped documents to the Judge to address the defective deed.

Feb 8, 2018, the Defendant again files the document with the Clerk, provides copies to Philip Press, while Press ignores and neglects.

Philip Press then fails to present any defense for the Defendant. Three Character witnesses scheduled for the afternoon had arrived early and briefly testify in under ten minutes. Defense rests. ??
GREAT INJUSTICE.

The jury having heard no defense to the allegations endures 45 minutes of defamatory and slanderous lies from the Prosecutor in her closing. The jury quickly finds the Defendant guilty of all charges. Stalking and harassment where the Defendant had only served the Action in Ejectment documents to the ‘victim’.

MY FEAR IS THAT THE LEVEL OF INJUSTICE WHICH JUDGE CARPENTER IS SEEKING TO ATTAIN, HOWEVER “GREAT”, MAY BE A DEATH PENALTY.

Having endured injustices since 2007, worsened in 2011 by deliberately defective orders from Judge Carluccio (Yes, Thomas’ wife), where every opportunity to prevail and escape further indignities and injustices is prevented by the Court, the Defendant perseveres. The Defendant has been before the entire Montgomery County Judiciary to no avail. Appeals have been prevented and dismissed pursuant to Rules.

When a court acts without jurisdiction, intentionally and deliberately, that error becomes capable of repetition, yet evading review.

Where ‘rules’ enacted by the Judiciary without any constitutional review are prevented from constitutional review by the Judiciary’s conflict of interest IGNORE LAWS enacted by the Legislature to UNDERMINE RIGHTS protected by the Constitutions of Pennsylvania and the United States.

Defendant respectfully requests your action to assist in preventing GREAT INJUSTICE and to address this constitutional crisis which is affecting the entire United States and the constitutional; rights of all Americans.

Sincerely,

Terance Healy
Defendant
…since 2007

I am available if you need any further explanation. Thank You.

Against my wishes, strongly worded and indicated on the record, the court insisted I have a lawyer. I could choose to represent myself and the court would appoint a lawyer anyway. I DID. AND IT DID. There would be no defense. Philip Press, Esq. was only there to continue the sabotage after the withdrawal of the against-my-will public defender – who wasted two full years and had nothing in the file. NOTHING.

I had arrived prepared to present a defense with boxes of documented evidence, with witness lists (which had to be provided to the court in advance BY ORDER), with the strategy to show the events being prosecuted were unrelated to me, and cvompletely outside my control or action, unaware that any of it was occurring.

As the jury entered the courtroom to be selected. The judge caused a MISTRIAL. He instructed the entire group it was a terrorist trial.
Things were not going to get any better.

AND SO …. THEN, their court appointed Lawyer failed to present ANY defense, I was found guilty of 7 counts.

Not one witness for the defense was presented to address the facts of the case.
Not one government official – all were told to ignore by the DA.
Not one court document showing the lawful attempts to resolve the matter.
They were all prepared, copied, in the courtroom, on the table. But, PHILIP PRESS ESQ, the against-my-will-court-appointed lawyer would not present it. (Less than zealous representation, barely adequate.)

I never had a chance to defend. The CONSTITUTIONAL right to defend yourself in a criminal prosecution – NOT AVAILABLE. No rule of law. No Rights. (Not since 2007.)

After listening to ten police officers talk about two unexcitable words constantly… for a full day… never indicating any crime occurred. Much ado about nothing. But a whole shitload of much ado. All of these officers testifying that no crime occurred. Why? Something has top seem weird. There was no crime. They kept saying it.

AND IN THE MOMENT OF TRUTH, THE FRAUDULENT DEED WAS PRESENTED TO THE COURT BY THE PROSECUTION… AND CHALLENGED. The opportunity which could make it all go away, the nightmare end, and restore my life. They had oopsed. But, the judge neglected to address the void and defective deed. Presented by the prosecution. They knowingly committed a fraud upon the court. My against-my-will-court-appointyed attorney failed to raise the issue. I filed it with the court. He continued his neglect. I told him it needed to be challenged while properly before the court in proceeding where it was being presented as valid. A hearing would be MANDATED, NOT DISCRETIONARY, would have to occur to address the defective deed. STRIKE IT. FINALLY REMOVE IT FROM THE HAVOC IT HAS CAUSED MY LIFE.

Clearly, the against-my-will-court-appointed lawyer was neglecting a responsibility for the client. I had anticipated the opportunity. I figured their attention to detail would miss it. I had the documents ready top go as soon as the deed would be presented as an exhibit.

He had been established to prevent any defense from being presented, and he was in place to avoid addressing the deed.
He made bad excuses. He was wrong. I told him to do it. He refused. He scheduled a meeting before court – an hour early. Then failed to show up.

He had me making copies through most of the night last night. Yet, never presented anything.

The jury came back with guilty on all three counts.

Then. The prosecutor added four more and the judge said guilty. No explanation of what they were either. The charges were never explained. There had been No Arraignment.

Did the jury wonder why there was no defense presented?
Did the jury wonder why Todd Krautheim was not permitted speak to all of the events to support my defense?
(When he mentioned the Recorder of Deeds, he was silenced.)
Did the jury wonder why no one said anything to defend me?
Did the jury think I had nothing more to say than indicate it was a three year malicious prosecution based on two words?
Had IO presented what occurred “A prosecution more violent and threatening than the reported crime.” there may have been sympathy.
Did the jury truly think I had committed crimes? How? Why?
No one indicated that I committed any crime? Just the repeated false assertions of the prosecutor. And a 45 minute diatribe of lies as her closing argument. Did the jury not know the prosecutor is permitted to lie in opening and closing arguments? (IT’S NOT EVIDENCE.)

Hearing her lie about me was incomprehensible – no matter how many time this person who didn’t know me would spew the lies, it never made any sense. She suggested two words were the basis of my state of mind. Not sentences or paragraphs. Words. Even where motivation was written, it was twisted into something false. Why? Why would I post false intentions in support of my action? That’s stupid. (If you wonder why she would lie? So do I? WHY DID SHE? Her prosecution was far more violently motivated than ANYTHING I have ever said or done. Didn’t the jury see that?)

I never got to present any defense. If they read the site, they will learn why.

The guilty verdict cut to my core.
I asked the lawyer if it all goes away when the judge reviews the defective and void deed they presented.
He said the judge won’t do it.

They are seeking a 5 year sentence.

I persevere… but after 12 years of injustice so twisted, I wish I could escape the death penalty that was the result of my divorce.

Yes, I persevere. I hope. And I live another day to endure further terror and harassment intentionally delivered by people who just won’t leave me be. They created this whole incident. It has ruined my life for three full years. Yet, I was accused of their criminal acts – harassment and stalking.

I have no choice but to persevere. Knowing they will get to the killing of me yet. The jury heard nothig of the murder attempts and the fake suicide intervention in Warrington. Seems Warrington, where POLICE CHIEF JAMES MILLER worked and where this criminal charge originated… was NOT discussed. Nothing about the assault by Warrington police last April. The fake suicide intervention. The Warrington Supervisors weren’t allowed to be witnesses. (But, No one was.)

PREVENTED FROM PRESENTING A DEFENSE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. Yes, that’s what happened. The nightmare continues.

What’s Next? Retrial for Mistrial? Appeal?
Petition for Hearing on the Fraud Upon The Court?
Supreme Court Kings Bench exposure of their unconstitutional “RULES” having prevented all constitutional rights.

The only way out is thru… and they just don’t ever want me out from their hell.

Losing eight years of my life for two words, is just fucking stupid.
A three year prosecution where THEY were more violent in the prosecution. But, the jury never heard that. I have five copies of it all for the next trial.

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS:

Defendant, Terance Healy, petitions this court as witness and requests actions to provide immediate relief from two documents provided to him through his mother on Friday, February 2, 2018 and having been personally delivered to his mother by Philip D. Press, Esquire.

Document 1.
MOTION OF STANDBY COUNSEL, et al, (Attached).

This document falsely and incorrectly states that ‘On or about October 22, 2009, the Defendant was arrested and charged with murder and associated charges.”

The sentence is slanderous, libelous and could place the safety of the Defendant in immediate danger.

Document 2 was issued in support of the false and incorrect information.
COMMONWEALTH’S MOTION TO AMEND BILLS OF INFORMATION

Paragraph Number 2 is incomplete. It reads as follows:
“2. The affadavit of probable cause and subsequent discovery outlines a series of”

Paragraph Number 3 amends the Bill of Information to include four (4) counts of Harassment, 2709(a)(3), graded as summaries.

Paragraph Number 3(a) indicates:
“A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person… (3) engages in a course of conduct of repeatedly committed acts which serve no legitimate purpose.”

If these false statements, “which serve no legitimate purpose” are intended as a joke, then clearly it has failed. Instead, it is cruel. It causes a dread fear for the possibility of being placed in a shoot first situation with police acting on the grossly incorrect information.

Sentence 6 continues with the farce by suggesting the Defendant was aware of the false information which is included in the document. The statement is entirely untrue.
“The proposed amendments do not allege a set of facts which were unknown to the Defense; instead, the Defense had notice of the allegations of the Commonwealth since October of 2009. Therefore the proposed amendments do not affect possible defenses that may be available at time of trial.”

Defendant respectfully requests that ANY JUDGE OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS of MONTGOMERY COUNTY take appropriate actions to promptly STRIKE the false documents before the Defendant is executed based on actions relating to this grossly false information.

Defendant demands the immediate removal of Philip D. Press, Esquire from any assignment or responsibility to the Defendant in the interest, where his actions seek to harm the Defendant and his assignment not supported by the proceedings which it purports to reference.

Terance Healy
c/o/ 871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976

After another judicial masturbation session, the judge’s self pleasure meeting with the lawyers he chooses to appoint to purport to represent me.

There’s no involvement required by me. If I am present in court they hide in the judges chambers until they finish.

I am permitted no participation. No opportunity to defend. They have not even indicated the crimes supposedly committed.

The lack of authority, the LACK OF JURISDCTION WHICH THEY FAIL TO ADDRESS, becomes further concealed behind piles of orders for time and appearances and demands issued without jurisfiction while threatening bench wrrants.

Again, I will now have to explain to everyone repeatedly the actions they have done to me. In the retelling they undermine every thought.

The District Attorney has neglected every aspect and element of a criminal prosecution. The Assistant District Attorney goes by another title wth the judge. She is CAPTAIN OF HIS COURTROOM.

Making me ask for it. Makng me beg for their information. Repeatedly, because they never respond. Never.

This has occurred for three years while I am threatened with warrants.

This is the psychology of a malicious false PROSECUTION.

THERE IS NO STOPPING THIS EVIL.

THEY WILL PERSIST UNTIL THEY SUCCEED.

Their objective. My death.

They have never answered any question. Not one. Ever. Over three years. NEVER.

JURUSDICTION IS A NECESSITY. BUT WHEN THERE IS NO JURISDICTION THERE IS TERROR AND NON-RESPONSE AND NON-COMPLIANCE.

UNAPPEALABLE. UNSTOPPABLE. TERROR.

It’s the responsibility of the General Assembly. But, JURISDICTION is the secondary reason they are on my witness list for the defense.