A Terroristic Divorce

Todd and I filed a Constitutional Challenge with fifty six Attorneys General of the United States.

We sent copies of the Challenge and the summons to 56 Attorneys General.

Deadlines were missed by many. It was expected that a default would be a likely end to the matter.

Then, they disappeared.

The court sent them NOTHING.

The court failed to send them a CERTIFICATION.

The Court failed to send address the INTERVENTION.

The Notice of Appeal.

The Court failed to send the Notice of Appeal to fifty six Attorneys General.

The Court failed to send the Record to fifty six Attorneys General.

The Appeals Court failed to send the Notice of Appeal to fifty six Attorneys General.

One person sandbagged fifty six Attorneys General in a constitutional matter.

You would think that with the top law enforcement officer in every state served on the case that misconduct would not occur. Apparently, that’s just not so.

When we go to ask where the Attorneys General went and WHY the Court negelected to send them any paperwork… we will encounter my favorite clerk response. The “today is my first day on this job” person who knows nothing even though they have been working there forever.

This will be followed up with a litany of excuses suggesting the outcome justifies their sandbagging the proceedings. The outcome was wrong, unsupported and unsubstantiated and to call it a logical fallacy would suggest there was any logic to it. The stupidity represented in the rulings demonstrates the validity of the Constitutional Challenge. We are right and will succeed. They have confirmed it.

If this is the best they have to counter a Constitutional Challenge of a Law which causes injustice and robs people of their civil rights and liberties.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

---

AMBER ALERT? If anyone sees any of the following Attorneys General, please ask them to inquire how they were removed from a case which has now gone on to Appeal… and I am guessing the Third Circuit is going to be very interested how this case got sandbagged with 56 state attorney generals watching.

AMERICAN SAMOA ATTORNEY GENERAL
AMERICAN SOMOA GOV’T
EXEC. OFC. BLDG.
UTULEI, TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA
PAGO PAGO, AS 96799

ALAN WILSON
REMBERT C. DENNIS OFFICE BLDG.
POST OFFICE BOX 11549
COLUMBIA, SC 29211-1549

BILL SCHUETTE
POST OFFICE BOX 30212
525 W. OTTAWA ST.
LANSING, MI 48909-0212

BOB FERGUSON
1125 WASHINGTON ST. SE
POST OFFICE BOX 40100
OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0100

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
OLD SUPREME CT. BLDG.
100 N. CARSON ST.
CARSON CITY, NV 89701

CHRIS KOSTER
SUPREME CT. BLDG.
207 W. HIGH ST.
JEFFERSON CITY, MO 65101

DAVID LOUIE
425 QUEEN ST.
HONOULU, HI 96813

DEREK SCHMIDT
120 S.W. 10TH AVENUE
2ND FLOOR
TOPEKA, KS 6612-1597

DOUGLAS F. GANSLER
200 ST. PAUL PLACE
BALTIMORE, MD 21202-2202

DUSTIN MCDANIEL
323 CENTER ST.
SUITE 200
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201-2610

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM
JUSTICE BLDG.
1162 COURT ST., NE
SALEM, OR 97301

ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN
THE CAPITOL
2ND FLOOR
ALBANY, NY 12224

GARY KING
POST OFFICE BOX 1508
SANTA FE, NM 87504-1508

GEORGE JEPSEN
55 ELM ST.
HARTFORD, CT 06106

GREG ABBOTT
CAPITOL STATION
POST OFFICE BOS 12548
AUSTIN, TX 78711-2548

GREG ZOELLER
INDIANA GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH
302 WEST WASHINGTON STREET
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204

IRVIN NATHAN
441 4TH STREET, NW
SUITE 1100S
WASHINGTON, DC 20001

J.B. VAN HOLLEN
STATE CAPITOL
ROOM 114
POST OFFICE BOX 7857
MADISON, WI 53707-7857

JACK CONWAY
700 CAPITOL AVENUE
CAPITOL BUILDING
SUITE 118
FRANKFORT, KY 40601

JAMES D. BUDDY CALDWELL
POST OFFICE BOX 94095
BATON ROUGE, LA 70804-4095

JANET T. MILLS
STATE HOUSE STATION 6
AUGUSTA, ME 04333

JIM HOOD
POST OFFICE BOX 220
JACKSON, MS 39205

JOEY PATRICK SAN NICOLAS
POST OFFICE BOX 10007
SAIPAN, MP 96950-8907

JOHN SUTHERS
RALPH L. CARR COLORADO JUDICIAL CENTER
1300 BROADWAY
10TH FLOOR
DENVER, CO 95814

JOHN SWALLOW
STATE CAPITOL
RM. 236
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-0810

JOHN JAY HOFFMAN
RICHARD J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX
25 MARKET STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 080
TRENTON, NJ 08625

JON BRUNING
STATE CAPITOL
POST OFFICE BOX 98920
LINCOLN, NE 68509-8920

JOSEPH A. FOSTER
33 CAPITOL ST.
CONCORD, NH 03301

JOSEPH R. BEAU BIDEN, III
CARVEL STATE OFFICE BLDG.
820 N. FRENCH ST.
WILMINGTON, DE 19801

KAMALA HARRIS
1300 I ST.
STE. 1740
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

KEN CUCCINELLI
900 EAST MAIN STREET
RICHMOND, VA 23219

LAWRENCE WASDEN
STATEHOUSE
BOISE, ID 83720-100

LENNY RAPADAS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ITC BUILDING
590 S. MARINE CORPS DR.
STE. 706
TAMUNING, GUAM, 96913

LISA MADIGAN
JAMES R. THOMPSON CTR.
100 W. RANDOLPH ST.
CHICAGO, IL 60601

LORI SWANSON
STATE CAPITOL
STE. 102
ST. PAUL, MN 55155

LUIS SANCHEZ BETANCES
POST OFFICE BOX 902192
SAN JUAN, PR 00902-0192

LUTHER STRANGE
501 WASHINGTON AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 300152
MONTGOMERY, AL 36130-0152

MARTHA COAKLEY
1 ASHBURTON PLACE
BOSTON, MA 02102-1698

MARTY J. JACKLEY
1302 EAST HIGHWAY 14
SUITE 1
PIERRE, SD 57501-8501

MICHAEL GERAGHT
POST OFFICE BOX 110300
JUNEAU, AK 99811-0300

MIKE DEWINE
STATE OFFICE TOWER
30 E. BROAD ST.
COLUMBUS, OH 43266-0410

PAM BONDI
THE CAPITOL
PL 01
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-1050

PATRICK MORRISEY
STATE CAPITOL
1900 KANAWHA BLVD., E.
CHARLESTON, WV 25305

PETER KILMARTIN
150 S. MAIN ST.
PROVIDENCE, RI 02903

PETER K. MICHAEL
STATE CAPITOL BLD.
CHEYENNE, WY 82002

ROBERT E. COOPER, JR
425 5TH AVENUE NORTH
NASHVILLE, TN 37243

ROY COOPER
POST OFFICE BOX 629
RALEIGH, NC 27602-0629

SAM OLENS
40 CAPITOL SQUARE, SW
ATLANTA, GA 30334-1300

SCOTT PRUITT
313 NE 21ST STREET
OKAHOMA CITY, OK 73105

TIM FOX
JUSTICE BLDG.
215 N. SANDERS
HELENA, MT 59620-1401

TOM HORNE
1275 W. WASHINGTON ST.
PHOENIX, AZ 85007

TOM MILLER
HOOVER STATE OFFICE BLDG.
1305 E. WALNUT
DES MOINES, IA 50319

VINCENT FRAZER
DEPT. OF JUSTICE, G.E.R.S. COMPLEX
488-50C KRONPRINSDENS GADE
ST. THOMAS, VI 00802

WAYNE STENEHJEM
STATE CAPITOL
600 E. BOULEVARD AVE.
BISMARCK, ND 58505-0040

WILLIAM H. SORRELL
109 STATE ST.
MONTPELIER, VT 05609-1001

Notice Of Appeal
A Notice of Appeal was timely filed December 2, 2013 regarding the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

There was no choice but to appeal the matter. We were Rule 1.6’d. It was anticipated that the matter would likely need to be decided at a higher level of Federal Court which handles more broader issues and nationally visible cases.

It was quickly very clear that the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was not immune from Rule 1.6 misconduct and the the injustice once the act of misconduct which involves the judge.

Did those behind it realize? Were they taking one last stab at Rule 1.6-ing before it would become unconstitutuional and justice would be restored to the people. Judicial integrity would no longer be compromised. Last Call.

Did they realize that they were using it against people who understood it?

Did they realize they would be acting in Federal Court, with a nationwide audience of 56 Attorneys General particpating. Yes. As such, they would require assist from the Clerk of Courts.

Did those behind it realize that we had anticipated interference and not only were we paying attention, we had also called in resources to safeguard the process, and were getting feedback from every person involved.

---

Backing into the Docket… The way to see where Rule 1.6 was triggered. Where did things go ‘wrong’? Where did procedure and law no longer matter.

---

Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Reconsider. A Strange necessity.

Motion to Reconsider – Judge applies Wrong Rule.

Dismissal – Unsupported, unsubstantiated and incorrect. Wrong Conclusion.

Intention to Default – Suppressed. Illogical that the court does not want any participation of the Defendants.

Corrections to Docket – Denied. Illogical that the Court is not interested in an accurate court record.

ECF Filing – Delayed. Delayed. Granted.

Kane’s Request for Extension – untimely, unsubstantiated, not authorized. Granted. Further Prevents Defendants Involvement – but never authorized. (Docket Modification – without a Court Order that’s not done.)

SERVICE – Answers due dates not entered.

Constitutional Challenge filed.

Defendant Attorneys General – Why are you not getting ANY information about this matter? Why have they all been TERMINATED from the case? Why after you had defaulted, without any entry of appearance, without any responsive pleading, were you removed from notices in the matter? Why does the Clerk of Courts have Randall Henzes as representing all 56 Attorneys General? Resulting in him being the ONLY one to get any notices in this matter?

When the Request for Extension is filed on September 6, 2013, Rule 1.6 is triggered. In play causing incorrect rulings. In play failing to resolve issues. In play on the docket. In play removing the Attorneys General from information notices or any involvment.

The Rule 1.6 monkeywrench is Randall Henzes.

He waited until Attorney General Kathleen Kane defaults, and begins to ACT NOT ONLY FOR HER BUT somehow OBTAINS “LEAD ATTORNEY” status which permits the EXCLUSION of All other AGs. By the time anyone notices the judge has been tricked into error, Kathleen Kane cannot reveal his actions, and the emails are not sent out by the Clerk of Courts.

Randall does not understand that his expectation of dismissal is not realistic. The double sided 1983 dismissal tools are the best he’s got. They worked for decades. They don’t apply. They don’t support dismissal. So, he uses all of them. But, they don’t quite fit.

The judge is floundering at the DISMISSAL. The judge’s integrity is at stake. When asked to reconsider, he loses more integrity when he DENIES applying the wrong rule. ( I opened the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in July for the first time. The judge has been using it for decades.) The judge is not stupid. The judge is sacrificing his integrity.

No Attorney General responds. Once Rule 1.6 has been invoked, the only way to preserve your integrity is to do nothing.

The one thing they still have not recognized. THEY KNOW NOTHING. Short-sighted bullies robbing an 85 year old judge of his integrity.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 petition can be filed everyday for all eternity… they failed to recognize that whole the injustice of Rule 1.6 could end now, or tomorrow, or net week, next month, or next year.

DISMISSAL by judicial logical fallacy indicates JUSTICE WINS.

JUSTICE IS COMING. It will allow integrity of the judiciary, not sacrifice it.

Rule 1.6 started to be made into LAW after the FBI’s Operation Graylord corruption prosecution which exposed extreme corruption in the Cook County Courts of Chicago. A total of 92 people were indicted, including 17 judges, 48 lawyers, ten deputy sheriffs, eight policemen, eight court officials, and a state legislator.

The corruption had initially been reported to the FBI by a Cook County prosecutor.

Prior to this time there had been “codes” for legal professionals which they were professionally encouraged to follow. Turning a blind eye on judicial corruption would have been viewed as simply covering for each other. The ethical or moral decision was with the individual. The report to federal authorities was proper, lawful, appropriate and brave.

To make certain something like Operation Graylord never happened again, the Code of Professional Conduct was made LAW.

Rule 1.6 became LAW. Rule 1.6 was implemented gradually across the US executed by a subtle change most people wouldn’t notice. This was done through a lawful process of the Supreme Court. However, the LAW would result in the denial of constitutionally protected rights in violation of the US Constitution, it was not constitutional BUT ONLY WHEN VIEWED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE VICTIM OF INJUSTICE. A Pro Se litigant, underestimated and ignored, and served repeated injustice with no recourse, no releif, no possibility for escape.

When both parties are represented, the lawyers can negotiate away the indiscretion which ignored the litigants rights. Both must follow Rule 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY. But, there was no way for lawyers to negotiate around the rights of a pro se litigant without exposing their position or leverage. Pro se litigants just lost everything and were ignored and offered platitudes of you should have had a lawyer type remarks. Having a lawyer could never restore their rights, because their lawyer would not be permitted to discuss what happened with them.

NOW, Rule 1.6 MANDATED CONFIDENTIALITY regarding the actions of corrupt judges and lawyers. Rule 1.6 MANDATED that no action be taken outside any confidential disciplinary proceeding. Penalties for violating Rule 1.6 were quick, disbarment, discredited, prevention from practicing law. [Rule 1.6 is called Confidentiality of Information, that is no subtle mistake.]

PROBLEM: In the ‘correction’, THEY MADE IT ILLEGAL TO REPORT / PROSECUTE CORRUPTION BY THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO COULD DO SO. In the corrective actions, the crimes committed by the judiciary and court staff was not addressed. The crimes were more than covered up. Those who would dare to accuse a judge would be dealt extreme discipline. It became IMPOSSIBLE to prosecute a judge for deliberate crimes and injustices committed in the court. It was illegal for a District Attorney or an Attorney General to prosecute judicial crimes and corruption.

The Intent demonstrates a twisted and perverted lack of ethics and morality, undeniably corrupt. The American Bar Association was concerned they would lose their ‘right of self governance’. RIGHT? [breath] THEIR RIGHT. Their RIGHT of self governance. The integrity of the judiciary was of little consequence. Denial of people’s Constitutional Rights of absolutely no concern. Selfishly motivated to protect their concept of self governance. The ABA has an imaginary government. Their own little play government and congress and hierarchy which manages the ABA sedition in each state governments.

One person remained who could lawfully act to expose judicial crimes. One person could lawfully expose the sedition. There is little information to indicate where ‘sheriffs’ lost their power. As Chief Law Enforcement Officers in the County, the Sheriff could lawfully prosecute and expose judicial corruption. The Sheriffs began to be convinced that they were NOT the Chief Law Enforcement Officer. It was the judges, lawyers and District Attorney who convinced, manipulated, litigated and diminished the power of the Sheriff. Judges wrote decisions which indicated the sheriff never had any constitutional power. The Sheriffs accepted their diminished responsibilities, without valid explanation, or necessary constitutional action, as the District Attorneys and the judges usurped the power of the Sheriff. There was no entity in law enforcement who could prosecute the sedition.

LOGIC SO FLAWED AS TO EXPOSE ITS MOTIVE INTENT AND NATURE.

After Rule 1.6 was enacted… An Operation like ‘Graylord’ would have only prosecuted ONLY one person. The man who reported the corruption to the FBI.

UNDER Rule 1.6, the prosecutor who reported the corruption would face charges of treason, fraud, and prosecution to the fullest extent of the LAW. It was against the law for the District Attorney or Attorney General to prosecute corruption in their county or state.

“But, judges DO get caught in corruption and prosecuted.”

Yes, there have been some cases where judicial corruption has been prosecuted. When that has happened it has been at a Federal level, outside of the state jurisdiction.

Additionally, Federal authorities will NOT normally enter a state jurisdiction unless invited by the Attorney General or District Attorney to investigate. (BUT, the law made illegal for the DA or the AG to contact federal authorities.)

On those very rare occasions where a member of the judiciary is prosecuted for crime or corruption another activity occurs which clearly demonstrates the true motive and intent of the LAW. Rule 1.6 is modified.

A review of the dates that Rule 1.6 has been modified in each of the states shows a direct correlation between a judge being exposed and prosecuted and the subsequent modification to the Rules of Professional Conduct which prevents any judge from ‘getting caught like that’ again. The loopholes get closed. It becomes more and more difficult to address judicial corruption. It is logical that the ‘license for corruption’ would be edited ONLY when it failed. Other Pennsylvania edits point towards the Cash For Kids scandal. A judge was prosecuted, the loophole was addressed.

INTEGRITY. HONOR. JUSTICE.

The integrity of the judiciary is important and essential. TRUE.

EPIC FAILURE. The integrity of the judiciary is protected by making it illegal to prosecute the judges for crimes. It further prosecutes anyone who would make the attempt. MANDATING judicial corruption where it violates morality, ethics, law, and the CONSTITUTION. A victim is further victimized in each attempt at presenting the matter to any court in the state. The individual is further prevented from the assistance of federal authorities who will not enter a jurisdiction without the invitation of a District Attorney or Attorney General.

SO FLAWED A THOUGHT PROCESS, IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN. People would rise up in indignation if something like that ever happened in the USA. It would be reported by the media. 1) The Legislatures would never permit that to occur. 2) A Governor would never sign THAT law. 3) The state courts would overturn it.

BUT, 1) The legislature had no choice.
BUT, 2) The governor never signed anything.
AND 3) The state courts DID IT and cannot lawfully UNDO it.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania enacted the Law. They have the authority to do so. The Court may enact law to govern the judiciary and the practice of law within the state. RULE 1.6 is concealed in plain sight in the Rules of Professional Conduct. The State Constitution does give the Court the power to enact law… ONLY where the laws did not affect other state constitutional rights and liberties. Within the state, no greater weight is given to distinct sections of the state constitution over the other. The state court’s constitutional empowerment is used to override any contradiction within the state.

The general perception would be The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is certainly going to favor their own law even when it fails the litigant. The court can back it up constitutionally. CITE THE STATE CONSTITUTION. The court can cite their LAW. CITE THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. They had little choice in their own decision, RULE 1.6 MANDATES a decision which conceals judicial misconduct regardless of the merits of the case they are considering. Regardless of the morality of the injustice they are delivering. They are acting lawfully. They must act lawfully. The merits of the matter are meaningless Rule 1.6 is law.

Within the state, it is unlawful to correct Rule 1.6.

Should the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recognize and face the problem created with Rule 1.6, they do not have the power to act. As correction could expose members of the judiciary to prosecution and would not be lawful under Rule 1.6. A correction could expose the deliberate intent, malfeasance and misdirection of purpose of the law, the Supreme Court is legally prevented from correcting their own act of misconduct. Judges and lawyers are precluded from taking any lawful action.

The state made it illegal to correct themselves.

While the impact of Rule 1.6 has undermined the courts at every level within the state; and prevents state government and law enforcement authorities from acting OR involving the Federal Government; the Federal Courts have jurisdiction to act when a state infringes on the rights protected by the US Constitution.

Rule 1.6 makes it illegal for lawyers to file the federal action because they must follow Rule 1.6. The only party who COULD act to address this issue is a pro se litigant who is not obligated to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. One who survived with experience and evidence and standing and perseverance above all other things.

Once the Federal Court recognizes this case as a reality and a necessity, they will stop following the scripts provided by the ABA. It would seem that the judges and the lawyers have been crippled by the scripts to the point where they fail to consider the law. The ABA tools can cite cases (and mis-cite cases) faster than I ever could. Their resources are vast. The ABA has the resources and the technology to filter my information and hinder my communication. I have the law, and a constantly hacked and filtered computer which I cannot totally trust or rely on. I must reconfirm ALL information at an outside source. I have to know the law because I have no other fallback. So I learn more and more.

I imagine the ABA never thought they could be caught. The whole country noticed the undertones of the failures of the Constitution. Everyone could see the unconstitutional actions but an explanation was never available. The world watches as the US Government implodes on the people’s ennui while American ego is massaged to distortion and denial.

When it all comes down, JUSTICE IS COMING.

The non-sequitur. It was intentional. It didn’t fit the flow of this post. A REAL ISSUE AND CONCERN. It warrants a re-statement.

It would be reported by the media.

It defies logic that EVERY available media outlet and resource has ignored this national constitutional issue. I have been in contact with hundred of television, radio, internet, and print media people. Nothing. The news reports on the injustices which occur. The news reports on constitutional discrepancies and failures. Those items appearing in the news offer no resolution or remedy for the situations. I believe this tends to cause a mindset where expectations for justice are lowered for everyone. Where injustice is ignored and accepted and anyone who discusses the topic is branded a ‘radical’ or ‘theorist’. have encountered the Facebook teams which promote this despair and hopelessness. Their rhetoric is very obvious. Their tactics apparent when you see the holes in their approach. There is no law which mandates that the media ignore the story. So why has the media ignored the story? without explanation? So who does control the media? When did the press lose it’s freedom?

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NORRISTOWN, PA

TERANCE HEALY	NO. 2013-29976
v.
DAVID R. MILLER AND JENNIFER K. MILLER

MOTION TO STRIKE A DEFECTIVE AND VOID ORDER

1. Defendants have presented on October 22, 2013, as part of their Preliminary Objections in this matter, a defective and void order dated May 9, 2011. [#2013-29976-10 Defendants Exhibit 2]

2. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court strike the defective and void order which has been used to defraud, misrepresent and misinform individuals, organizations, law enforcement and county departments.

3. To be valid and enforceable, a judgment must be supported by three elements:
(1) the court must have jurisdiction of the parties;
(2) the court must have jurisdiction of the subject matter; and
(3) the court or tribunal must have the power of authority to render the particular judgment.
If the requirements for validity are not met, a judgment may be subject to avoidance.

4. Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court.

5. Such a judgment is void from its inception, incapable of confirmation or ratification, and can never have any legal effect.

6. A void judgment must be dismissed, regardless of timeliness if jurisdiction is deficient.

7. When providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary.

8. The passage of time, however great, does not affect the validity of a judgment and cannot render a void judgment valid.

9. The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process of law extend to judicial, as well as political, branches of the government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guaranties.

10. A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.

DEFECTIVE AND VOID DIVORCE DECREE

11. In the matter of Healy v Healy #2007-12477, the docket for the matter demonstrates and supports that neither Sonya Healy, nor Terance Healy filed a Request for a Divorce Decree under 3301(c) or 3301(d) of the Divorce Code. [ Docket attached as Exhibit A ]

12. The parties in Healy v Healy #2007-12477 have never indicated by documentation or action any intention to request a divorce decree. As such there can be no divorce decree.

13. Additionally, in July 2009, Sonya Healy’s attorney, Robert Angst, filed a document with the court indicating the intention to NOT request a divorce decree until hearings had been held on unresolved claims.

14. In the matter of Healy v Healy #2007-12477, the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue a divorce decree where the parties have not consented to or made any such request.

DEFECTIVE AND VOID EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION

15. “The Court has made it clear that ‘unless and until a valid decree in divorce has been entered, then there can be no equitable distribution of marital property.’” Reese v. Reese, 351 Pa.Super,521,506 A.2d 471, 473-474(1986)

16. The courts of common pleas are only empowered to make equitable distribution contemporaneously with or subsequent to a decree in divorce. Campbell v. Campbell, 357 Pa.Super, 483, 516 A.2d 363, 366 (1986)

17. This is because the settlement of economic and property claims is merely a part of the trial court’s broader power to terminate the marriage. Campbell, 516 A.2d at 366

18. Equitable distribution is an incident of divorce, not marriage.

19. As there is no valid divorce decree, there can be no equitable distribution order.

20. On June 6, 2011, the procedural defect of the void divorce decree was brought to the attention of the Court and ignored.

21. The issue of the defect has been raised in every subsequent court proceeding and ignored.

22. Sonya Healy, and her attorneys Robert Angst and Valerie Angst, have failed to take any action to address, correct or resolve the defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT

23. This issue is properly before this court as the defective and void order has been presented by the Defendants in defense of the Action in Ejectment filed on October 3, 2013.

24. The defective and void order of May 9, 2011 issued where the court lacked jurisdiction and authority is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court.

Whereas, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to adjudge, decree and strike the defective and void order of May 9, 2011 and prevent it from any future use to misrepresent and defraud.

Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Pro Se

( relating to Healy v Healy )

1. Since 2007, after years of seeking assistance from local, state and federal law enforcement and being summarily disregarded; and after years of requests seeking local, state and federal government involvement were completely ignored; and after years of filing documents exposing the deliberate injustice which were summarily dismissed without review or explanation. The failure of everyone in a position to address or resolve any legal issue was absolute and the failure to provide any explanation was unacceptable.

2. Those who were ignoring the clear and well-documented reports of the injustice were concealing the matter and enabling and causing further injustice.

3. Those who were deliberately failing to follow state law and documented court procedure excused their own misconduct without consequence and never explained, justified or addressed their actions.

4. The state court absolved without penalty the failure of others to follow court orders; to follow state law; and to follow court procedures. This ‘courtesy’ was not granted to plaintiff, Terance Healy. Never. Ever. EVERY false allegation against plaintiff, Terance Healy, was scheduled with the state court for immediate review and was required to be disproved. Plaintiff, Terance Healy, followed every state court order issued in the matter whether the order was valid, invalid, unjust, void, voidable, within or outside the jurisdiction of the court. Even where the order was unconstitutional. Even where the court order caused irreparable harm.

5. Plaintiff, Terance Healy, petitioned the state court to address and correct their improper, unlawful and unjust actions. The state court ignored and dismissed those pleadings. As a result of diligence and perseverance, the injustice is well-documented on the state court record.

6. Everyone acting, or not acting, in any regard failed to remedy or resolve any issue and each believed their actions were lawful.

7. Since 2007, a lack of jurisdiction was the most frequent reason given for inaction by law enforcement even where the law clearly indicated their proper jurisdiction for the situation.

8. Since 2007, no explanation was provided for the injustice of the state court. Eighteen judges have been assigned to the divorce matter. None have explained the injustice. Each subsequent judge sacrifices their integrity to deny, conceal and endorse the lack of integrity of the prior judges in the matter.

9. The injustice was inescapable. Any order could be raised in any court at any time by any party to cause an additional injustice which the court would not explain or justify. Appeals filed timely and served properly were prevented from being transmitted to the appellate court. The law, the truth, court procedures and jurisdiction were not a necessity or a concern to the state court.

10. It was necessary to determine the cause of the complete breakdown of the legal system and the state judiciary, and why each level of law enforcement and the judiciary believed their actions were lawful.

11. It was necessary to find, define, document and address a law that made deliberate injustice ‘lawful’.

12. Rule 1.6 is the unconstitutional law which mandates deliberate injustice.

13. Rule 1.6 must be followed by legal professionals, lawyers, law professors, district attorneys, attorneys general, the judiciary, a majority of each state legislature, a majority of the United States Congress, employees of the United States Department of Justice, the legal counsel consulted by law enforcement agencies, the legal counsel who advise the media, and many others.

14. Since 2007, every person and court to whom plaintiff, Terance Healy, pleaded for assistance and relief was mandated to follow Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information. Non-legal professionals were advised to ignore the injustice by their legal counsel who is mandated to follow Rule 1.6. The mandated ‘confidentiality’ extends to any explanation for actions or inaction.

Filed November 26, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Terance Healy	)
Todd M. Krautheim	)
in the name of the United States	) Civil Action No# 13-4614
	)
v.	)
Kathleen Kane	)
Pennsylvania Attorney General;	)
and	)
The Attorneys General of the United States	)

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1. Plaintiffs respectfully request the Reconsideration of this Honorable Court regarding the Order of 29th day of October 2013.

2. The Court has written that the decision was based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which does not subject this matter to dismissal, and the Younger abstention which is not relevant to the constitutional matter before this Court, and Article III which grants judicial power to the District Court for cases which arise under the US Constitution.

3. Plaintiffs respectfully address the issues presented by the Court’s Memorandum dated October 29, 2013.

LAWFUL APPROACH

4. Plaintiffs have filed this Constitutional Challenge to address the denial of their civil rights and liberties which are guaranteed by the US Constitution.

5. The denial of their rights and liberties has been caused by an improperly and unlawfully enacted state law – Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

ARTICLE V SECTION 10(c)

6. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968, Article V, Section 10(c), “… the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure, and conduct of all courts… if such rules are consistent with Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive right of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of 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.” As Rule 1.6 causes the denial of substantive rights of a litigant, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court lacks the authority required to properly and lawfully enact Rule 1.6 into law.

NECESSITY

7. The Plaintiffs have been directly harmed by the denial of their constitutionally protected rights. The harm suffered will continue until the law which mandates that the state courts ignore their rights is nullified and their rights and liberties are restored.

8. The Constitutional Challenge before this court is a NECESSITY. The Challenge presents the loss of constitutionally protected rights and liberties and the irreparable harm and inescapable injustice which occurs when basic rights and liberties are irretrievably denied and prevented.

ROOKER – FELDMAN DOCTRINE

9. While the plaintiffs have clearly stated their singular intention to present the constitutional challenge to this Honorable Court for review, the Court has inappropriately and incorrectly written “that plaintiffs seek review and rejection of decisions previously made by the Pennsylvania state courts.” The state court records are evidentiary for the purpose of demonstrating the unconstitutionality of actions mandated by the law being challenged.

10. The Court incorrectly writes that “it is clear that plaintiffs are, at bottom, asking the Court to consider and reverse determinations made in the state court divorce and mortgage foreclosure proceedings.”

11. The referenced footnote on page eight correctly indicates “To the extent that plaintiffs do “not, [in their complaint,] complain of injuries caused by a state court decision,” and instead raise “a direct challenge to the constitutionality” of Rule 1.6, their complaint is “not subject to dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.” Gray v Yavil, 513 F. App’x 210,212(3d Cir. 2013)

12. Plaintiffs have not petitioned this Honorable Court to affirm or reject any decision or opinion of the state court. Plaintiffs concur with the Court that the constitutional challenge is “not subject to dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.”

VENUE

13. This matter is properly placed in the US District Court as the proper court of first instance for a Constitutional Challenge. The underlying state court cases are not the subject of review. The state court actions and decisions are the evidence which demonstrates the constitutional issue and the necessity for this challenge.

YOUNGER ABSTENTION

14. The state court lacks jurisdiction to address a Constitutional Challenge where the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution have been denied as a consequence of a state law. Additionally, the state court is prevented from a proper review of the matter as the law being challenged mandates and prevents any proceeding or remedy at the state level. The constitutionality of the law must be addressed at a federal level.

15. The state supreme court’s direct responsibility for authoring, enacting and enforcing the law in question represents an undeniable conflict of interest which would preclude the state supreme court from proper jurisdiction. The state supreme court is prevented by Rule 1.6 from acting sua sponte to address the unconstitutional law. Rule 1.6 resists lawful resolution of the constitutional issue further demonstrating the necessity of this matter before this Honorable Court.

16. The Younger Abstention does not apply to this constitutional issue as there can be no state proceeding which affords any opportunity to raise this federal/constitutional claim.

ATTORNEYS GENERAL

17. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5.1(a)(2) Constitutional Challenge to a Statute – Notice, Certification, and Intervention, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane and the Attorneys General of the United States have been served with the Constitutional Challenge as “a party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned – or on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned.”

18. There has been no record on the Court docket regarding Certification by the Court with the Attorneys General that a statute has been questioned pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5.1(b).

19. Attorney General Kathleen Kane and this Court have improperly understated and paraphrased the law being challenged in this matter with the implication that the plaintiffs are challenging ‘attorney-client privilege’. Plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 in it’s entirety.

20. Analysis of Rule 1.6 indicates it is not a necessity for justice. It was only after Rule 1.6 was enacted into law that the denial of Constitutional Rights became lawful and injustice was ignored.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES

21. Once this Court has ruled on the constitutionality of the law, the litigants rights will be restored and state court will be lawfully permitted to hear, address and resolve the injustices experienced in the state courts. The Judiciary will have the ability and opportunity to correct injustices and restore their integrity through each judges own actions and rulings. The judiciary should never have been mandated to suffer the loss of integrity required to conceal injustice.

22. The evidence in support of the facts in the complaint demonstrate the denial of constitutionally protected rights by the state courts. Those civil rights and liberties have been denied and ignored as a mandate of the law being challenged.

23. The Plaintiffs have yet to present this Court with their experience in the state courts which clearly demonstrates the denial of their rights, the injustices experienced in their respective cases, and the inability of the courts and the government to permit due process and procedure to petition the government for redress of grievances.

24. The relief requested will not usurp state jurisdiction or authority, or overturn any state decision(s) or opinion(s). The remedy will permit the state court to address parties in an unbiased, unaffected and fully informed equal forum.

25. It is not appropriate or lawful for this Honorable Court to dismiss this Constitutional Challenge and further deny, delay and prevent the plaintiffs from their civil rights and liberties under the United States Constitution.

STANDING

26. Plaintiffs have presented their ‘injury in fact” and the causal connection between the injury and the law being challenged. A determination that Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional would permit the injury to be addressed by restoring their constitutional rights in the state courts.

27. The injury is defined, documented and evident upon review of the state court record.

28. The chance of future injury occurring is likely and demonstrated by the matter already indicated for inclusion in this matter. In Healy v Healy where a defective and void series of court orders has been used as the basis for a penalty in excess of $300,000 ordered in March 2013.

29. The chance of future injury occuring is actual and demonstrated in the matter of Healy v Miller, where a defective and void order from Healy v Healy has been improperly presented by Miller in November 2013 as a valid order of the court with statement that the validity of the order cannot be collaterally challenged in an Action for Ejectment.

RECONSIDERATION

30. The Court’s review of the pleadings indicates proper subject matter jurisdiction, a valid statement of a claim for which relief can be granted, proper authority and jurisdiction for this Court to proceed with the matter, and a concise statement of the case being presented to the Court.

31. As the Court is not required to dismiss the matter under Rooker-Feldman doctrine, or Younger abstention.

32. Article III of the US Constitution provides jurisdiction and authority to the Court for all cases which arise under the constitution.

Plaintiffs respectfully request the review and Reconsideration of this Honorable Court to address the improper and unsubstantiated dismissal of this matter in the Court’s Order of 29th day of October 2013.

Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

PDF Version

[ The Millers raised a defective and void divorce decree/court order as their evidence of ownership. NOW, they act like I brought it up. AND they ignore EVERYTHING I did bring up. The court lacked jurisdiction to issue the divorce order. The court cannot obtain jurisdiction retroactively. Their order is void and a nullity. It will always be void and a nullity. The deliberate malice of Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio will continue to destroy lives, and fill the pockets of the lawyers whom she served as President of the Montgomery County Bar Association. ]

ZARWIN BAUM DEVIT0 KAPLAN SCHAER TODDY P.C.
GARY A. DEVITO
PHILIP A. MAGEN
ATTORNEY ID Nos. 36421/202181
1818 Market Street
13th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215-569-2800
FAX: 215-569-1606

Attorneys for David R. Miller & Jennifer K. Miller

MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CIVIL ACTION

	NO. 2013-29976
TERANCE HEALY
v.
DAVID R. MILLER AND JENNIFER K. MILLER

DEFENDANTS DAVID R. MILLER & JENNIFER K. MILLER’S
REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT

Defendants David R. Miller and Jennifer K. Miller (“Defendants”), by and through their attorneys, file the following Reply Brief in Support of Defendants’Preliminary Objections to the Complaint of Plaintiff Terance Healy (“Plaintiff’):

In response to Defendants’ preliminary objections, Plaintiff primarily argues two points. First, that the Honorable Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio lacked the authority to grant Plaintiff’s ex-wife, Sonya Healy (“Sonya”), a power of attorney to dispose of the residence located at 110 Banbury Avenue, North Wales, Pennsylvania, 19454, Montgomery County Parcel No. 46-0000467-11-7 (the “Property’t). Second, that Plaintiff’s appeal of the May 9,2011 divorce decree (the “Decree”) should have acted as a stay. For the reasons set forth below, neither of Plaintiffs arguments has merit and his Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.

[ Plaintiff presented over a dozen points. 1. No Power of Attorney 2. Invalid Power of Attorney 3. Defective Divorce Decree 4. Void Divorce Decree 5. Pending Appeal 6. Efforts to Avoid Fraudulent Conveyance 7. Obstruction 8. Denial of Rights 9. Failure to Demonstrate Ownership 10. Fraud 11. Forgery 12. Bad Power of Attorney 13. Misrepresentation of Marital Status Oddly, they address NONE of those issues. ]

The May 9th Divorce Decree is Valid and Binding

[ Definitely selected the wrong argument for this one. They should ask and not assume… or read this web site.]

Though Plaintiff attempts to ground his argument regarding the power of attorney in the statutory requirements set forth in 20 Pa.C.S. § § 5601-5611, Plaintiff falls to address that these statutes only govern statutory powers of attorney concerning the appointment of a fiduciary. The court has both’inherent and statutory to grant a power of attorney to a spouse in the context of a divorce. The Divorce Code specifically provides:

A decree granting a divorce or an annulment shall include, after a full hearing, where these matters are raised in any pleadings, an order determining and disposing of existing property rights and interests between the parties, custody, partial custody and visitation rights, child support, alimony, reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses and any other related matters, including the enforcement of agreements voluntarily entered into between the parties. In the enforcement of the rights of any party to any of these matters, the court shall have all necessary powers, including, but not limited to, the power of contempt and the power to attach wages. 23 Pa. C.S.§ 3323(b) (emphasis added).

Under § 3323(b), Judge Carluccio had the power to take all necessary actions and order all necessary remedies to ensure the swift disposition of the Property, including granting Sonya a power of attorney to transfer the Plaintiffs interest in the Property.

[ ONLY WHEN THE JUDGE HAS JURISDICTION. The Divorce Decree is a nullity. It cannot be presented in any court as valid. It doesn’t exist. ]

Moreover, Plaintiff is barred from attacking the validity of the Decree in this action. The Divorce Code further provides:
The validity of a divorce or annulment decree granted by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter may not be questioned by a party who was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court except by direct appeal provided or prescribed by law. A party who sought and obtained a decree, financed er agreed to its procurement, er accepted a. property settlement alimony pendente lite or alimony pursuant to the terms of the decree, or who remarries after the decree, or is guilty of laches, is barred from making a collateral
attack upon the validity of the decree unless, by clear and convincing evidence, it is established that fraud by the other party prevented the making of a timely appeal from the divorce er annulment decree. 23 Pa. C.S. § 3333.

[ They present void orders as evidence and suggest I cannot attack. Well, the order is void, there is nothing to attack. It is a nullity. ]

Now, more than two years after the date of the Decree, Plaintiff attempts to collaterally attack the validity of the Decree in this action. Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 3333, Plaintiff is clearly prohibited from questioning the validity in this forum. Plaintiffs efforts to declare the Decree invalid fail and the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff’s Attempted Appeal Did Not Stay the Effect of the Decree

[ What about those Petitions to Stay the Order while under Appeal? ]

Plaintiff implies that his appeal should function as a stay of the Decree. Plaintiff is mistaken. Regardless of the current status of the appeal, an appeal is not an automatic stay. See Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm’n v. Process Gas Consumers Grp., 502 Pa. 545, 553, 467 A.2d 805, 809 (1983) (noting that an application for stay pending an appeal should only be granted when the applicant makes a strong showing in support of the stay). An application for a stay pending appeal always involves a situation in which the merits of the dispute have been fully considered in an adversary setting and a final decree rendered.

In cases involving more than a judgment for a payment of money, an appeal will “operate as a supersedeas only upon the filing with the clerk of the court below of appropriate security as prescribed in this ru1e.’ Pa.R,A,P. 1733(a). In such cases, an application for stay pending appeal must first be filed, See Pa.R.A.P. 1732. Since Plaintiff did not follow the procedures for obtaining a stay, the Decree remained in effect throughout the course of the sale of the Property.

[ A void nullity cannot be in effect. It was never effective. It never could be effective. It never can be effective. ]

For the foregoing reasons, together with the reasons Set forth in Defendants’ Preliminary Objections, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court sustain Defendants’ Preliminary Objections and issue an order dismissing Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice.

By Philip A. Magen

[ The issues here aren’t in the usual scripts offered by the ABA. It’s important to read the law. To understand the law. To follow the law. It is important for lawyers to be concerned with their clients liability and the effect these actions and statements may have when they go to prosecute the crime committed against them. ]

November 22, 2013
Gary Kline
Domestic Relations Office
P.O. Box 311
Norristown, PA 19404-0311

By facsimile (610) 239-9637.

Healy v Healy 2007-12477
PACSES 853111584

Dear Gary,

Arm of the Court? Seriously? If so, would you care to address the deliberately defective and void order as invalid? Or valid? Things which supercede the Court’s authority include the Law, Due Process, Procedure, etc… A Judge is required to have jurisdiction to issue an Order of the Court.

Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio did not have jurisdiction, therefore she was NOT acting as a judge when she knowingly issued her deliberately defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

The Domestic Relations Office has a responsibility to execute a Court Order when it is valid. When given an invalid and defective order the Domestic Relations Office has a responsibility to respond accordingly to address the defects in the order.

Your department can address the defect in the void order of May 9, 2011. Your department can schedule a hearing to address the defect. The defect is not a judgment, it is procedural. The judge lacked jurisdiction. There is no way to retroactively obtain jurisdiction. The void order is never going to be valid. Never. Ever.

You continue to evade the defect while you perpetrate the invalid order and are complicit in the deliberate corruption ordered and where the County is feigning an obligation to follow a void order while it continues to harass my life.

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia has additionally been served the void and defective order. The deliberate void and defective order continues to attack every aspect of my life.

If you wish to do the right honorable and lawful action, simply recognize the defective and void order and resume APL until the a proper and lawful order can be issued.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 exposes the inability of a litigant to get a hearing when an act of judicial misconduct or corruption is involved in a matter. This will explain why Court Administration has been so directly involved in denying access to the court to address the matter.

If you are an attorney who may not lawfully take any action to expose the criminal misconduct and corruption of the judiciary, you are welcome to respond that ‘Pursuant to Rule 1.6, I am unable to take the lawful actions required by my office.’

Another matter, Healy v Miller #2013-29976, also awaits scheduling by Court Administration. In that matter, the Millers are attempting to assert the same void order as a power of attorney instrument. They were the victims of fraud in an amount in excess of $400,000.00.

My personal property and possessions were disposed of as a result of the same defective and void order.

According to the information returned in Healy v Miller, there is support owed which has not been collected by the Domestic Relations Office.

You have not explained why my file is marked CONFIDENTIAL? I am aware that the file has been altered and electronic records have been deleted.

I asked for a meeting, conference or proceeding. None has been scheduled.

I asked for a review of the void and defective order. No review has been scheduled.

I asked for an explanation of the rudeness and false allegations of your staff. It has been ignored.

I am spending another Thanksgiving destitute and homeless because of the complicity of Montgomery County in concealing the corruption and defective order of May 9, 2011. I have persevered through this injustice and terror since the initial concealed act of misconduct in August 2007. The facts are clear. The law is clear. The corruption is clear.

I presume you wanted to be the Director of Domestic Relations, SO DO THE JOB… or resign.

Sincerely,
Terance Healy

cc: Montgomery County Commissioners
Josh Shapiro, Chair
Leslie S. Richards, Vice Chair
Bruce L Castor Jr, Commissioner

November 19, 2013

Dear Mr Healy,

I noted in my previous letter that the information you attempted to deliver was received. I looked through the case and the docket with the Courts. I want to assist you but I cannot find anything that would supersede the Courts’s Order. I did see that appeals have been filed.

My office is merely an arm of the Court charged with enforcing the Court’s Order. At such time as your appeals have been decided upon and an order is entered please let me know and I’ll immediately update our records if I haven’t already received the new order.

Sincerely,

Gary Kline
Director

---

Arm of the Court? Seriously? If so, you would address the defective and void order as a part of the judiciary.

Things which supercede the Court’s authority include THE LAW, DUE PROCESS and PROCEDURE. A Judge is required to have jurisdiction to issue an Order of the Court. Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio did not have jurisdiction, therefore she was NOT acting as a judge when she issued her deliberately defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

The Domestic Relations Office has a responsibility to execute a Court Order when it is valid. WHEN IT IS GIVEN AN INVALID AND DEFECTIVE COURT ORDER there is a responsibility to respond accordingly to address the defects in the order.

Your department can address the defect in the void order of May 9, 2011. Do your job, or resign and give it to someone who will do the job lawfully.

If you are an attorney who may not take any action to expose the criminal misconduct and corruption of the judiciary, or you have been advised by legal counsel, you are welcome to respond that ‘Pursuant to Rule 1.6, I am unable to take the lawful actions required by my office.”

Then write your resignation letter, before the County Commissioners must ask for it.

I asked for a meeting. None has been scheduled.

I asked for a review of the void and defective order. No review of the defects has happened.

I presume you wanted to be the Director of Domestic Relations, SO DO THE JOB.

November 21, 2013

Montgomery County Commissioners
Norristown, PA

Josh Shapiro
Leslie Richards
Bruce Castor

Commissioners.

I am writing to ask your intervention in expediting the actions documented in the following documents.

I have been surviving against tremendous injustice since 2007.

Litigation to obtain the home I was illegally removed from has been stalled without explanation and remains unscheduled. All evidence indicates the fraud involved and the lack of jurisdiction regarding the defective and void court order dated May 9, 2011.

Nancy Becker personally assisted in moving the criminal prosecution forward by introducing me to Det. Greg Henry who was already aware of the issues involved in the fraudulent conveyance of my home and property.

Additionally, Gary Kline has failed to respond to questions about the mistreatment by his staff. The Domestic Relations Office is violating my rights, the law and the responsibility of Domestic Relations by following a defective and void order while refusing to address the issues which demonstrate the defects of the order.

I has been destitute and homeless since 2011 and somehow find the ability to persevere awaiting justice. I ask your assistance to address the issues currently before the County.

I beg your intervention and action.

Sincerely,
Terance Healy

included:
Letter November 7, 2013 DRO
Letter November 7, 2013, Gary Kline
Letter November 8, 2013, Sheriff Behr
Response November 13, 2013, Gary Kline
Letter November 19, 2013, Gary Kline
Letter November 19, 2013, Sheriff Behr