A Terroristic Divorce

Gary Kline
Domestic Relations Division
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas
P.O. Box 311
Norristown, PA 19404

Dear Mr. Kline

I attempted before noon today to deliver the attached letter to the Domestic Relations Office (DRO). The treatment I received at the direction of an obese clerk with blond hair and a pink blouse was inexcusable.

When I arrived I proceeded to the check-in folks and asked them to accept a letter and time stamp copies for distribution to the parties. They asked if I had a case number. It was on the letter.

When they looked into their computers, they indicated the file was CONFIDENTIAL. There has never been an explanation ffor my file being confidential. I have been denied access to the file for years without explanation.

The counter person took the letter (and copies) to the back and about 10 minutes later the woman who refused to identify herself indicated I needed to open up a new file. She refused to accept the letter or to time stamp the copies. The counter person then explained to her that I had a PACSES number already. She ignored her. I instructed her this was about delivering a letter to the DRO about an existing case, not initiating a new case.

I asked her to identify herself or contact her supervisor. She ignored me and called the deputies. She falsely indicated she had already given her name. if she had, why would I not have it? or written it? Why would I still be asking for it? Why was she calling the deputies? Why were they saying she had given me her name when they were not there? Why was the delivery of a letter causing such drama? Why was she refusing to provide her name. Even a first name would have been useful. This woman was determined, for no apparent reason, to prevent me from simply delivering a letter and having it time-stamped for distribution to the parties.

In the past no presenting a time-stamped copy of the documents filed with the Domestic Relations Office has been reason for inaction and failure to collect arrears.

As such, I would appreciate your confirmation of the receipt of the attached letter dated November 7, 2013.

I would appreciate the opportunity to review the matter with you and additionally understand why the information in my file is being prevented from me. The DRO activity was initiated on my behalf by my attorney in July 2007.

I would appreciate an opportunity to meet with you to discuss the DRO, discuss my experience, and review and obtain the file contents.

Sincerely

Terance Healy

Metropolitan Tribunal
Archdiocese Of Philadelphia
222 N. 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-1299

Re: Pursel-Healy 381-13

Dear Rev. Msgr Di Girolamo,

Currently, the parties in this matter are not divorced in the State of Pennsylvania.

A defective, invalid and void divorce decree was issued on May 9, 2011. It is currently under an Appeal filed on August 15, 2011, and again on April 29, 2013 raising the matter to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Sonya Healy has additionally testified under oath on September 20, 2011 that she believes herself to be married. (Copy Attached)

Mrs. Healy signed a document swearing to her marriage, however, she was doing so to perpetrate a larger fraud. She was illegally conveying the marital residence and disposing of a lifetime of possessions of her husband. Illegally and in violation of all court orders. The family to whom she illegally sold the home is now in litigation because of the damage she brought upon them.

Mrs. Healy has engaged in conduct that can only be referred to as destructive and terroristic. She has denied her children access to their father. She has lied in court. Her malicious litigation and fraud are well documented in the courts. Sonya Healy is acting out of extreme malice.

Her actions have been so corrupt within the court that it has been before 18 judges of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. The Divorce is also in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania as her fraudulent testimony has threatened to incarcerate me. The matter is additionally before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as a Federal Issue was discovered. The Federal issue is before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 13-4614.

I have been a Catholic my entire life. Growing up my family was a founding family at St Robert Bellarmine in Warrington. I went to St. Joseph’s Elementary, Warrington and Archbishop Wood High School, Warminster. My own family was a founding family at Mary, Mother of the Redeemer Parish in North Wales from its inception.

Sonya Healy is a Methodist from Bethany United Methodist Church in Milton, PA. Though she converted after our children were born she was never a practicing Catholic.

She is seeking this annulment in an attempt to inflict further damage to myself, my parents and my children by attacking through my religion. We have been married for over 25 years. I would greatly appreciate copies of any documents which Sonya Healy has provided to the Tribunal.

Sincerely,

Terance Healy
871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976

Cc:
Rev. Msgr. Robert J. Powell, DMA
Rev. Msgr. Paul A. Di Girolamo, JCD
Rev Eduardo Montero, JCL
Rev. Sean Bransfield, JCL

Copy attached:
Sworn Statement from Sonya Healy that she is married on September 20, 2011

Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct – This case is based on the extreme malicious injustice brought about through Sonya Healy’s terroristic divorce actions.

Cross Reference:
Court Docket #2007-12477 Healy v Healy
Court Docket #2013-29976 Healy v Miller
Superior Court Docket #1330 EDA 2013
Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania #155 MM 2013
US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania #13-4614

How did the American Bar Association overthrow EVERY state government and get away with it. They followed what Nazi’s did in Germany and perfected their state government overthrow while distracting the people… and leading everyone to believe that the victims were non-existent. A very nazi-esque way of thinking.

They created a LAW. Illegally enacted it. The LAW prevented lawyers from lawfully addressing their overthrow. In exchange the law excused judicial corruption. The judges could excuse the lawyers crimes when presented in court. The victims were denied justice and denied their rights. Victims are left with no where to turn but a court which cannot address their injustice. The LAW prevents it.

The rhetoric scripted through the American Bar Association convinced law abiding people to abandon their ethics and morals. MANDATING judges to sacrifice their integrity to protect the corruption and crimes of other judges. Destroying individuals and families everywhere… terrorizing them to the point of suicide or to where they were ostracized because of constant attacks. They lacked any constitutional rights and no one could explain it.

I lived it. I experienced it. I found their crime. Rule 1.6. It terrorizes people everyday.

Even with my exposing their crime to the Federal Court, a lone lawyer Randall Henzes acted to prevent Constitutional Rights from being restored. He acted without presenting proper authority. He usurped the authority of Attorney General Kathleen Kane of Pennsylvania.

ONCE HE ACTED, the act of misconduct in a court of law by an officer of the court, no one could touch him or expose him because Rule 1.6 prevented him from being lawfully prosecuted for his crime. Kathleen Kane’s authority was stripped from her because of a unconstitutional law which she must follow because it is in the Rules of Professional Conduct. Attorney General kathleen Kane got Rule 1.6’d.

Eric Holder, US ATTORNEY GENERAL. Are you watching the power of this Rule 1.6 as it destroys the country. You, Eric, are the only LAWYER in the country who may lawfully take action against Rule 1.6.

No law may be written which prevents the US Attorney General from acting to address it. The US Attorney General. ALONE.

Eric, baby… Restore the Constitution. Shut down the largest and most corrupt and seditious and treasonous organization in the country. A monopoly of corruption with mandatory membership organized in every county with District Attorneys and Attorneys General among their membership. An organized crime syndicate known as The American Bar Association. The largest RICO organization in the country. Sedition and treason in every state would justify their prosecution.

The only other lawful way to address Rule 1.6 is through Pro Se litigants. Terance Healy and Todd Krautheim on behalf of the United States of America.

The team of lawyers assisting an 85 year old Senior Judge in the Eastern District Court obstructed justice by drafting for his signature an order which fails to address the constitutional issue presented. They could not lawfully do so under Rule 1.6.

You can try to convince me that an 85 year old crafted the dismissal of the Constitutional Challenge, but understand the first question in the appeal will relate to the authors and editors of the order failing to identify their conflict of interest. WHERE THE AUTHOR COULD NOT LAWFULLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE PRESENTED, THAT AUTHOR SHOULD HAVE CONFESSED TO THE CONFLICT TO THE JUDGE. The judge would have immediately recognized the basic constitutional matter before him.

Let’s not embarrass Judge Thomas O’Neill after his lifetime of service.
A Motion for Reconsideration is being prepared concurrent with appeal documents.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

Onward to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals… As was expected the Challenge was dismissed to proceed to a court where the decision of Constitutionality can be addressed.

The following are their ‘silly’ reasons… in silly format. We will post the Decision within the next few days.

---

 – 

---

---

The Constitutional rights of people all across the country were prevented from being restored because on KATHLEEN KANE of PENNSYLVANIA. She single-handedly usurped the matter preventing any other state from responding to the matter, hearing about the ongoing litigation.

37 states defaulted and would have restored the constitutional rights of their citizens. Kathleen Kane prevented that from happening.

State Representative Darryl Metcalfe says Kane has created a constitutional crisis. Metcalfe has called for the Impeachment of Kathleen Kane.

Kathleen has responded in typical Rule 1.6 style… the typical accusation. You aint no lawyer. You don’t know the law. Victims who have lost their rights have been told this often. Ain’t nobody got time for that, Kathleen.

Kathleen Kane NEVER FORGETS her obligation to follow Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. She always invokes the US Constitution, the laws of Pennsylvania, and the Rules of Professional Conduct. She know Rule 1.6 TRUMPS everything. She needs to recognize that it cannot lawfully continue to ‘trump’ the US Constitution. And the Constitutional Challenge would have lawfully allowed her to do so.

The following Governors have received the package which describes the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 and the affect it has on law enforcement in their state.

They are NOT lawyers obligated to follow Rule 1.6. As such, they are not involved in the conspiracy to prevent this issue from being presented. Additionally, these Governors have the power to lawfully address the situation and take immediate action in their state.

Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama
Governor Lolo Letalu Matalasi Moliga
Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona
Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado
Governor Jack Markell of Delaware
Governor Eddie Baza Calvo of Guam
Governor Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii
Governor C.L. Butch Otter of Idaho
Governor Terry Branstad of Iowa
Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana
Governor Paul LePage of Maine
Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland
Governor Mark Dayton of Minnesota
Governor Phil Bryant of Mississippi
Governor Dave Heineman of Nebraska
Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina
Governor Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota
Governor Eloy Inos of Northern Mariana Islands
Governor John Kasich of Ohio
Governor Mary Fallin of Oklahoma
Governor John Kitzhaber of Oregon
Governor Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island
Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina
Governor Bill Haslam of Tennessee
Governor Rick Perry of Texas
Governor Gary Herbert of Utah
Governor Peter Shumlin of Vermont
Governor John deJongh, Jr of the US Virgin Islands
Governor Earl Ray Tomblin of West Virginia
Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin

The following Governors are lawyers OBLIGATED under Rule 1.6 to ignore the Constitutional Rights of citizens while ignoring judicial corruption, crimes and misconduct, and the failure to prosecute crimes of the judiciary and of the legal professionals who might implicate the judiciary.

Governor Sean Parnell of Alaska (Puget Sound School of Law)
Governor Mike Beebe of Arkansas (University of Arkansas)
Governor Jerry Brown of California (Yale)
Governor Dan Malloy of Connecticut (Boston College)
Governor Rick Scott of Florida (Southern Methodist University)
Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia (Walter F. George School of Law)
Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois (Northwestern University)
Governor Mike Pence of Indiana (Indiana University)
Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas (University of Kansas)
Governor Steven L. Beshear of Kentucky (University of Kentucky)
Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts (Harvard)
Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan (University of Michigan)
Governor Jeremiah W. Nixon of Missouri (University of Missouri)
Governor Steve Bullock of Montana (Columbia University)
Governor Bruce Sandoval of Nevada ( )
Governor Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire (Northeastern School of Law)
Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey (Seton Hall University)
Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico ( )
Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York (Albany Law School)
Governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania (St Mary’s University School of Law)
Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla of Puerto Rico (Interamerican University)
Governor Denis Daugaard of South Dakota (Northwestern University)
Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia (Regent University)
Governor Jay Inslee of Washington (Willamette University)
Governor Matt Mead of Wyoming (University of Wyoming)

Having a lawyer for a governor places a state under the control of the American Bar Association’s Rule 1.6 with all branches of the state government – executive, legislative and judiciary – under the mandate of Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information.
It makes the unconstitutionality of the rule IMPOSSIBLE to lawfully address.
It makes judicial crimes and corruption ILLEGAL to lawfully address. BUT ONLY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO DO IT AND HAVE TAKEN AN OATH TO THAT EFFECT.
It may even get them disbarred if they download it here…    or here…    or here.

November 1, 2013: ALL GOVERNORS HAVE RECEIVED THE PACKAGE. Non-lawyers and lawyers alike.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information
of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

1. Overview
2. Affect
3. Challenge Filed in Federal Court #13-4614
4. Scope
5. Response to their ‘Motion to Dismiss’
6. Memorandum Supporting Response
7. Quotes

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

Challenge13-4614

This package has been delivered personally to television, newspaper, radio, and magazines. NOT ONE MEDIA OUTLET HAS CARRIED THE STORY. Their lawyers have instructed them to prevent exposure and to have no contact which could suggest involvement. The sedition and treason involved in overthrowing every state government is powerful enough to cover up their crimes. Only the Federal Court and one other individual can possibly intervene. Most likely they have misinformed that individual to think otherwise.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

Attorney General Martha Coakley is currently in a race for Governor of Massachusetts. Does Massachusetts really want a Governor who ‘lawfully’ denied people of their constitutional rights?

I was surprised to see her response to a federal court filing asking her if it was her intent to default – which would quietly have restored the rights of the citizens of Massachusetts.

“It appears you are seeking clarification as to why Attorney General Martha Coakley has not filed a response to your federal complaint. Among other reasons, a clear reason is that she is not required to respond, per order of the Hon. Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr., filed September 16, 2013.”

The Response from Martha Coakley was due 9/5/2013.
The Extension in time was requested on 9/6/2013 – by Kathleen Kane of PA.
Yes, Judge O’Neill did grant THAT extension request on 9/16/2013.
But, why did Martha know that would happen? or that it was even in the works? A clear reason would be she has incredible hindsight because the non-answer doesn’t quite fit.

If she had read the filing, ‘AMONG OTHER REASONS’ may have explained her reason for missing the deadline for response.
OR, ‘AMONG OTHER REASONS’ explained her reason for failing to reply and NOT asking the court for an extension.
OR, ‘AMONG OTHER REASONS’ includes her reason for not assigning herself or another attorney to handle the case and receive notifications.
OR, ‘AMONG OTHER REASONS’ her reason for not responding while waiting for the judge to grant the extension.
OR, ‘AMONG OTHER REASONS’ means she has no idea how to get out of being exposed as a party to the mandatory corruption and injustice which Rule 1.6 ‘lawfully’ causes at the expense of individual citizens constitutionally protected rights, among other things like family, occupation, liberty, freedon, credibility, … LIFE.

Instead Martha Coakley simply ignored the Challenge and failed to address anything about it. Among other reasons – a MOST LIKELY REASON is that Martha Coakley is an attorney who under Rule 1.6 cannot lawfully address her failure to respond any issue surrounding Rule 1.6.

Yes, Rule 1.6 may be akin to the first 2 rules of ‘Fight Club’. BUT, RULE 1.6 IS NOT STRONGER THAN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Thomas Ball lit himself on fire in nearby New Hampshire in 2011 because he mysteriously lost his rights and NO ONE DID ANYTHING TO HELP.

Rule 1.6… Among other reasons.

Click Here for PDF Versions of the Challenge and Response Docs.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane has issued a press release regarding a call for her impeachment.

Don’t let them use rhetoric to attempt to impeach you, Kathleen. Show some power. Flex some law. Unleash some Third Grade Civics on their pathetic attacks. Get lawful. Get Constitutional!

“”I have been, and always will be, committed to protecting, obeying and defending the Constitution of the United States and of Pennsylvania. I will continue to be the independent watchdog over state government to provide checks and balances on the power of those who seek to fulfill their own agenda. Public corruption and waste will not be tolerated. And I will act as the Commonwealth’s attorney, pursuant to the rules of Professional Responsibility.”
Why issue a powerful statement couched and nullified in the contrary RULES OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY??? Every time Kathleen refers to the Constitution and the State Law she undermines her statement with the Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1.6 is a lawyer’s kryptonite. BUT, It’s like the first rule of “Fight Club”.

Snap out of the politics, Kathleen. Your destiny is here.

Release the Constitution on their asses.

Kathleen Kane is the only US Attorney General to make any effort to thwart the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. If she is acting solely to hold back the repercussions until a plan is formed for JUSTICE after Rule 1.6, then I over estimated her. A rational and reasonable approach can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion. The “THWARTer” becomes the “THWARTee” – that’s Pennsylvania politics. Don’t play politics with my civil rights and liberties.

Injustice continues while the CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE is delayed. People lose hope when their civil rights and liberties are denied. People are committing suicide. Families are being destroyed. Communities are being ripped apart.

The other Attorneys General defaulted. The only Attorney General standing in the way of JUSTICE is Kathleen Kane.
The only Attorney General standing in the way of the US Constitution is Kathleen Kane.

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=7251

“These people round here wear beaten down eyes shrunk in smoke dried faces so resigned to what their fate is.”
BUT NOT US. NO, NOT US. WE ARE FAR TOO YOUNG AND CLEVER.
TOO-RA-LOO-RA TOO-RA-LOO-RYE-AY
Come on, Kathleen!

They filed 65 pages of complete HORSESHITE.

They never even attempt to produce a valid document granting them the title to the home.

They say that since they are in my home they get to keep it.

AND of the 5 original pages they filed, they file them twice. Once number and once not numbered.

See for yourself. (PDF)

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 CORRECTIONS TO THE DOCKET FOR THIS MATTER

1. Plaintiffs’ have been presented with discrepancies in the Docket for this matter and have been denied and prevented from addressing any necessary corrections or modifications.

2. A copy of the docket which was provided on October 18, 2013 by the Clerk of Courts is attached as Exhibit A.

3. Docket entries have been made in paragraph form containing multiple documents, as such the content of the docket entries are misleading.

4. There are fifty eight named parties to this matter, in the interest of clarity for all parties ivolved, an accurate representation of documents filed and docketed by the Clerk of COurts is essential.

5. A copy of the Plaintiffs’ issues and proposed corre3ctions is attached as Exhibit B.

As such, Plaintiffs resptctfully request the Court to order the Clerk of Courts to address the misleading entries to accurately and properly reflect the matter to the satisfaction of the parties.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy	Todd M. Krautheim
871 Mustang Road	207 Woodspring Circle
Warrington, PA 18976	Doylestown, PA 18901

MOTION FOR CORRECTIONS TO THE DOCKET FOR THIS MATTER (PDF Version)