As i was preparing documents for a Superior Court Appeal, I discovered that my civil rights have been denied deliberately… I still cannot understand how this has happened. This post has been left in place intentionally. The assembly of scattered information which demonstrated, necessitated and evolved into The Constitutional Challenge.

Pennsylvania Legislature and Judiciary is not the government you think…

---

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct is unconstitutional to Pro Se litigants.

The rule causes the complete denial of all state and all federally protected constitutional rights, civil rights etc.

Efforts to observe the Rule results in the complete and absolute obstruction of justice for Pro Se litigants. It further obligates every legal professional to ignore any effort to address any reported violation of ethics, professional rules.

The Rule must be suspended in all matters relating to Pro Se litigants, as a ‘fault’ can be intentionally initiated by a represented party to undermine the Pro Se litigant and result in the complete failure of the judicial and legal system with no recourse or recovery.

The Rule has a built in self defense mechanism which prevents lawyers from taking any effort to change it.

---

I am not a lawyer.

As a Pro Se Defendant, the Rule is unconstitutional for me and void.

Has the unconstitutionality of 1.6 been addressed?

I will find it very difficult to accept that the entire legal profession was unable to identify this situation because, as lawyers, the Rule is constitutional and valid. It prevents itself from ever being addressed.

It cannot be possible that extreme injustice was occurring everyday and Rule 1.6 prevented anyone from ever addressing it.

EXAMINING THE LOCK ON 1.6
– The moment it was made into law, it became untouchable.
– (Paraphrasing 1.6) Lawyers are prohibited from exposing the crimes of lawyers and judges.
– (Paraphrasing 1.6) Judges are prohibited from exposing the crimes of lawyers and judges.
As the legislature is made up of lawyers, they are precluded from changing the law, or taking any action which could lead to the changing of the law.
How do you correct RULE 1.6, when the only people who can make the correction, pass the law, suspend the law, are prevented from taking any action with regard to the Rule.
How do you get around a law which cannot be changed? YOU LOOK. 8 Years of Injustice. Easy one.

Alert the media, THIS IS NOT AT ALL WHAT I EXPECTED TO DETERMINE.

– A legislature which passes a law with the express purpose of denying constitutional rights to a segment of society?
– The resultant denial of all rights – constitutional, civil, parental, human – requires one element to make it work. – It requires the judge to participate.
The legislature has passed this RULE which prevents any correction as a lawyer can not have anything to do with the correction.So who legislated the deliberate perpetual inescapable destruction of Pro Se litigants?
I went to Harrisburg because 1.6 was a TURD that needed flushed.
I wanted to meet the author and suggest a change to the Rule which denied me ALL OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
I went to see RULES and requested a suggestion for the proper format to present the proposed change.
That RULE was not written in Harrisburg by our elected legislative branch.
THAT RULE IS THE SAME BEING USED IN MANY OTHER STATES.
A demonstration of a level of corruption and conspiracy so pervasive that you I could not possibly have anticipated.
Even after the injustice I have experienced at so many levels.
Is the American Bar Association really that intimidated by Pro Se litigants that they would draft a Rule which causes their destruction? the complete loss of constitutional rights?
MANIPULATED INTO A LIABILITY… The entire Government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
It will be clear who caused it, allowed it, or compelled it, or corrupted the entire government.
Because the law revision dates show a gap. In 2005, this series of laws were enacted.
During that time the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in Pa was Tom Corbett.

I cannot fathom what the hell kind of explanation could exist, but why has the American Bar Association completely subverted the law causing the complete denial of rights of Pro Se litigants?
I’ve already stumbled on the scripts they have provided which are used by the judiciary to twist their court orders into whatever they like based on nonesense and random use of 1.6.

Time permitting I’ll check what other laws have locked which appear to be programatic. Let’s see what the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION has destroyed.

KATHLEEN KANE…. CAN I PLEASE GET A MEETING WITH YOU BEFORE THEY KILL ME?
These lawyers have been giggling at my suffering through injustice for the last 7 years.
Todd Stephens?? Kate Harper?? Stewart Greenleaf?? Seriously??? What do you have to say

Have I assembled the entire team who has been terrorizing me yet? I have said so many times, it is not about divorce it is about destruction, but I could never have truly believed that the entire PA Government and Judiciary were truly involved. What has happened to the USA?

(Based on the documents which are prevented from being printed/displayed, my hackers have provided necessary information. And self identified. Thank you.

So who legislated the deliberate perpetual inescapable destruction of Pro Se litigants?

I am going to review the edits in the lawbooks. It best not be called SkyNet, .

As the Rule, The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

---

Please indicate if your State has rules which require lawyers to maintain confidentiality with regard to misdeeds by lawyers and judges.

The Pennsylvania Rule 1.6 creates an adverse position for the Pro Se defendant as lawyers may not exchange information regarding professional and ethical violations with the Pro Se Litigant.

When A Pro Se litigant reports an injustice, the investigating lawyer may not communicate any information with the Pro Se litigant as it violates the rule. This can result in the actual denial of all rights, OR the appearance of the denial of all rights, with no ability to Appeal or recourse to address the situation as those to whom the appeal is escalated must also follow the rule.

In a final twist, I suppose the correction has not been made because a lawyer may not put the correction in place as that would be a violation of the rule.

---

I will have more on this later. Read this post for more background. The Document may seem a bit incomplete. I was editing the post when I realized the unconstitutionality of the law. This situation has destroyed so many people I stopped the edit and have begun to prepare Information, Rule Change Requests and documents to file to suspend the Rule for my specific case.

I am preparing a Mandamus Petition to suspend the Rule for all participants for the duration of my matter and retroactively to the initial filings on the matter.

I am uncertain as to why the Rule of Professional Conduct has stood for so long while adversely affecting Pro Se litigant who have been destroyed by it’s influence.

Conceptually, any attorney who would present, prepare and produce this document would be violating the Rule and be subject to disciplinary action. Any lawyer taking any effort to address this Rule would be effectively violating the Rule and unable to proceed.

Why this state rule is taking precedence over all others remains to be determined.

I am hoping this revelation prevents any future, destruction of Pro Se litigant in Family Court.
I could use some help preparing that Federal Lawsuit.
I have an Brief which must be filed this month. I must suspend the Rule for the Superior Court Judiciary to have the freedom to communicate the appeal issues with me. If Rule 1.6 is not suspended, The Superior Court cannot address issues of the appeal as they will affect the integrity and reputation of the judiciary.
PERSEVERE!!!!!

---

I still cannot understand how this has happened. Pennsylvania Legislature and Judiciary is not the government you think… The Judicial Branch has taken over the country… and the only way to identify and realize it is to read through the above. It is my thought process though and I was only discovering myself as I sorted through the info in order.

It gets a little sci-fi at this point., I am not a sci-fi author.

To get here, I have endured the taunts. I survived. I had no idea. Save the ineffective taunts, I am over them.

---

I don’t yet know who else knows what I have learned.

The Judicial Branch has taken over the State Government of Pennsylvania and many other states.
The take over started on January 1, 2005. On that day the Rules Of Professional Conduct was revised for the first time since April 1, 1988.

REMEMBER: Ray Gricar, Centre County District Attorney, has been missing April 15, 2005.

The people I met in Harrisburg the other day were not aware of the damage that Rule 1.6 had done to me.
When I left, they understood who I was, what had happened to me, and that 1.6 was the problem I went to expose, address and change.

While, I found it odd that they really had no idea. There was no sense that they were hiding anything. They were cordial, friendly and willing to listen and relay the message to their.

As far as I know there are only 3 possible people who may have known what I have just discovered.
Tom Corbett, Governor
Kathleen Kane, Attorney General
And One Other.

There are now people all over the world who are seeing this. Surely some are rolling their eyes.
Others are probably thinking does this explain the craziest divorce story ever?Some had recently changed their opinion of my ‘life’after Edward Snowden.

Edward, were you about to tell the world the US Government has been overthrown and was now under the full absolute control of the Judicial Branch.
From here it is clear that Pennsylvania, and the other states, have the ability to destroy and attack peoples lives, and no matter how unjust, or how much they beg from help at all levels of government, their destruction persists unstoppable. AND NO ONE HELPS.

Rule 1.6 has given the Judicial Branch of Government full and absolute control of everything.

The trigger for any persons destruction MUST be an improper action by a judge.

From that point forward, the targeted person is heading toward destruction.

If you had a lawyer, the lawyer cannot do anything which reveals the misdeed of the judge, so you cannot be saved. Your life can only be extended. You will end up Pro Se, without rights, and completely ignored by a society that has no clue that Pro Se litigants are denied all Constitutional Rights.

There is no resolving it, there is no escaping it. Rule 1.6 prevents that.
Apparently I know the secret to survival.

“The Rules of Professional Conduct set out the minimum ethical standards for the practice of law and constitute a set of rules which all lawyers must follow.”

Ethical standards which aspire to attain the minimum clearly demonstrate the underacheiver mindset.
What is “minimum ethical standards”?

ETHICS

eth·ics [eth-iks]

plural noun

1. ( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.

3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

4. ( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

What are minimum moral principles?
What is minimum rightness?
What is minimum wrongness?
What is minimum goodness?
What is minimum badness?
What is minimum motivation?

Minimum ethics is no ethics.

---

REALLY? NO WAY? REALLY???
“These Rules were originally promulgated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on April 1, 1988.”
This was done on April Fools Day? Really? REALLY?

The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s documented and advertised goals are to protect the public, maintain the integrity of the legal profession and to safeguard the reputation of the courts.

Protecting the Public? That’s great… um… but from WHAT are they protecting the public? What does this mean? I was clearly NOT protected. And there are many others who feel like me.

The Disciplinary Board consists of 13 members, of whom 11 are attorneys.

LAWYERS ARE PROFESSIONALLY FORBIDDEN TO TAKE ANY ACTION WHICH WOULD EXPOSE CORRUPTION OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY AND REPUTATION OF THE JUDICIARY, AND OF OTHER LAWYERS.

When you file any professional complaint against a lawyer or judge, your complaint is reviewed by lawyers. Lawyers who are professionally FORBIDDEN to take action which would expose corruption or adversely affect the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and of other lawyers.

YES, FORBIDDEN TO TAKE ANY ACTION. If they do, they are subjected to disciplinary action. (I am not certain if it is possible to request a non-lawyer investigator.)

The self-policed judicial branch of Pennsylvania government is prevented from taking any action to police itself. The Disciplinary Board and the Judicial Conduct Board are staffed with lawyers who must follow their twisted codebook. While failing to responsibly police itself, the Judicial Branch of Pennsylvania Government has become a delusional self-serving organization arrogantly determined to conceal, conspire and corrupt.

So we have the answer to that question… The Public needs protection from their aggressive maintenance and clandestine safeguarding of lawyers and judges. Their Rules of Professional Conduct which subvert and undermine any sense of justice; deny victims any explanation; retaliate with malice with the only possible escape being to return and be further victimized.

An Overview of THE PROBLEM

Lawyers and judges MUST report violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, EXCEPT WHERE the revelation of the corruption and crimes would negatively affect the reputation and integrity of lawyers and judges; or possibly cause their clients to lose; or expose their clients committing perjury or other crimes.

The high moral ground of the first phrase is rendered empty and meaningless after applying the three reasonable exceptions.
1) Protect the system.
2) Protect the client.
3) Do not self-incriminate.

So what has caused THE PROBLEM. Where do the three reasonable exceptions break to the point of undermining everything?

---

I went to Harrisburg. I knocked on doors. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Judicial Conduct Board. I wanted to speak to someone about what had happened to me. Something happened which can only be described as SERENDIPITY. The people I wanted to meet were unavailable. I wanted to speak to the people at the top of the organizations that ignored me, or their second, or third, or fourth. I wanted someone to see the face of their victim. They were unavailable also.

The people I met with did not turn their backs, hang up a phone, dismiss a complaint, ignore a request for help or parrot the NO JURISDICTION script.

My encounter with these people began AFTER the Attorney General’a office sent a man to meet me on a bench in a mall at the busy entrance to their office building. I squatted on the floor, while he wasted the predetermined amount of time, not listening, refusing to look at anything, and snarking remarks from the same script. Either I was being disrespected or I am expected to believe that Attorney General Kathleen Kane is taking complaints regarding corruption of the entire Montgomery County Judiciary and Courthouse in the middle of Strawberry Square.

This has been going on since 2007. Disrespect. Humiliation. Mockery. I have been forced to persevere while having to seek justice from the same judiciary responsible for injustice. As each judge sacrificed their integrity for the prior judges, they retaliated against their the victim for surviving. Showing respect to those who disrespect me does not diminish my dignity.

SERENDIPITY.
The Justice Center in Harrisburg seemed to provide the perfect environment. There were no false reports to security stations. There was no escort.
The people opened doors. They did not shout through glass.
They walked around glass walls, opened the door.
Greetings and introductions were exchanged in the same room.
Those contacted from hallway phones, did not dismiss the person seeking information.
They asked a man in the corner office to speak to the person in the hall.
He walked to the door and welcomed me in to his office to speak.
The entire emphasis was not focused on how to end the conversation.

I requested to meet with those at the top of the organizations. I wanted to explain how their system victimized me to the point of destruction. I wanted to assure them that IT DID HAPPEN. I wanted them to meet the victim. I wanted to present how, why, when where, who and what happened. I wanted to recommend a change so it would not happen again to another person.

Not one person was available. YET, the result of the day was the most successful day in years.

Genuine, honest and sincere conversations with interested, knowledgeable and responsible people. They had no idea of who I was. There was no liability to protect. They had nothing to cover-up. There was no secrecy, no whispers, no hiding. They listened to my story. They heard my story. When I presented the problem, they appreciated that I pointed to the cause and asked their advice to work on the resolution.

The header of this web site has said the same line since I started typing. “Every person in a position to help has acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter… they each make the situation worse… NO ONE HELPS.” On August 1, 2013, I had finally escaped and spoken to people who had not been manipulated into a liability. During the last meeting of the day, the realization that I had broken free from the manipulation hit me. It was emotional.

---

THE PROBLEM

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information applies across the full scope of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Rule 1.6 on the surface seems reasonable. It maintains the integrity. It safeguards reputation. BUT, IT DIDN’T PROTECT THE PUBLIC because it didn’t protect me. It prevents the me from information. It excludes me from the discussion. It undermined justice. It prevented justice. It clearly denied the Court of any appearance of impartiality. It created Ex Parte situations between the judiciary and the lawyers to the exclusion of a Pro Se litigant.

There is only one possible solution to the problem AND IT MUST be considered for immediate implementation into the Rules of Professional Conduct as this problem affects all Pro Se litigants.

1. Where one party in an action files an appearance to proceed Pro Se, RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION must be suspended for the duration of the matter. There can be no waiver of this suspension which is applicable to all persons who are subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

2. The 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION is unconstitutional as it effectively denies a Pro Se litigant of State and Federally protected Constitutional rights.

3. The 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION creates an administrative and professional burden upon the parties, agents, investigators, advisors and investigators involved in actions filed by Pro Se litigants.

4. In a nutshell, once you file to proceed Pro Se, you are excluded from any communication of lawyers errors or judicial when you go Pro Se, they can no longer speak with you about their ‘errors’. If they have no errors, you survive unscathed.

If they have no ‘secrets’ before you go Pro Se, you need to be aware that should lawyer violate a procedure. When the lawyer violates that procedure, the judge is not permitted to discuss it with you. You ask about it. You are ignored. The judge is required by 1.6 to maintain confidentiality.

Then, the real nightmare begins. If you report it to the Disciplinary Board. They will not communicate with you about it. The lawyer at the Disciplinary Board is required by 1.6 to maintain confidentiality.

Every petition and complaint causes more confidentiality. The courtroom, the Disciplinary Board, the Judicial Conduct Board. Lawyers who must follow the code. You will not be able to hire a lawyer. They will repeatedly tell you to hire a lawyer as if it would change anything.

1.6 denies you every civil and constitutional right. Apparently, the lawyers confidentiality rule is more powerful than your Constitutional Rights, State Ruights, Human Rights and evbery procedure and law in the land.

Rule 1.6 is Unconstitutional to Pro Se Litigants. It must be addressed. Every Pro Se victim that watched their life fall apart… does the above make sense to you. The worse it got, the more you tried, the harder it got, and the more ignored your situiation. The problem is now solved.

I’ve got 8 years of litigation where this explains everything. Apply it to your situation and respond to this post. hit me on Facebook. And let’s get to Washington… and get our families back.

There remains one question/issue/hurdle. I hope to have it addressed by Monday.

Tom Ball… Sorry, I didn’t find it in time.

We are long past the time where someone should make the call, accept the liability, stop the attacks, and address the situation. It is not going away until it is addressed. Someon has top take responsibility. To have integrity. I have arrived. Give me your best offer and we can end the nightmare dfor people all over the USA.

---

---

Complaints are not reviewed. Not investigated. This is not a cynical concept. It is the reality documented in the Rules of Professional Conduct. Everyone dismisses people who complain about the system. No one wants to believe the courts are that screwed up that. Their victim is the only one who must believe in the justice system. The victim returns time and time again to only find that once victimized further injustice is inescapable.

Somehow the victim has hope. Those without hope do not survive. Those with hope get destroyed.

Investigators have falsely stated they have reviewed my complaint. Do they mean reviewed as in cut and pasted a few sentences from the document into their dismissal letter? They summarily dismiss the complaint without addressing any of the reported issues. There is no reason provided for the dismissal. They send a 3 page letter full of absolute disconnected nonsense which indicates they dismissed it because they did. THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO MAKE THEM REVIEW THE COMPLAINT – OR DO IT RESPONSIBLY.

You cannot appeal their dismissal. DUH! This information is useful. It will prevent you from wasting time. There is no way you could appeal a decision when you have absolutely no information of what actions they took. They are NOT going to tell you they took no action. Ignoring the complaint is NOT an action. If an appeal process would be permitted, every appeal would be a resubmission of the entire complaint. There is no explanation. NONE. This prevents further questions.

Investigator Alan J. Davis had used “quotes” around the word “unethical” in his dismissal letter.

It is very clear why disciplinary counsel Alan J. Davis used “quotes” around the word “unethical”. The Rules of Professional Conduct require a special kind of “ethics” which clearly requires quotes to differentiate from real ethics.

In my opinion, Alan J Davis is an “idiot”. BUT, a special kind of “idiot”. See that. I learn quickly. I did it too!

His dismissal letter arrived within days of the complaint, and two days after I delivered the initial supporting documentation for each transgression. (Outlined Here) Alan misrepresents that “we have reviewed your complaint and extensive documentation in detail”. Their investigative process requires another person do the same. Kudos for that incredible efficiency – two reviews of extensive documentation in detail in under 2 days.

Does this arrogant “idiot” have any credibility? Alan refused to meet with me for a few minutes to review the complaint. I was in the lobby of his office. He was there. He was not in any meetings. He refused to permit me to simply hand him the “extensive documentation”. He “investigated” and dismissed the complaint in it’s entirety without addressing any specific content of the complaint. He used a form letter which he previously used in May 2011, but for some reason he left out the warnings about publicly revealing the complaint.

Alan, a more honest response could have gone like this…

Dear Mr Healy, I am a “lawyer” and as such cannot investigate the crimes you have reported against lawyers and judges. If I did, the rules would require ME to be disciplined for doing so. This is my important “job” to protect the reputation and integrity of judges and lawyers especially those who have NONE! I did not wish to meet you personally, or speak with you because doing so would make me sad about my important job. It is easier for me to believe the victims of my dismissed complaints do not have faces, or families. Therefore, I ignore and dismiss, while endorsing and encouraging the continued retaliation against victims like yourself terrorized by inescapable injustice to eventual suicide. Very truly yours, Alan J. Davis Disciplinary Counsel

---

The following are some lines from the PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT I had to check and confirm to make sure this document was real. It is the most twisted set of self-erasing rules I have ever encountered. At ninety pages long, it is a remarkable distortion and perversion of professional responsibilities which promote, endorse, guide and conceal activities by an attorney which any reasonable person might consider unprofessional, inappropriate, or “unethical”.

Integrity requires responsibility. Reputation is earned. Integrity based on sacrificing the integrity of others causes an inescapable injustice for the victim.

---

When a lawyer presents fraudulent information to the court, but does so at the request of the client. The lawyer is coerced into committing Fraud Upon The Court.
BUT, that’s OK!

The disclosure of a client’s false testimony can result in grave consequences to the client, including not only a sense of betrayal but also loss of the case and perhaps a prosecution for perjury. But the alternative is that the lawyer cooperate in deceiving the court, thereby subverting the truth-finding process which the adversary system is designed to implement. See Rule 1.2(d). Furthermore, unless it is clearly understood that the lawyer will act upon the duty to disclose the existence of false evidence, the client can simply reject the lawyer’s advice to reveal the false evidence and insist that the lawyer keep silent. Thus the client could in effect coerce the lawyer into being a party to fraud on the court.

Lawyers cannot do ANYTHING to expose corruption, crime or fraudulent conduct if it undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
CORRUPT JUDGES MAY NOT BE EXPOSED AS THEIR ACTIONS EMBARRASS THE OTHER CORRUPT JUDGES.

Preserving Integrity of Adjudicative Process Lawyers have a special obligation to protect a tribunal against criminal or fraudulent conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process, such as bribing, intimidating or otherwise unlawfully communicating with a witness, juror, court official or other participant in the proceeding, unlawfully destroying or concealing documents or other evidence or failing to disclose information to the tribunal when required by law to do so. Thus, paragraph (b) requires a lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure if necessary, whenever the lawyer knows that a person, including the lawyer’s client, intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding.

Lawyers may not influence or secretly manipulate the judiciary’s impartiality, UNLESS THEY DO IT IN A WAY THAT COMPLETELY SUBVERTS THE LAW AND CAUSES THE JUDGES ACTIONS TO BE HUMILIATING WHEN EXPOSED, EMBARASSING TO ANYONE WITH A SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG, AND NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF ALL JUDGES.
Then, IT’S OK.

Rule 3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal A lawyer shall not: (a) seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law; (b) communicate ex parte with such a person during the proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or court order;

The lawyer cannot be a witness to contested facts.
– When evidence was building which indicated to the Court that NO HEARING had taken place on the issue. Judge Page noticed that the testimony was indicative that a hearing had not taken place. When he asked Valerie Angst, AS A SWORN OFFICER OF THE COURT, she lied to the court with embellished coaching by Judge Page which assured that there was no evidence or record which could support her fraud.

Lawyer’s lies protect them from disciplinary action from the judges they protect and corrupt.

Rule 3.7 Lawyer as Witness (a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless: (1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue; (2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or (3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.

[1] Combining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the tribunal and the opposing party and can also involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client.

Lawyers may lie to ANYONE, at ANYTIME. It’s REQUIRED where telling the truth will violate a secret.

HONESTLY, Can you believe this is a code of conduct for the LEGAL Profession??

Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid aiding and abetting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.

Lawyers MUST report the professional misconduct of lawyers, AND judges, UNLESS the misconduct results from manipulative actions by the lawyers planned in confidential conversations with their client. The reputation of lawyers, the integrity of judges, and the “confidentiality of their misconduct” MUST BE PROTECTED.

LAWYERS CRIMES MUST BE IGNORED TO PROTECT THE ‘ETHICS” OF THE PROFESSION.

Rule 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct (a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority. (b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority. (c) This Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6 or information gained by a lawyer or judge while participating in an approved lawyers assistance program.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality

“approved lawyers assistance program” = IS THIS DRUG REHAB?

BREAK THE RULES AND SEE DISCIPLINARY ACTION. HA HA. NOT REALLY.
The history indicates that they only address the ridiculous complaints, usually from within their professional legal community, often for forgetting to take a class, or pay their professional registration fees.

Rule 8.4 Misconduct It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or (f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.

My absolute favorite twisted rule has got to be the most clearly designed to cover up any real disciplinary activity… and deliberately deny the information from the public. It won’t even show up on the Courts web site which falsely suggests you can search attorneys who are admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, and obtain information such as an attorney’s status or whether an attorney has been subjected to public discipline.

If a lawyer IS ACTUALLY disciplined by the Board
AND the lawyer admits and accepts the Disciplinary Penalty – suspension, sanction, etc
The Disciplinary Board will conceal ANY RECORD OF THE INFRACTION AND IT WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT INCLUDED IN THAT COOL SEARCH ENGINE THE COURTS MAKE AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE TO CHECK OUT THEIR LAWYERS.

You may have been wondering about those who do get disciplined. Read the Opinions. Suspended for missing a class or forgetting to update their registration. NOTHING REAL THERE. ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS.

If Valerie Angst got spanked for her deliberate actions which attempted to manipulate Judge Haaz into issuing an order without jurisdiction or authority, if she admitted it, IT WOULD BE KEPT SECRET. It would also delay the hearing until she wasn’t suspended any longer.
Perhaps for 6 months, during which time the court fails to schedule the hearing; the court fails to respond to letters regarding the delay; and accrues potential DAILY penalties against the Defendant. AS LONG AS SHE ADMITTED HER MANIPULATIVE MISDEEDS IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES, The Disciplinary Board would NEVER publicly announce the matter.

Now you might say, BUT the RULES say she must tell opposing counsel involved in pending litigation of the suspension.

Valerie Angst couldn’t get disciplined where it would reveal the complicity of the judiciary in failing to inform the Defendant.
So they hide it, she lies, the judge is forced to covers for her. But the issue is exposed in court, on the record.
The Judge prevents Defendant from asking any question which would explain the delay and potentially expose the suspension.
The Judge absurdly orders a homeless Defendant, unemployed since 2007, to pay over $300,000 in penalties for non-compliance with a Court Order.
The Judge ignored that the Defendant had complied with THAT order, and all prior orders.
The Judge ignored the evidence that the order he was enforcing was Void Ab Initio. Admitting this would expose the malice of Judge Carluccio.
The Judge ignored that the Plaintiff had committed perjury during the hearing.
The Judge ignored that the Plaintiff had never complied with ANY Court Order.
The Judge ignored that since commencement of the matter each attempt to enforce Plaintiff’s compliance with court orders was denied, ignored, dismissed or NEVER scheduled for a hearing.
Judge Page wanted to BURY the Defendant so deep in debt that he would never recover, lose hope and commit suicide.
Judge Page provided an opportunity for an Appeal to Superior Court because of his absurd order.
The new Appeal revealed the obstruction of justice and abuse of power under color of law by Judge Carolyn Carluccio who blocked the prior Appeal.
Then, Judge Page went ALL OUT – Abuse of Power under color of law, acting without jurisdiction, obstruction of justice, manipulation of court reporters, concealing exhibits presented during the hearings from the Superior Court.

The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s documented and advertised goals are to protect the public, maintain the integrity of the legal profession and to safeguard the reputation of the courts. They unashamedly fail to protect the public. They focus on maintaining integrity of the legal professionals who lack integrity. They safeguard the reputation of judges whose injustice and corruption shame the Court. They conceal endorse and contribute to a ever growing injustice which attacks the public one person, one family at a time.

The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct lacks ethics, legality or any sense of honor. It delivers an ever expanding injustice while ignoring its victims. It tolerates, creates and protects corruption. It guides a self-policing branch of Government to ignore law, denies rights, and abuses it’s power without taking responsibility for it’s complete failure to deliver justice while projecting an delusion of integrity upon itself to hide it’s shame.

The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct – YOU CANNOT POLISH A TURD.

THE ONLY WAY OUT OF PENNSYLVANIA’S JUDICIAL CORRUPTION IS TO BRING IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Sonya Healy	: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
(Appellee)	: 1330 EDA 2013
	:
v.	:
	:
Terance Healy	:
(Appellant)	:

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF COMPLETE COURT RECORD

COUNT ONE:
FAILURE TO DELIVER THE COMPLETE RECORD OF THE MATTER

1. Pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Prothonotary of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania was directed to provide the record for this matter being appealed before the Superior Court.

2. The Prothonotary failed to prepare and deliver the record by the date directed by the Superior Court. (June 28, 2013)

3. The Prothonotary has failed to deliver the complete record to the Superior Court.

4. The Service List of Record Documents transmitted by Mark Levy, Prothonotary on July 8 2013 includes reference numbers where documents have NOT been delivered.

5. The Service List of Record Documents transmitted lists documents which have not been delivered to the Superior Court on July 8, 2013 or July 11, 2013.

COUNT TWO:
FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE TRANSCRIPTS FOR THE MATTER

6. Transcripts related to hearings on the matter have not been prepared and delivered to the Superior Court.

7. Requests for the Production of Transcripts pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure were requested (1) concurrent with the filing of the Notice of Appeal; (2) updated on May 15, 2013; (3) resubmitted on May 22, 2013.

8. Court Reporters have neglected to prepare and deliver the Transcripts as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

COUNT THREE:
INCOMPLETE TRANSCRIPTS ARE MISSING REFERENCED EXHIBITS

9. Transcripts which have been provided are missing referenced Exhibits.

10. This omission has been presented to the Court Reporters and the Court Reporters Office in Norristown. There has been no response or action regarding the missing documents.

Whereas, the Appellant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court address the issues presented and issue an Order
-requiring the Prothonotary to immediately Produce the COMPLETE record of the matter.
-requiring the immediate preparation and production of the transcripts for the matter.
-requiring the production of the missing exhibits referenced in transcripts.
which will permit this Appeal to proceed according to the schedule provided.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/Terance Healy/s/
Terance Healy
Pro Se

c/o 871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Sonya Healy	: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
(Appellee)	: 1330 EDA 2013
	:
v.	:
	:
Terance Healy	:
(Appellant)	:

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I am this 25th day of July, 2013 serving the foregoing

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF COMPLETE COURT RECORD

upon the persons and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R.A.P. 121:

Service by FIRST CLASS MAIL	Sonya Healy
	c/o Angst & Angst
	Harleysville, PA

Service by FIRST CLASS MAIL	Mark Levy, Prothonotary
	Montgomery County Courthouse
	Norristown, PA

Service by FIRST CLASS MAIL	Judge Garrett Page
	Montgomery County Courthouse
	Norristown, PA

July 24, 2013
Terance Healy
Pro Se
c/o 871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976

Once again, paperwork has been delivered… Matka Boska, there’s always more paperwork.

Issue: Where are the Certificates of Service?

– Angst & Angst lawyers did not deliver the petitions to the Defendant
– Assured a lack of jurisdiction for the judge
– Lack of jurisdiction = Abuse of power under color of law

---

Issue: Where are the Scheduling Orders for the Hearings?

– No hearings are scheduled
– Court has no intention of holding hearings
– Prevents preparation by the Defendant

---

Issue: Secretly Cancelled Hearings

– Cancel hearings by email/praecipe to Court Administration WITH NO NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
– When caught (ON THE RECORD), Reschedule
– Cancel by email/praecipe AGAIN WITH NO NOTICE TO PARTIES
– Keep one hearing on schedule, if Defendant appears, prepared for all, cancel and call security.
– Keep one hearing on schedule, if Defendant does NOT appear, default DISMISS ALL PETITIONS. Failed Attempt.
– Ponder why Plaintiff did not appear even though they wrote to the court asking if the date was cancelled

---

Issue: The NEW Illegal Local Rule permits this to be done by email

– The certificate on the County Site corrupts security on local computers
– Grants access to all devices disks and peripherals
– The County site indicates the litigants who have permitted their computers to be corrupted
– Anyone can hack into the litigants computers to prevent email from delivery
– Attempts by the Court to create ‘no shows’ have been so clearly deliberate, now the Court can do so by email failure and blame their victim for not knowing about the hearing when their system clearly enables the action. DELIBERATE CORRUPTION BY DESIGN! ANY IT PROFESSIONAL COULD SEE THIS FAILURE TO THE PROCESS. NORRISTOWN WANTS TO CLEAR THEIR DOCKETS AND HAS THE CRIMINAL TOOLS TO DO SO. Ask Gabriele Drexler about email security.

---

Issue: Petitions have been withdrawn after Judge issues order granting EVERYTHING.

---

Issue: Extortion in the Court.

---

ISSUE: Pending Appeal of the Divorce Decree/Equitable Distribution

– Order May 9, 2011
– Reconsideration filed by Defendant June 6, 2011
– Reconsideration filed by Defendant June 9, 2011 as EMERGENCY
– NOT an Emergency on June 10, 2011 Schedule in due course
– June 23, 2011 – Reconsideration scheduled for June 14, 2011
– July 14, 2011 – Response filed by Plaintiff
– July 14, 2011 – Response filed by Plaintiff (Dup1icate)
– July 14, 2011 – Transcript Judge Carluccio admits to not having Junsdiction
– July 14, 2011 – Transcript Judge Cariuccio commits extrinsic fraud

The issues are procedural errors and extrinsic fraud.

Defective Order CANNOT be Final Order.

Period for filing an Appeal is 5 years.

– August 15, 2011 — Appeal filed by Defendant
– August 15, 2011 – Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Carluccio)
– August 15, 2011 — Transcript Requests
– August 22, 2011 – Order for Concise Statement of Errors Complained of On Appeal
– September 15, 2011 – Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal filed by Defendant
– September 19, 2011 – RESUBMISSION Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
– October 19, 2011 – Opinion by Judge Carluccio
(Neglects to address ANY relevant facts— suggests the Appeal is not filed timely and uses incorrect references for tolling the statute of limitations)
– The Prothonotary fails to forward the Appeal to the Superior Court Of Pennsylvania.

The Appeal is Pending

The Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is Pending

The Resubmitted Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is Pending
– KBR from Court Administration contacts the Defendant by phone and indicates she has been told to return the IFP to the Defendant
– There is no instruction from the Judge
– There is no request for additional information by the Judge
– There is no explanation from the Judge
– The documents have been filed properly
– The Judge has not ruled on the petition(s)
– Defendant suggests KBR return the IFP(s) to Judge Carluccio for action/instructions/scheduling

The Pending Appeal should stay any actions related to the order being appealed.

The Pending Appeal should stay any enforcement actions related to the order being appealed.

---

ISSUE: The Order of September 23,2011 Failure to conduct heariugs/permit testimony

The Protracted hearing on September 23,2011 was ordered on July 18, 2011

“A Protracted Hearing on Plaintiffs counter Petition for Sanctions filed July 14, 2011 is scheduled for Fnday September 23, 2011 fi-om 10 30 a: in until noon”

1.5 Hours were scheduled for the hearing.

NOW READ HOW THOSE 1.5 Hours get loaded up to the point where issues could not possibly be addressed. The judge had no intention of HEARING anything. The plan was to ignore and terrorize… All filings by defendant were necessary. Unfortunately, they were ALL ignored by the judge who demonstrated her fraud, corruption, conspiracy to deny justice and complete denial of civil, human and property rights. Judge Carolyn Carluccio decided to push her victim to suicide. And I wouldn’t oblige. This INFURIATED her… and her stupidity and malice was documented, on the record and completely out of control.

The docket shows that there was no Certificate of Service for the Plaintiff Counter Petition for Sanctions filed 7/14/2011

---

On July 21, 2011 Defendant filed
PETITION REQUESTING AN IMMEDIATE STAY/RESCHEDULING REGARDING TUE ORDER OF JULY 18, 2011 AS THE INCOMPLETE WRITTEN ORDER PLACES THE DEFENDANT IN JEOPARDY

The Court had issued a verbal order into the record.
The transcript would not be available for weeks.
The Defendant believed be would be subjected to arrest for following the verbal order as the available printed documents indicated he must vacate the property.

Police were called when Defendant was photographing the Plaintiff’s dissipation of assets August 2011 and September 2011. Just photographing my possessions being thrown away resulted in police being called. I was not on the property. I remained across the street, so police coulsd not say I had not vacated the property and arrest me.

On August 17, 2011, the Short List was scheduled for September 20, 2011

---

On August 15, 2011 Defendant filed (concurrent with the filing of a NOTICE OF APPEAL)
Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
On August 15, 2011, Defendant filed an Appeal of the Defective Order of May 9, 2011 (Divorce Decree & Equitable Distribution)

---

On August 19, 2011 Defendant filed
Petition Requesting the Scheduling of Outstanding Petitions

This Petition recapped the number of petitions which remained unheard by the Court

Since the August 12, 2010 discovery of a Secret Ex Parte, Undocketed and Undistributed Order issued by Judge Rhonda Daniele, Petitions submitted by the Defendant were no longer heard.

---

On August 30, 2011 Defendant filed
Petition Requesting Distribution/Docketing of Ex Parte Court Order
While seeking Police intervention of the Plaintiffs dissipation of Assets (which was denied), Defendant learned that Montgomery Township Police were requested by the Montgomery County Deputies to assist in ensuring that the Defendant had vacated the Property on June 9,2011

Montgomery County Sheriff Eileen Behr has CONFIRMED her deputies being dispatched to the house, BUT she has neglected to provide any information as to WHY, or at who’s request they were dispatched. Sheriff Behr was surprised during our face to face conversation when the system also had no explanation for the deputies being dispatched. Though I had set her expectations when she asked for the information to be printed and delivered to her.

---

On August 31, 2011 Defendant filed
Petition Requesting Documents and Injunction Blocking Sale of the Home Until Appeal by The Superior Court of Pennsytvania Has Been Decided

Plaintiff was failing to provide any information regarding the Sale of the Home — a violation of Power Of Attorney
The Real estate Agent would not Provide any information
The verbal order of July 18, 2011 had ordered removal of the Defendant’s property by the closing date of the home
Defendant was not disclosing that date
The Appeal had been filed and no action had been taken with regard to supersedeas or stays while the appeal is pending

---

On September 1, 2011 Defendant filed (AS EMERGENCY)
Petition Requesting Documents and Injunction Blocking SaIe of the Honie Until Appeal by The Supenor Court of Pennsylvania Bas Been Decided

---

On September 1, 2011 Defendant filed
Petition Regard Ing the Seheduling of Outstanding Petitions

---

On September 2, 2011 Defendant filed
Petition for the Recusal of Judge Carolyn Carluccio

---

On September 6, 2011, on the faxed Request of the Plaintiff, Judge Carluccio IMMEDIATELY continued the hearing scheduled for September 20, 2011 to September 23, 2011 to accommodate the Plaintiff’s inability to appear.
– On August 17,2011 The DEFENDANT PETIflON REQUESTING AN IMMEDIATE STAY had been seheduled for September 20, 2011
– Closing Date for the house had been set on JuIy 24, 2011 and signed/accepted by Plaintiff on July 27, 2011
– The Closing date was scheduled for September 20, 2011
– Plaintiff intentionally prevented the Defendant from knowing the closing date A violation of Power of Attomey Law
– Real Rstate Agent, Chris Grucella had dehberately and intentionally prevented the Defendant from knowing the closing date
– Keller Wilhiams Real Estate has deliberately and intentionally prevented the Defendant from knowing the closing date
– Their conspiracy to commit the fraudulent sale of the home is undeniable
– It is not unreasonable to suggest that Plaintiff had rnformed Angst & Angst of her reason for being “unable to attend” on September 20,2011
– Angst & Angst were deliberately and intentionally creating an appearance of unpropnety for Judge Carluccio
– Judge Carluccio did endorse and encourage the an appearance of impropriety by her immediate response to the faxed continuance request without any opportunity for the Defendant to object

On September 23, 2011, whzle reviewing the above information, when the appearance of impropriety became undeniable and clearly evident, Judge Carluccio interrupted the Defendant’s review of information LOUDLY denying any wrongdoingprior before the accusation had even been suggested let alone defiantly made.

Judge Carolyn Carluccio accused the Defendant of requiring 7 deputies around him because of him being intimidating. She neglected to mention her false report to the deputies office in May. The defendant quite clearly told her that HE was NOT intimidating, however, the truth and the law were very intimidating and as the law and the truth were clearly against her, she likely found that very intimidating.

As part of her continuance Order, the following petitions were additionally scheduled for September 23,2011. NO ADDITIONAL TIME WAS ALLOCATED.

PETITION REQUESTING AN 1MMDIATE STAY/RESCREDULING REGARDING THE ORDER OF JULY 18, 2011 AS THE INCOMPLETE WRITTEN ORDER PLACES THE DEFENDANT IN JEOPARDY(filed July 21, 2011)

PETITION REGARDING THE SCHEDULING OF OUTSTANDING PET1TIONS (filed September 1, 2011)

PETITION FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE CAROLYN CARLUCCIO (filed September 2, 2011)

Even though the three additional petitions were added for the date, NO ADDITIONAL TIME WAS ALLOCATED ON THE COURT SCHEDULE.

---

On September 12, 2011, the following petitions were additionally scheduled for September 23, 2011
PETITION REQUESTING DISTRIBUION/DOCKETING OF EX PARTE COURT ORDER (filed August 30, 2011)

PETITION REQUESTING DOCUMENTS AND INJUNCTION BLOCKING SÄLE OF THE HOME UNTIL APPEAL BY TEE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HAS BEEN DECIDED (filed August 31, 2011)

Even thougb the two additional petitions were added for the date, NO ADDITIONAL TIME WAS ALLOCATED ON THE COURT SCHEDULE.

---

---

On September 23, 2011, 1.5 hours have been allowed to hear the following petitions:

COUNTER PETITION FOR SANCTIONS (filed July 14,2011) 6 pages, 35 paragraphs

PETITION REQUESTING AN 1MMDIATE STAY/RESCREDULING REGARDING THE ORDER OF JULY 18, 2011 AS THE INCOMPLETE WRITTEN ORDER PLACES THE DEFENDANT IN JEOPARDY (filed July 21, 2011) 3 pages,9 paragraphs

PETITION REGARDING THE SCHEDULING OF OUTSTANDING PETITIONS (filed September 1, 2011) 4 pages, 5 paragraphs

PETITION FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE CAROLYN CARLUCCIO (filed September 2,2011)11 pages, 79 paragraphs

PETITION REQUESTING DISTRIBUTION/DOCKETLNG OF EX PARTE COURT ORDER (filed August 30, 2011) 1 page,4 paragiaphs

PETITION REQUESTING DOCUMENTS AND INJIJNCTION BLOCKING SALE OF THE HOME IJNTIL APPEAL BY TUE SUPERJOR COURT 0? PENNSYLVANIA BAS BEEN DECLDED (filed August 31, 2011) 5 pages, 34 paragraphs

The following petitions remained unscheduled
PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (filed August 15,2011)

PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (filed September 19,2011)

PETITION REQUESTING SCHEDULING OF OUTSTANDING PETITLONS (filed August 19, 2011)

YET ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2011

PLAINTIFF SONYA HEALY’S RESPONSE TO PETITION REQUESTING DOCUMENTS AND INJUNCTION BLOCKING SALE 0F HOME UNTIL APPEAL BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HAS BEEN DECIDED
And;
COUNTERPETITION FOR JUDGE TO ORDER DISBURSEMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALES OF TEE MARITAL RESIDENCE AS WELL AS SANCTIONS FOR
DEFENDANT’S FRIVOLOUS FILINGS, AND DECLARATORY ORDER PROHIBITING ANY FURTHER FILINGS UNDER THIS DIVORCE DOCKET 9 pages, 70 paragraphs

Filed immediately before the hearing,
accepted/docketed by the Prothonotary on September 23, 2011 at 9:17 AM,
delivered to the Defendant at the beginning of the proceeding,
not properly served,
and withdrawn on September 28,2011 at 4:59 PM
SUPERCEDED ALL other petitions and prevented any testimony or presentation of evidence on the other petitions scheduled to be heard.

THEY ILLEGALLY SOLD MY HOME, THREW OUT ALL OF MY POSSESSIONS, CONSPIRED WITH THE JUDGE, AND REVEALED IT ALL IN COURT WHILE I WAS SURROUNDED BY 7 DEPUTIES THEY WANTED AN ANGRY REACTION WHERE THEY COULD JAIL ME.

Judge Carluccio wanted to beat me up, in public, on the record, in front of a packed courtroom. To bully a Defendant who had been robbed of everything except his integrity and his dignity.

Judge Carluccio wanted my suicide. I did not oblige. She was going to make me pay for forcing her to cover her fraud and corruption.

BUT THERE WAS MORE… Valerie Angst proceeded to blackmail the judge into giving her an additional $11,000.
– when showing the judge the invoices for attorney fees.
– A COPY TO REVIEW WAS DENIED THE DEFENDANT.
– A COPY OF THE DOCUMENT WAS DENIED TO THE DEFENDANT.
– The Ex Parte Document exchanged between Valerie Angst & Judge Carolyn Carluccio was not provided to the defendant BECAUSE IT LISTED OUT THE EX PARTE MEETINGS AND CALLS WHICH SET THE STAGE FOR THE KANGAROO PROCEEDING.
– They were granted $14,000 where they had requested $3,000.

Remember, the matter was under Appeal. The Judge had acknowledged that on the record.

Remember, the lawyers REPEATEDLY FAILED to follow due process which prevents the judge from having jurisdiction. This was deliberate and intentional and designed to manipulate the judges. The tactic succeeded on ALL but one judge. He saw through it, REACTED APPROPRIATELY, AND THEN NEVER HELD THE HEARING, AND WAS REASSIGNED MYSTERIOUSLY AND INEXPLICABLY 6 MONTHS LATER. That was Judge Haaz – formerly of the Supreme Court of PA Disciplinary Organization.

YET, the judges have continued to retaliate against the Defendant, ME, for surviving their 8 years of terror. Attempting to protect the integrity of a judiciary which lacked integrity. And Boldly, Deliberately and Proudly demonstrated their lack of integrity because the next judge would cover for their failures and sacrifice his own integrity at that time. It’s a slippery slope. Ask the 18 judges on the Montgomery County Bench. All but 2 lacked integrity. Judge Haaz as mentioned above, and Judge Dickman who passed away in 2007 – thought the notes on her orders seemed to indicate she knew the types of malicious and vexacious and destructive lawyers involved. Valerie Angst and Robert Angst.

Judge Carolyn Carluccio and the 17 prior judges in this mattrer had been manipulated into fraud, abuse, conspiracy and corruption by Angst & Angst. Lawyers who would throw them under the bus at the first opportunity. Each time they pointed out the judge’s crimes. the judge recused or ordered against the Defendant.

No Judge has held the Plaintiff accountable for failing to follow EVERY Court Order. They had leverage. AND THEY WERE NOT AFRAID TO USE IT.

Judge Garret Page issued an enforcement order for payment of over $300,000 to a Defendant who had been unemployed since 2007 and left homeless by a void order while failing to address the lack of jurisdiction of the void order based on a void based on a void defective order.

On Appeal, Judge Page initially ignored the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. After an entire day of judges refusing to hearing the IFP, Judge Page granted the petition. Judge Page then requested a concise statement of issued being raised on appeal. Upon being provided with that listing, Judge Page (without jurisdiction) revoked the IFP. There was no hearing. There was no explanation.

When asked for a hearing / explanation. Judge Page denied petitions for the same.

Unable to appeal a denial of an IFP because the Prothonotary would not accept an Appeal without an IFP. Judge Page intentionally issued orders without jurisdiction knowing there would be no way around his actions.

Judge Page, with full knowledge of what was being challenged in the Appeal, then contacted the court reporters and instructed them to NOT provide the transcripts for the hearings required for the Appeal to proceed. Judge Page was intimidating at least one of the court reporters who regularly worked with him. THAT reporter also neglected to submit exhibits along with previously transcribed transcripts.

Judge Page is acting to prevent the Appeal of his order, because it exposes the denial of access to the courts and the denial of an Appeal filed on August 15, 2011. That Appeal was blocked by Judge Carolyn Carluccio. Who refused to hear the IFP at that time, while acknoweledging the appeal and preventing transcripts from being produced at that time. At the time Defendant was appealing a defective divorce decree which left Defendant homeless and disposed of ALL of his property while conspiring with the Plaintiff and her attorneys to deny and delay hearings.

This all occurs after 8 years of divorce litigation where the Defendant has been denied prompt custody hearings, and denied any enforcement actions against the Plaintiff. Causing the Defendant to be in tremendous debt, and not being permitted to see his children for years.

Prior Complaints to the JCB have been ignored, not investigated and summarily dismissed while the judiciary continues to terrorize the Defendant. All actions designed to conceal the initial malicious order, kept secret for 3 years, issued by Judge Rhonda Daniele without hearing, without being distributed to the Defendant, and without ever meeting with the Defendant. That SECRET Order was used to leverage the judges to misdeed, which once discovered and documented resulted in their prompt recusal and the injustice being moved to the next judge’s courtroom.

8 Years.

18 Judges.

ONE TERRORISTIC DIVORCE.

The inescapable injustice is documented.

I will not let myself be violated by the memory as I was violated by the actions of the courts.

Oh, President Carter you have no idea of the damage they have done. Not just in the surveillance, but in the efforts to prevent their unconstitutional and unconscionable actions from being exposed.

I’ve had a few chances to speak with Former President Carter in the past. He was always a friendly and sincere man. No matter where the encounter took place Jimmy Carter was personal and genuine. Whether at Independence Hall in Philadelphia or an early morning in Chicago’s O’Hare Airport, he was just himself.

A truly respectable quality. A truly respectable leader.

And in an age of political slander and dirty tricks, I am reminded of what was done to President Carter on his last day in office. They negotiated with terrorists in an attempt to humiliate the man. They failed.

You can never take away the quality of character demonstrated by President Carter. They only demonstrated how low they would venture using innocent people as political tools.

---

From Der Spiegel Online

NSA affair: Ex-President Carter Condemns U.S. Snooping By Gregor Peter Schmitz, from Atlanta 17.07.2013 – 13:59 Uhr Ex-President Carter: “The invasion of privacy has gone too far” The Obama administration has tried to placate Europe’s anger over their spying programs. Not so ex-President Jimmy Carter: The Democrat Carter sharply criticized U.S. intelligence policy. The disclosure by the whistleblower Snowden was “useful.” Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter was in the wake of the NSA spying scandal criticized the American political system. “America has no functioning democracy,” Carter said Tuesday at a meeting of the “Atlantic Bridge” in Atlanta. Previously, the Democrat had been very critical of the practices of U.S. intelligence. “I think the invasion of privacy has gone too far,” Carter told CNN. “And I think that is why the secrecy was excessive.” With regard to the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, Carter said his revelations were “likely to be useful because they have informed the public.” Carter has repeatedly warned that the moral authority of the United States has declined sharply due to excessive curtailment of civil rights. Last year he wrote in an article in the “New York Times” that new U.S. laws have allowed “never before seen breaches of our privacy by the government.”

Woke up thinking of my ‘Great Aunt’ Suzie. To her my name was one syllable… ‘Ternz’. We always had good laughs together.

She passed a few years ago.

She was one of the very few that kept in touch with me. Even though she was in Belfast and was thousands of miles away, she never let me feel isolated.

I miss her laugh.

Spent the day at Superior Court making copies of the files which were transmitted from the Norristown Prothonotary.

Always a game, or tactic, or demonstration of the inability for anyone in Norristown for follow rules, procedure and law. The files were to have been delivered to the Superior Court by June 28, 2013.

They were received on July 8, 2013 at Superior Court. The swagger of the Montgomery County Courthouse demonstrates the tremendous arrogance to believe that the rules do not apply to them.

There are also several missing items, exhibits, transcripts, etc… Of course they would not send everything. The Rules of Appellate Procedure don’t apply to Montgomery County. Oy!