The Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia Office
| Terance Healy |
: NO: 900 EDA 2014 |
| |
: |
| V. |
: |
| |
: |
| David R. Miller |
: |
| Jennifer K. Miller |
: |
| |
: |
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/REVIEW OF PER CURIAM ACTION
Regarding the Per Curiam Order attached.
The caption is INCORRECT.
The decision is UNEXPLAINED.
The per curiam order is UNSIGNED.
The per curiam order is UNDATED.
The motion was UNCONTESTED.
Please identify the judge, the motions panel, and/or the member(s) of the Central Legal Staff involved in the careless preparation of the document.
Attached are copies of the following Superior Court Of Pennsylvania which demonstrate the previous decisions of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania with regard to procedurally defective orders where the court lacked jurisdiction.
| J-A01019-14 |
Kozel v. Kozel |
#461 WDA 2013 |
| J-A27027-13 |
Wagner v. Wagner |
#235 MDA 2013 |
| J-S17007-13 |
Hauck v. Hauck |
#1984 WDA 2011 |
| J-A02029-13 |
Reece v. Reece |
#987 WDA 2012 |
| J-S21041/08 |
Danz v. Danz |
#1506 WDA 2007 |
| J-A14035/09 |
Bingaman v Bingaman |
#1644 MDA 2008 |
| J-A30006/02 |
Lazaric v. Lazaric |
#263 EDA 2002 |
The evidence is clear. The law is clear. The precedents are well established.
Every action of the courts demonstrate the efforts to obstruct, misinform and misdirect somehow made ‘lawful’ by Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct causing the denial of life and liberty and terrorizing every aspect of life.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio issued a deliberately defective and void order. The court record indicates that she clearly lacked jurisdiction. The court record demonstrates the obstruction of the appeal filed on August 15, 2011.
There is no escape for the litigant. The court is mandated to terrorize and destroy the litigant ‘to protect the integrity of the courts.’ pursuant to Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
A deliberate, intentional and malicious court order issued by Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio without jurisdiction has terrorized the litigant from the day it was issued. An action done without jurisdiction to conceal the actions of fifteen prior judges in the matter which have attacked their victim since 2007.
The County & Court then went to work to obstruct and deny the appeal of that order issuing further void orders based on the defective and void orders. Those who enforced the defective and void orders becoming involved in criminal acts for doing so. The mandate for protecting integrity of those without integrity growing exponentially.
The Court personnel and all lawyers are mandated to obstruct and deny the victim ‘to protect the integrity of the court’. In doing so, they become involved in the obstruction of justice.
Each court believing the litigant is causing their involvement in this crime. Not the ‘judge’ acting without jurisdiction… not the Courts which mandated their participation in the denial of justice. Each ignoring the law and the US Constitution in the process of self-preservation and sacrifice of their own judicial integrity.
The Appellant is being denied Life, Liberty and equal protection under the law. He is experiencing the complete loss of rights and privileges protected by the Constitution of the United States, and the Pennsylvania Constitution.
The inability to accomplish anything with regard to the Appeal is caused by the courts, enabled by the court, endorsed by the courts, made ‘lawful’ by the courts as everyone involved in the denial of constitutionally protected rights is mandated to conceal the corruption, injustice and lack of jurisdiction of the court.
The victim can do nothing to escape the game of “The order is not void until we say it’s void’. There have been over 80 attempts to have the court take the lawful action to void the order. Every attempt has been ignored.
The Superior Courts are mandated to obstruct and deny the victim ‘to protect the integrity of the court’. In doing so they became involved in the obstruction of justice. Their knowledge of the void and defective orders mandated that they address the issue. A mandatory action, not a discretionary issue for the court.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is mandated to do the same. The Supreme Court enacted the law and in doing so must follow it. This prevents the Supreme Court from repealing the law or addressing the injustice.
And so it goes, that every effort to prevent any interaction with the judiciary is the primary focus. It is essential to ‘protect the integrity of the judiciary’. The denial of justice to the litigant is a consequence. The continued peril and jeopardy of the victim is not a concern.
The chaos injected by the letter dated August 8, 2014 and the improperly captioned, unexplained, unsigned, undated decision to the uncontested motion.
The Montgomery County Court has neglected to provide the full court record to the Superior Court and has obstructed efforts to produce the documents and transcripts to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
This Court has been notified of the litigation in the Federal Courts which is now before the United States Congress and the President to provide the only escape from the nightmare created when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and EVERY state supreme court, enacted the Rules of Professional Conduct into law without ANY constitutional review, construction by a legislature or signature of any governor. Copies of notices attached.
I respectfully request review of this matter based on the fact that Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct results in the absolute denial of right and liberties protected by the United States Constitution and that the supporting staff of this Court cease from unexplained and unsubstantiated actions to obstruct, prevent and deny justice in this matter.
AN ORAL ARGUMENT ON THIS MOTION IS DEMANDED
Respectfully,
Terance Healy
NB: The game of the Prothonotary deliberately improperly captioning the matter is obvious and tiresome. Please correct all records and documents accordingly.
The matter has left the appellant homeless and destitute and forced to respond to the Courts.
The appellant has no choice but to persist as he is not capable of suicide.
J-A01019-14 Kozel v. Kozel #461 WDA 2013
J-A27027-13 Wagner v. Wagner #235 MDA 2013
J-S17007-13 Hauck v. Hauck #1984 WDA 2011
J-A02029-13 Reece v. Reece #987 WDA 2012
J-S21041/08 Danz v. Danz #1506 WDA 2007
J-A14035/09 Bingaman v Bingaman #1644 MDA 2008
J-A30006/02 Lazaric v. Lazaric #263 EDA 2002
Letter to United States Attorneys August 8, 2014
Letter to President Barack Obama July 28, 2014
Letter to US Senators Patrick Toomey and Robert Casey July 28, 2014
Letter to the Senators of the 113th Congress July 28, 2014
Letter to US Senate Committee on the Judiciary July 30, 2014
Letter to Sheriffs of Pennsylvania July, 31, 2014
Letter to Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee July 31, 2014
Letter to United States House of Representatives July 30, 2014
Letter to US House Committee on the Judiciary July 30, 2014
Letter to Governor of EVERY state July 28, 2014
Letter to Governor Tom Corbett August 2, 2014
Letter to EVERY Pennsylvania Senator August 2, 2014
Letter to the Pennsylvania Legislature – Representatives August 2, 2014
Letter to Governor Tom Corbett, the Sheriffs of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Legislature, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania August 3, 2014
Like this:
Like Loading...
A chance encounter with Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick outside the Courthouse in Doylestown today gave Todd an opportunity to explain the Rule 1.6 issue and pass along the letters which have been sent to all levels of state and federal government nationally. 