06.10
| COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v Terance Healy |
MJ-38118-CR-0000096-2015 |
The criminal allegations are unfounded.
I have not previously and do not intend to waive any rights under Pennsylvania Law, the Pennsylvania Constitution or the Constitution of the United States.
I have NOT made any waiver verbally nor in writing.
I have not signed any Waiver of Counsel. There has been no colloquy.
My appearance at this,. or any, proceeding should not be misconstrued in any way to suggest or indicate any waiver of any protection of the law or the constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which provide for the jurisdiction of the courts.
The attorney for the Commonwealth and the Montgomery County District Attorney have been contacted to address these issues which affect the proceeding on this date. THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE.
I appear at this time to file the following motions in this matter, and in the interest of resolving necessary issues which will permit me to prepare to present defend myself .
I had signed the Notice indicating that I would appear and I am doing so. I am the only signer to the document which indicates that a failure to appear would result in a Bench Warrant being issued for my Arrest.
If I am reading the form properly, were I to fail to appear, I would have subjected myself to the Bench Warrant and Arrest. In any case, I hereby rescind my acknowledgement of the Notice and any implied or inferred agreement or waiver of law or constitution.
It would be inappropriate for me to be arrested AGAIN as there are jurisdictional issues which have been neglected that remain to be addressed. Perhaps that is why the Magisterial Court did not issue nor sign an ORDER.
The NOTICE TO APPEAR FOR ARRAIGNMENT which indicates the proceeding schedule for this day, indicates the criminal offense(s) as SEE TRANSCRIPT.
As a copy of any transcript has not been provided with the Notice, nor at any time subsequent to the notice being issued, Defendant indicates to the court the incomplete information without which he could not hope to be fully prepared to present any defense.
Defendant respectfully requests copies of the transcripts of the proceedings in the Magisterial District Court which occurred on the following dates:
March 26, 2015
April 9, 2015
April 24, 2015
Rule 500. Preservation of Testimony After Institution of Criminal Proceedings clearly indicates that in the interest of justice a witness testimony be preserved by either a judge – who would further indicate the grounds on which the order is based; OR by Agreement of the Parties.
This issue had been raised at the Magisterial District Court , yet was neglected by the judge.
According to records in the Court Reporters office, the attorney for the Commonwealth, had requested the court reporter. There was no discussion of this issue prior to any proceeding. There was no agreement between the parties prior to the proceeding.
Defendant requests the applicable Rule of Law which permits the attorney for the Commonwealth to take such action in direct violation of Pennsylvania Rule 500(b).
Defendant requests the Court provide a statement of the basis for its jurisdiction in this matter.
The statement should indicate the law under which jurisdiction is provided to the court.
Where there can be no waiver of jurisdiction, the Defendant challenges the jurisdiction of the court to proceed in this matter and respectfully requests any further proceedings not be scheduled until the issue of jurisdiction has been properly and lawfully addressed.
The statement should directly address all elements of jurisdiction of the Magisterial District Court including but not limited to the following:
– There was no Waiver of Counsel.
– The Statement of Defendant on April 9, 2015 which indicated the non-waiver of counsel or representation. The non-waiver of any rights being clealy indicatedn in the document and verbally in th Court. (Attached)
– There was no colloquy at any time conducted before during or after the proceedings.
MOTION FOR DOCUMENT
Defendant respectfully requests a current (and perhaps Final) copy of the Complaint which has been filed in this matter.
Defendant also reminds the attorney for the Commonwealth the she has not provided the Rule of Law
– which permits the complaint to be modified after testimony has been taken.
– which permits the complaint to be modified without the signature of the District Attorney.
The Attorney for the Commonwealth having been asked to identify the client she represents has indicated that she has no client.
Defendant respectfully asks for the identity of all client(s) represented by the attorney for the Commonwealth to whom the attorney may have a lawful responsibility for action, inaction, confidentiality and nondisclosure, or any other professional responsibility or duty pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Where the Attorney for the Commonwealth has indicated that she has “no client”, I respectfully ask for a statement indicating proper and lawful standing to bring this matter before the court.
The information and events which have been neglected prevents the court from proper jurisdiction to proceed with the ARRAIGNMENT.
As I anticipate a considerable volume of motions being required in this matter relating to discovery, and where those documents may not be readily available, or easily obtainable, or may have been secured by a Grand Jury.
I respectfully request the permission of the Court to begin filing those motions even while the ARRAIGNMENT is prevented and delayed to permit the Commonwealth to address the issues presented in this document.
Regarding the issue of Waiver of Counsel, and other rights protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States, at issue is Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information which causes the loss of any protection of the law and permits all constitutional rights to be ignored.
All legal professionals are mandated to follow the improperly enacted and collaterally unconstitutional law and prevented from any ability to address the matter. Rule 1.6 removed the lawyers discretion from nondisclosure and confidentiality.
Enacted without the ‘fraud provisions’, the resulting Law excuses ‘fraud in the furtherance’ and ‘fraud to prevent rectification’ concealed by its requirement of confidentiality and nondisclosure.
FOR EXAMPLE:
Rule 1.6 has prevented the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 in the Eastern District Court by lawyers within the clerks office. Local Rules include the Rules of Professional Conduct in the state where the court is located.
Rule 1.6 has prevented review by the Judiciary in the subsequent Appeal filed in the Third Circuit by lawyers within the clerks office. Local Rules include the Rules of Professional Conduct in the state where the court is located.
Rule 1.6 had delayed and prevented multiple Appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Delayed by the Montgomery County Judiciary. Prevented by the Central Legal Staff in the Superior Court.
Where the Rules of Appellate Procedure Rules require notification and action by the state Attorney General. The office of the Attorney General was notified. Documents submitted to the court and ordered by the court have been prevented and denied to the litigants. The docket has been redacted.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane has indicated that she has received ‘secret orders from unidentified courts’ which require her, personally, to neglect the responsibilities of the office of Attorney General. Were those orders issued to the Attorney General, the Legislature and the Governor would become informed.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality and Nondisclosure further prevents prosecution of the unlawful and unconstitutional actions by every department of the Federal Government. The McDade Murtha Amendment enacted by Congress requires federal investigators and federal lawyers to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct in the jurisdiction where they are working.
Further information is available online and within the court records.
Terance Healy
No Comment.
Add Your Comment