A Terroristic Divorce

Where ‘secret orders from unidentified courts’ have prohibited Kathleen Kane PERSONALLY from the responsibilities of the Office of Attorney General, THERE EXISTS A PRECEDENT SEPARATING ‘THE PERSON’ FROM THE ELECTED ATTORNEY GENERAL.

The unsigned order which has temporarily suspended the license of ‘the person’, does not necessarily have to affect the Attorney General, who is defined by the Pennsylvania Constitution as ‘the chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth’ with the authority to ‘exercise such powers and duties as may be imposed by law.’

The Judiciary lacks the authority to affect the law enforcement powers of the Attorney General. The Attorney General derives authority from the Constitution and the Commonwealth Attorneys Act. The Constitution was properly amended by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. The Commonwealth Attorneys Act was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor.

The properly amended Pennsylvania Constitution, the properly enacted Commonwealth Attorneys Act, and the Pennsylvania electorate CANNOT BE DISREGARDED BY THE ACTIONS OF THE JUDICIARY (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania).

The authority of the Judiciary to enact laws, or rules governing practice procedure and conduct of all courts is limited.

---

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has authority under Article V Section 10(c) ONLY ‘if such rules are consistent with this Constitution’. 

The authority of the Attorney General is provided for in the Pennsylvania Constitution.  The position was defined by THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEYS ACT ‘setting forth powers and duties of the Attorney General.’ 

The COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEYS ACT was properly enacted by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. 

The Pennsylvania Constitution was amended to include Article IV Section 4.1

RULES PRESCRIBED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WHICH PREVENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM EXERCISING THE POWERS AND DUTIES IMPOSED BY LAWS DEFINED BY THE LEGISLATURE WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

---

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania does not have authority to prescribe any Rule or Law that is inconsistent with the Pennsylvania Constitution. Article V Section 10(c)

“All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions.” Article V Section 10(c)

Any law inconsistent with the Pennsylvania Constitution, is ALSO NOT CONSISTENT ‘under these provisions’. 

Therefore, laws which have been properly enacted by the Legislature and Governor can not be suspended (or ignored) by subsequent unconstitutional actions by the Judiciary. 

SO THOSE ‘secret orders from unidentified courts’ ARE ALSO INCONSISTENT.

BUT…, only unconstitutional to a person whose rights are being denied by the orders… not the person ordered secretly to deny them.

I believe the secret orders were how Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane learned of the Terroristic Divorce… After 7 years, of requests for investigation, secret orders from unidentified courts finally caught the attention of the fourth Pennsylvania Attorney General since it began.

---

WHY HAS THIS BECOME SUCH A HUGE DEBACLE ALL OF A SUDDEN?

Article V Section 10(c) ‘rules governing general practice’ does not provide the Judiciary with the broad rulemaking authority to require ALL lawyers, and personnel involved with law enforcement to maintain CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION where such nondisclosure is not consistent with the Rule of Law and the rights preserved and protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

An unconstitutional silence has spread across the United States.  Injustice has been ignored.  Even the most egregious injustice witnessed by millions of people  has been ignored by law enforcement and the courts.

American Injustice is ignored pursuant to an unconstitutional CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION and left unexplained.  One aspect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality is ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. 

Attorney-client privilege can prevent a District Attorney from prosecuting her staff for fraud, failure to follow the law, and ignoring a litigants Constitutional rights.  The judiciary seems to be held hostage to the corruption of the District Attorneys and courthouse staff.  The litigant is left without recourse. 

Where the District Attorneys staff are also clients, attorney client privilege prevents a DA from exposing the crimes committed by their staff.

The same confidentiality privilege applies to an Attorney General and her staff.  Attorney client privilege is at the discretion of the client (with very limited exceptions). 

Staffers within the Office of the Attorney General, as clients of the AG, are protected.  The OAG staffers often mislead the media and/or make false allegations against the Attorney General knowing they MUST BE protected by the person whom they are accusing.

The AG may not release the confidential information until defending themselves in court.  The AG may not disclose or prosecute the fraud.  Prosecution cannot begin until disclosure is permitted.  Defending themselves in Court and Threat of Death are the only acceptable excuses for breaching Confidentiality in most states.  Even then, it is discretionary on the part of the lawyer.  There is no obligation or ethical mandate.

Now, imagine that the Attorney General of the fifth largest state has become aware of widespread corruption.  Investigations have been executed to harass and terrorize litigants who have no other recourse.  Investigations have been neglected because of attorney-client privilege. 

When those investigations fail to result in prosecution, ALL information is sealed by a grand jury.  Presumably this is to prevent the innocent target from harm… BUT, they have been denied the Rule of Law, and their Constitutional rights, and have NO OTHER RECOURSE by which to prevent further actions and crimes against them.  The grand jury is concealing the corruption and lawlessness of law enforcement.  Subsequent inquiries become even more difficult.

As the owner of the investigative data, the Attorney General may review the cases.  BUT, a grand jury seal on the data prevents exposure and use in a prosecution.

The only method by which the AG can prosecute the corruption within the County, requires the OAG to unseal documents sealed by grand jury orders.

The District Attorney must act to protect her staff/clients… Having her staff prosecute the Attorney General on false charges.  The District Attorney has discretion to ignore any fraud by the staffers.  False documents, fake new releases, misinformation, news leaks…

PREVENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM OFFERING  ANY DEFENSE IN COURT. 
Impeach, prosecute, accuse, misinform, forgeries, fraud, …

Exactly… Risa Ferman has been doing this to Kathleen Kane… Kane knows what crimes Risa Ferman has ignored, failed to prosecute, or encouraged and participated in concealing to protect her staff (clients) while denying people of their rights and freedom.

Justice is coming.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA	#3151-15
	#MJ-38118-CR-0000096-2015
v.
Terance Healy

STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON NOVEMBER 18, 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 signed any Waiver of Counsel. There has been no colloquy. The inability to be represented by counsel is affected by an improperly enacted and collaterally unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

Rule 1.6 causes a complete and absolute denial of any protection of the law and all constitutionally protected rights are ignored.

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.

HISTORY

The deliberate and intentional neglect and failure of the Montgomery County Office of the District Attorney since 2007, under both Bruce Castor and Risa Ferman, has caused the Defendant to be denied any protection of the Law and all rights presumed to be protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

Where seeking redress through the Pennsylvania Legislature to address a purported lack of jurisdiction, and the assistance of the Governor in enforcing the Law, the Defendant has been subjected to the false allegations of Montgomery Township Police officer Gerry Dougherty.

Those allegation are supported by the testimony, which includes the contrived and imagined events, of persons who have stolen the home of the Defendant through fraudulent conveyance. A crime which the District attorney has REFUSED to prosecute. The facts of the fraudulent conveyance has been used by those witnesses to claim an almost $400,000.00 settlement from the title insurance. The witnesses have profited GREATLY from their participation in the crime.

The witnesses have directly threatened the Defendant through planning provisioning and training to murder the Defendant in a letter provided to the Office of the District Attorney. The District Attorney has neglected to address the crime.

The negligence and failure to respect the law and the rights of the defendant has been brought to the attention of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane – under attack to prevent investigation.

CONTENTS

DISTRICT ATTORNEY NEGLIGENCE – Criminal Affirmance

ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE ISSUES DIRECTLY WERE UNANSWERED
ISSUES RAISED IN DEFENDANT STATEMENTS ARE IGNORED

ABUSE OF DISCRETION

OFFICIAL OPPRESSION

THE VALIDITY OF SIGNATURES

TIMELINESS OF DOCKET ENTRIES

DELIBERATE ACTIONS WHICH UNDERMINE/PREVENT APPEAL

DELIBERATE NEGLECT AND FAILURE BY THE ATTORNEY FOR THE COMMONWEALTH

DELIBERATE NEGLECT AND FAILURE BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER

ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
– Unconstitutional affect of relationship between the District Attorney and staff (clients)

EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OF PROSECUTORS AND INVESTIGATORS
– Ferman v. Montgomery County Commissioners

ABUSIVE INVESTIGATIONS – Sealed by Grand Jury

OVERSIGHT – Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane
– RULE 521 Challenge to Constitutionality filed with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania

NEW YEARS EVE MANIFESTO BY BRUCE CASTOR
– “a person who spends his/her professional life figuring how to [screw] others”
– “set the board up just right and striking at the precise moment where the object of the attack
cannot recover”
– “Don’t pick a political fight against someone schooled in how to really hurt you.”

NON-WAIVER OF COUNSEL

PENDING APPEALS

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

PRIOR STATEMENTS OF DEFENDANT

CONCLUSION

DISTRICT ATTORNEY NEGLIGENCE – Criminal Affirmance
– Attorney for The Commonwealth, Public Defender, Contracted Personnel
– CRIMINAL AFFIRMANCE: GOING BEYOND THE DETERRENCE PARADIGM TO EXAMINE THE SOCIAL MEANING EXPRESSED BY EXERCISING DISCRETION TO DECLINE PROSECUTION OF ELITE CRIME (EXHIBIT A)

ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE ISSUES DIRECTLY WERE UNANSWERED
ISSUES RAISED IN DEFENDANT STATEMENTS ARE IGNORED

The attorney for the Commonwealth and the Montgomery County District Attorney have been contacted to address those issues which affect the proceeding on this date.

There has been no response to questions.

There has been no response to documents filed with the court and served to the district attorneys office.

There has been no response to phone calls and messages.

The staff of the District Attorney has repeatedly ended calls where the Defendant is following the instructions on forms received. This includes support staff, attorneys and personnel responsible for providing complete documents in INFORMATION packages.

The attorney for the Commonwealth, the District Attorney, and the staff of the District Attorney have failed to respond to email.

The attorney for the Commonwealth, the District Attorney, and the staff of the District Attorney have failed to respond to tweets.

ABUSE OF DISCRETION
– Letter purported to be from Judge Carpenter October 22, 2015
– Letter purported to be from Judge Carpenter October 28, 2015
– Lack of signatures on related paperwork (computer generated signatures)
– Failure to provide, mail or serve fraudulent documents through the USPS
– Errors on the Court Docket
– List of ALL Documents

OFFICIAL OPPRESSION
– Denial of Rule of Law
– Constitutional Rights Ignored
– False Arrest
– Infliction of Emotional Distress
– Malicious Prosecution
– Intent
– Duress
– Coercion
– Negligence

THE VALIDITY OF SIGNATURES

The signatures on documents received from the Office of the District Attorney are art files, computer generated, rubber stamps, copies, etc.

There is no way of determining the validity of the signatures, or if the documents are forgeries intended to add more chaos, misdirect from facts and/or further conceal the false allegations.

There is no way of determining the validity of signatures on Court Orders. There is no original signed document, and documents have computer generated art files, rubber stamps, or no signatures.

The Clerk of Courts is unable to indicate a method by which signatures and documents are validated.

TIMELINESS OF DOCKET ENTRIES

Entries are not made on a timely basis to the Court Docket.

There is no way of determining when the clerk of courts has made an entry to the docket.

DELIBERATE ACTIONS WHICH UNDERMINE/PREVENT APPEAL

The documents in this matter neglect to indicate the elements necessary for the jurisdiction of this court.

The failure of the attorney for the Commonwealth to follow the laws and procedures of the Commonwealth cause a lack of jurisdiction for this court to review or decide on this matter.

The documents in this matter have not been docketed in a timely manner.

The documents in this matter have not been provided to the Defendant.

The documents in this matter have not been signed by the judge.

These deliberate failures prevent timely appeal and additionally prevent any review where jurisdiction is lacking to review the matter on Appeal.

DELIBERATE NEGLECT AND FAILURE BY THE ATTORNEY FOR THE COMMONWEALTH

The attorney for the commonwealth is a client of the District Attorney.

The attorney-client privilege aspect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information prevents any actions to address the deliberate failures to follow the Law, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the US Constitution where the attorney deliberates neglecting her responsibilities is represented by the District Attorney.

DELIBERATE NEGLECT AND FAILURE BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER

A Public Defender has indicated that he has been assigned to the case and has begun filing documents.

He has not contacted the Defendant, nor has he returned calls, nor has he provided copies of the documents purportedly filed on the behalf of the Defendant.

The Public Defender is a client of the District Attorney.

The attorney-client privilege aspect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information prevents any actions to address the deliberate failures to follow the Law, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the US Constitution where the attorney deliberates neglecting his responsibilities is represented by the District Attorney.

The Public Defender was ordered to withdraw from the matter and strike all documents filed with the Court. This has NOT occurred.

The Documents provided within the INFORMATION are incomplete. The District Attorney’s Office has neglected to address the reported issues, or to return calls and messages.

ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
– Unconstitutional affect of relationship between the District Attorney and staff (clients)

THE DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE LAWS AND THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND THE NEGLECT BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND THE ATTORNEY FOR THE COMMONWEALTH CAUSE A DENIAL OF THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW FOR THE DEFENDANT AND IGNORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT… while concealed and remaining unaddressed pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

If this is of no Concern to the Attorney for the Commonwealth, I propose they provide a waiver of ALL Confidentiality between themselves, the Commonwealth and ANY AND ALL persons, offices and organizations with which they have a relationship.

EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OF PROSECUTORS AND INVESTIGATORS
– Ferman v. Montgomery County Commissioners (EXHIBIT B)

ABUSIVE INVESTIGATIONS – Sealed by Grand Jury

There has been a deliberate failure by the Montgomery County Office of the District Attorney to respond to or address any crimes reported by the Defendant since 2007.

OVERSIGHT – Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane
– RULE 521 Challenge to Constitutionality filed with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania

NEW YEARS EVE MANIFESTO BY BRUCE CASTOR (EXHIBIT C)
– “a person who spends his/her professional life figuring how to [screw] others”
– “set the board up just right and striking at the precise moment where the object of the attack
cannot recover”
– “Don’t pick a political fight against someone schooled in how to really hurt you.”

NON-WAIVER OF COUNSEL

I do NOT waive the right to be represented by an attorney/lawyer/counselor.

I am destitute and cannot afford an attorney.

Every attorney within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is mandated by the Rules of Professional Conduct UNLESS and UNTIL they recognize the unconstitutionality of the law enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

A waiver of counsel with the knowledge of potential “dangers and disadvantages of self-representation” cannot be executed where comprehension, acknowledgement and experience demonstrate the affect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information which causes the facts to be ignored.

Defendant recognizes that this Court will likely proceed without regard for the procedures and laws established in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and THAT DELIBERATE AND BLATANT DISREGARD will be ignored at every level of the Court pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

The Defendant recognizes that the judiciary have improperly enacted Rule 1.6 into law without authority.

The Defendant recognizes that the judiciary have mandated CONFIDENTIALITY with regard to the improperly enacted and collaterally unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

The Defendant has communicated the issue to the Pennsylvania Legislature as the Legislature has the sole authority to suspend a law pursuant to the Constitution Of Pennsylvania.

The Defendant has communicated the issue to Governor Thomas Wolf as the governor has the authority to call the Legislature to Harrisburg to address the issue.

The Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Kathleen Kane, has been kept informed of the matter as her responsibilities include review of the constitutionality of laws within the commonwealth.

Kathleen Kane has indicated in the media that ‘secret orders from unidentified courts’ mandate that she personally neglect the responsibilities of the Office of the Attorney General to which she was elected.

– Those orders correspond to actions in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania where the responsibilities to address the constitutionality of a state law pursuant to Rule 521 has resulted in the unavailability of orders and documents in several cases. The Superior Court has not substantiated their actions in law.
PENDING APPEALS

There are currently two related Pending Appeals filed with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

The certified valid paperwork has not been provided to the Defendant in a timely manner.

No documents received from the County or Superior Court are signed by authorized persionnel.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The actions of the Court in this matter are UNEXPLAINED and/or UNSUBSTANTIATED where issues which have not been addressed by the District Attorney deny the court of proper subject matter jurisdiction in this matter due to deliberate procedural errors, the failure to follow procedures and laws, and the failure to address the rights of the defendant protected by the constitution of the United States.

The following topics require more research and effort on the part of the Defendant who has not been provided time to research and prepare while attempting to address the issues involved in the matter before this Court.

In the interest of keeping the Court advised and informed of issues and questions which are raised regarding the matter, the Defendant respectfully provides the following listing:

1. The Defendant requests to be formally informed of the Charges against him.

2. The ‘Arraignment’ paperwork indicates “SEE TRANSCRIPT” yet, the Defendant has not been provided the transcripts for the matter.

3. The revised copies of the complaint have not been signed by the District Attorney as required by law.

4. Their appears to be a conflict of interest with the Montgomery County Judiciary. A majority of the judges having been directly involved in matters which relate to this case since 2007.

5. Their appears to be a conflict of interest where the matters directly relate to ‘secret orders from unidentified courts’ which prevent Kathleen Kane from her elected responsibilities as Attornry General of Pennsylvania.

6. There appears to be a direct conflict of interest where the Montgomery County District Attorney has neglected to address, investigate, prosecute or respond to criminal complaints which relate to the matter and which demonstrate the ‘confidential’ neglect caused by Rule 1.6.

7. The Defendant requests the Court excuse the costs of subpoenas which must be served in this matter to properly prepare a defense. Subpoenas must be served upon the entire Pennsylvania Legislature, several courts which have neglected to provide documents, the Office of the Attorney General, county and local law enforcement agencies, and others.

8. The Defendant has not received complete documentation in the INFORMATION recently received from the District Attorneys office which has been contacted and refused to address the missing documents and pages.

9. An apparent forgery of the signature of Risa Vetri Ferman appears on the incomplete INFORMATION when compared to the signature which appears on the Complaint served upon Kathleen Kane in recent days.

10. Where the incomplete information prevents the Defendant from preparing an effective and complete defense to the, as yet, informal charges identified, Defendant requests the Court address the failure to of the District Attorneys office to follow procedures and laws and provide a deadline for the production of items which have been available for the preparation of the case against him.
DEATH THREAT

Within the INFORMATION paperwork provided was a five page document from a witness in the matter which demonstrates an effort to provision, plan and train to kill the Defendant based on irrational, paranoid and delusional events.

The District Attorney’s Office have had this document since March and failed to advise the Defendant of this credible threat to his life.

The witness is living in the Defendant’s Home and has not produced any documents which contradict the documented, reported and neglected fraudulent conveyance of the property, or demonstrate a ‘purported’ lawful ownership of the property.

The Office of the District Attorney has refused to address the issue.

The Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas has improperly denied jurisdiction with prejudice.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania documents are incomplete, unsubstantiated, and unsigned. The paperwork supports the decision of the lower court.

Where access to the courts is being improperly prevented by an incorrect lack of jurisdiction, the matter was raised in February to the Governor and the Legislature to address this lack of jurisdiction. It is my understanding that my document is the basis for the criminal charges.

Yet, a letter which clearly plans, provisions and trains for the Defendant’s execution based on detailed deluded and paranoid ideations has been ignored.

PRIOR STATEMENTS OF DEFENDANT

The Defendant hereby incorporates all prior Statements, in their entirety, made regarding this matter:

STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON APRIL 9, 2015
STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON APRIL 9, 2015
STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON JUNE 10, 2015
STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON AUGUST 10, 2015
STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2015
STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON OCTOBER 14, 2015

The Defendant hereby incorporates all documents listed on the four page listing of Documents in this matter, and requests the DOCKET be corrected to reflect the proper title and date. (EXHIBIT D)

CONCLUSION

The true threat in this matter is being ignored. Rule 1.6 has that influence on the integrity of the judiciary and the legal profession while under a confidential mandate to undermine and deny the constitutional rights of litigants.

Any litigant once denied of the protection of the law and their constitutional rights can be subjected to a volume of paperwork intended to overwhelm and deny any life, liberty or pursuit of any future life WHERE A DEFENDANT IS REQUIRED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

Respectfully Submitted,

Terance Healy

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT D

02/22/15	Letter to Governor, Legislature
03/12/15	Arrest Warrant – File Copy	Judge Duffy (jpg) seal
03/12/15	Arrest Warrant – Defendant Copy	Judge Duffy (jpg) seal
03/12/15	Police Criminal Complaint	Judge Duffy No Seal
03/12/15	Affadavit of Probable Cause (page 1)	Judge Duffy No Seal
03/12/15	Affadavit of Probable Cause (page 2)	Judge Duffy No Seal
03/12/15	Affadavit of Probable Cause (page 3)	Judge Duffy No Seal
03/12/15	Police Criminal Complaint (Amended)	Judge Duffy No Seal (copied)No signature of DA
03/13/15	Vital Statistics
03/13/15	Bail Release Conditions	Judge Murray seal
03/13/15	Bail Bond	Judge Murray seal
03/13/15	Surety Information Page	UNSIGNED
03/13/15	Preliminary Hearing Notice	UNSIGNED seal
03/13/15	Preliminary Hearing Notice	Judge Murray seal
03/13/15	Preliminary Hearing Notice (Changed)	Judge Murray seal (copied)
03/14/15	CRIMINAL DOCKET PRINTED
03/14/15	PUBLIC COURT SUMMARY PRINTED
03/16/15	Rescheduling Notice	Judge Duffy (jpg) seal
03/26/15	Court Reporter requested by McNulty – Chanel Pyatt
03/26/15	Rescheduling Notice	Judge Duffy (jpg) seal
03/26/15	Bail Bond	Judge Duffy seal
03/26/15	Surety Information Page	UNSIGNED
03/26/15	Bail Release Conditions	Judge Duffy sealJurisdiction
03/26/15	Transcript – Chanel Pyatt	No Signature/CertificationFailure to Follow Rules
03/26/15	Waiver of Counsel	REJECTED BY DEFENDANT
04/01/15	Affadavit of Probable Cause AMENDED (page 1)	Judge Duffy seal
04/01/15	Affadavit of Probable Cause AMENDED (page 2)	Judge Duffy seal
04/01/15	Affadavit of Probable Cause AMENDED (page 3)	Judge Duffy seal
04/01/15	Affadavit of Probable Cause AMENDED (page 4)	Judge Duffy seal
04/01/15	Police Criminal Complaint AMENDED	Judge Duffy No Seal (copied)
04/09/15	Statement of Defendant on April 9, 2015	Signed
04/09/15	Court Reporter requested by McNulty – Anita Huber	Failure to Follow Rules
04/09/15	Transcript – Anita Huber	Certified/Exhibits Not Provided
04/09/15	Rescheduling Notice	Judge Duffy (jpg) seal
04/10/15	Letter To District Attorney, Attorney General, Governor	Signed
04/24/15	Court Reporter requested by McNulty – Joan Mork	Failure to Follow Rules
04/24/15	Bail Bond	Judge Duffy sealJurisdiction
04/24/15	Bail Release Conditions	Judge Duffy sealJurisdiction
04/24/15	Surety Information Page	Judge Duffy no seal
04/24/15	Notice to Appear for Arraignment	Offenses: See Transcript
05/14/15	Mortgage Satisfaction
06/10/15	Statement of Defendant on June 10, 2015	Signed
06/10/15	Waiver of Arraignment	SIGNED UNDER DURESSFailure to Follow Rules, Coercion, Rights
06/11/15	Letter to Attorney General, Sheriff, District Attorney	Signed
06/19/15	Letter to Magisterial Court, Judge Duffy	Lack of Jurisdiction
06/23/15	Letter from District Attorney – Criminal Complaint Disapproved	Deputy DA, DetectiveCrime Ignored by DA
07/13/15	Notice of Pre-Trial Conference	UNSIGNED
07/27/15	INFORMATION – Incomplete	INCOMPLETE Forgery of District Attorneys Signature
08/10/15	CRIMINAL DOCKET PRINTED
08/10/15	Statement of Defendant on August 10, 2015	SignedFailure to Follow Rules
08/12/15	Letter to Public Defender Kate Taxis	Unsigned
08/17/15	Notice of Call of The Trial List	Unsigned
08/22/15	CRIMINAL DOCKET PRINTED	Very Different
08/22/15	CRIMINAL DOCKET PRINTED	Very Different
08/28/15	Commonwealths Application for Competency Examination Pursuant 50 PS 7402
09/01/15	Order for Competency Hearing	Rubber Stamped
09/02/15	Letter from Pietro D’Angelo, Assistant Public Defender	Improper Representation(jpg)
09/03/15	Praecipe to Enter Appearance	Improper Representation(jpg)
09/03/15	Request for Pre-Trial Discovery Rule 573	Improper Representation(jpg)
09/03/15	Omnibus Pre-trial Motion	Improper Representation(jpg)
09/09/15	CRIMINAL DOCKET PRINTED	5 pages
09/09/15	CRIMINAL DOCKET PRINTED	6 pages
09/09/15	COURT SUMMARY PRINTED
09/16/15	CRIMINAL DOCKET PRINTED	6 pages
09/16/15	Statement of Defendant on September 16, 2015	Signed
09/16/15	Order Withdrawal of Counsel	Judge Carpenter signedUpon agreement of DA and Public Defender?
09/16/15	Verbal Orders of Judge Carpenter
09/22/15	Notice of Call of The Trial List	No Signature
10/03/15	CRIMINAL DOCKET PRINTED
10/03/15	COURT SUMMARY PRINTED
10/07/15	Order For Competency Examination 10-13-2105	Judge Carpenter (jpg)not mailed, not provided, not signed, not docketed timely
10/14/15	Order For Competency Examination 10-21-2105	Judge Carpenter (jpg)Wrong date again. ADA retreived.
10/14/15	Order For Competency Examination 10/21/2015	Judge Carpenter signed
10/14/15	CRIMINAL DOCKET PRINTED
10/14/15	Statement of Defendant on October 14, 2015	Signed
10/19/15	Letter to Postmaster – Warrington	Signed
10/19/15	Letter to Postmaster – Warrington	Signed
10/20/15	Letter to Postmaster – Norristown	Signed
10/20/15	Letter to Postmaster – Norristown	Signed
10/20/15	Letter to MAILROOM – Courthouse	Signed
10/20/15	CRIMINAL DOCKET PRINTED	Signed
10/20/15	COURT SUMMARY PRINTED	Signed
10/20/15	Notice of Appeal RE: 10-14-2015	Signed
10/20/15	Certificate of Service	Signed
10/20/15	Request for Transcript	Signed
10/20/15	Certificate of Service to Court Reporters	Signed
10/20/15	Petition and Affadavit for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis	Signed
10/20/15	CRIMINAL DOCKET PRINTED	Appeal Order not timely docketed
10/20/15	CRIMINAL DOCKET PRINTED	Appeal Order not timely docketed
10/21/15	CRIMINAL SUMMARY	Signed
10/21/15	Statement Regarding Undelivered Mail	Signed
10/21/15	Defendant Has Provided Documents on October 21, 2105	Signed
10/21/15	Notice RE: Evaluation	Signed
10/21/15	Defendant Appeared As Ordered on October 21, 2105	Signed
10/22/15	Order IFP for Filing Fee Only	Rubber Stamped
10/26/15	Envelope	Unsigned
10/26/15	Superior Court – Receipt of Appeal	Unsigned
10/26/15	Superior Court – Docketing Statement required	Unsigned
10/26/15	Letter from Clerk to Public Defender RE: Filings 10-21-15	Unsigned
10/27/15	RE: Letter to Superior Court from Judge (Appeal 1)	jpg
10/27/15	SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET PRINTED
10/27/15	Notice of Appeal RE: October 22, 2105	Signed
10/27/15	Certificate of Service	Signed
10/27/15	Petition and Affadavit for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis	Signed
10/28/15	Letter to Superior Court from Judge (Appeal 2?)	jpg
10/28/15	SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET PRINTED
10/28/15	COURT SUMMARY PRINTED
10/28/15	CRIMINAL DOCKET PRINTED
11/02/15	Superior Court – Receipt of Appeal 2	Unsigned
11/02/15	Superior Court – Docketing Statement required – Appeal 2	unsigned
11/07/15	CRIMINAL DOCKET PRINTED
11/07/15	COURT SUMMARY PRINTED
11/09/15	Notice of Errors Regarding Trial Court Docket	Signed
11/09/15	Notice Another Improper Letter to Superior Court	Signed
11/09/15	SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET PRINTED
11/09/15	SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET PRINTED
11/09/15	Superior Court Rule 521 Notice	Signed
11/09/15	Superior Court Rule 521 Notice	Signed
11/09/15	Superior Court Docketing Statement	Signed
11/09/15	Superior Court Docketing Statement 2	Signed
11/10/15	Notice of Errors Regarding Trial Court Docket	Signed
11/10/15	Notice of Rule 521	Signed
11/10/15	Notice of Rule 521	Signed
11/10/15	Notice Another Improper Letter to Superior Court	Signed
11/18/15	Statement of Defendant on November 18, 2015	Signed
11/18/15	Call of the Trial List – January 27, 2016	SIGNED
12/08/15	Notice of November 9, 2015 (UNSPECIFIED) is DENIED	UNSIGNED UNSPECIFIEDPer Curiam
12/09/15	Notice of November 9, 2015 (UNSPECIFIED) is DENIED	UNSIGNED UNSPECIFIEDPer Curiam
12/09/15	Order dated 12/09/2015	UNSIGNEDPer Curiam
12/09/15	Order dated 12/09/2015	UNSIGNEDPer Curiam

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania	# 3166 EDA 2015
	# 3234 EDA 2015
v.	Trial Court
	# CP-46-CR-0003151-2015
Terance Healy

NOTICE OF ERRORS REGARDING TRIAL COURT DOCKET

Notice is hereby given that Terance Healy, Defendant, Appellant above named, hereby informs the Superior Court of Pennsylvania that the above listed Trial Court Docket includes a variety of errors, mistatements and ommissions.

AT ISSUE

The Trial Court is acting without proper jurisdiction in this matter and has declined to address the issues of failure and neglect by the Attorney for the Commonwealth.

The Office of the District Attorney and the attorney representing the Commonwealth have failed to adhere to the Law, The Rules of Criminal Procedure, while ignoring rights protected and secured by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

The validity of the entries to the trial Court Docket cannot be confirmed by the Clerk of Courts.

The failure to include documents filed with the Clerk of Courts cannot be explained by the Clerk of Courts.

The failure to enter filed documents in a timely manner onto the Court Docket cannot be explained by the Clerk of Courts.

These actions, errors and omissions are deliberate abuses which seek to interfere, obstruct and prevent
the timely actions of the Defendant/Appellant./

These actions, errors and omissions have been brought to the attention of the Trial Court, the District Attorney, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Senators and Representatives of the Pennsylvania General Assembly

Terance Healy

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania	# 3166 EDA 2015
	# 3234 EDA 2015
v.	Trial Court
	# CP-46-CR-0003151-2015
Terance Healy

NOTICE: ANOTHER IMPROPER LETTER
TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Notice is hereby given that Terance Healy, Defendant, Appellant above named, has received a copy of the attached 2 page letter which purports to be from the Honorable Judge William R. Carpenter Jr.

The letter relates to Appeals filed on October 20, 2015 and October 27, 2015.

The letter specifically pertains to the Appeal filed on October 27, 2015. HOWEVER, the letter fails to address any order being appealed or the issues relating to any pending appeal. Instead, the letter addresses issues/orders not currently under appeal.

THE LETTER FAILS TO ADDRESS ANY ISSUE RELATING TO THE CURRENT APPEALS IN THIS MATTER.

The letter is improper and, while not ex parte, DOES NOT CONFORM to the Rules of Appellate Procedure as it attempts to prevent any review by the judges of the Superior Court.

The letter is not proper, lawful, or constitutional, as it seeks to deny and prevent access to the courts for redress of grievances.

The letter, if authentic, indicates that the judge has a conflict of interest in this matter which prevents the Court from addressing the defects in procedure which result in a lack of jurisdiction for the Court in this matter.

The Court is acting without proper jurisdiction in this matter and has declined to address the issues of failure and neglect by the Attorney for the Commonwealth.

The Office of the District Attorney and the attorney representing the Commonwealth have failed to adhere to the Law, The Rules of Criminal Procedure, while ignoring rights protected and secured by the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

Terance Healy

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania	# 3166 EDA 2015
	# 3234 EDA 2015
v.	Trial Court
	# CP-46-CR-0003151-2015
Terance Healy

NOTICE: RULE 521 CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE

Pursuant to Rule 521 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellant hereby notifies the Attorney General that the above referenced matter before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania raises the issue of the constitutionality of a statute.

The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who must follow the US Constitution, the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Rules of Professional Conduct which were enacted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s authority to enact law is limited to situations where ‘such rules are consistent with this Constitution [Pennsylvania] and neither abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of any litigant.’

The Rules of Professional Conduct enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have substantially affected the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Attorney General to act to address injustice and corruption within the courts. The Rule 1.6 mandate of ‘confidentiality of information’ with regard to client information undermines ‘everything’ where an attorney general’s clients include (1) the public, (2) the Pennsylvania government, (3) the Office of the Attorney General, (4) government agencies and departments statewide, (5) personnel within those agencies and departments, (6) and themselves.

The attorney general is prevented and obstructed from law enforcement responsibilities by a mandate to maintain ‘confidentiality’ of ‘client’ information where it adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary, the reputation of legal professionals, self-incriminates, or negatively affects their client.
The result, the Rules of Professional Conduct collaterally affect and negate ‘the substantive rights of the litigant’. Specifically, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information causes a mandatory conspiracy of silence within the courts which ignores the damage and harm caused to litigants and prevents resolution.

The Supreme Court lacked authority to enact Rule 1.6 into law as the substantive rights of this litigant, and others, have been ‘abridged’, ‘modified’, denied and ignored.

The unconstitutional situation has now been raised in a lawful manner by litigants who are not prevented by law from exposing the matter and have filed with the government to address the issue.

WHILE PROVEN UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ‘SECRET ORDERS FROM UNIDENTIFIED COURTS’ prevent Kathleen Kane, personally, from the responsibilities of her elected office.

As such, it remains the responsibility of the Attorney General to represent the People, to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution and the state Constitution, and to recognize that collaterally Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional to the People.

The act of sedition which enacted Rule 1.6 and mandated the silent participation of all legal professionals, perverted the judiciary, sacrificed the personal integrity of every judge, and undermined justice can no longer be ignored and excused because of the intimidation and threats of disciplinary action by the corrupt who have deliberately violated the public trust.

Unconstitutional Rule 1.6 is repugnant and a nullity which can pose no threat of disciplinary action. Any threat of disciplinary action for revealing the injustice, corruption and sedition by the judiciary is a false threat.

Injustice does not end injustice. It extends it.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy

cc: Internet – Work2bDone.com/live
Superior Court of Pennsylvania #900 EDA 2014 Healy v Miller
Superior Court of Pennsylvania #1330 EDA 2014 Healy v Healy
Superior Court of Pennsylvania #OBSTRUCTED Healy v Healy
Montgomery County #2007-12477 Healy v Healy
Montgomery County #2013-29976 Healy v Miller
Third Circuit Court of Appeals # 13-4591 Healy, Krautheim v The Attorneys General
Eastern District of Pennsylvania #13-4614 Healy, Krautheim v The Attorneys General

While distracted by the media focus on the Pennsylvania Constitution phrase which has never before been used to successfully remove an ELECTED OFFICIAL like the Attorney General from office, people may be interested in another phrase

Check out Article III Section 13
“A member who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill proposed or pending before the General Assembly shall disclose the fact to the House of which he is a member, and shall not vote thereon.”

LOGIC would apply to remove ANYONE with a law degree (a personal and or private interest) from voting on ANY MEASURE which would serve to provide any personal or private financial gain at the present time OR in the future.

For example, … a plumber would not be permitted to vote on plumbing code or related measures as they would have “a personal or private interest” in ANY action which could result in a financial gain for plumbers.

AS ANY AND EVERY LAW provides the opportunity for lawyers to profit personally or privately from related legal issues and litigation (any measure or bill proposed or pending), ALL LAWYERS WOULD BE PREVENTED FROM VOTING ON ANY AND EVERY LAW pursuant to the PA Constitution.

Also, ANY measure which attempts to permit the lawyers in the General Assembly to ignore Article III Section 13 of the PA Constitution would be unconstitutional, and improperly enacted where lawyer-legislators failed to remove themselves from the vote on the measure.

The obligation is placed directly on the member of the General Assembly to self identify, AND NOT VOTE THEREON.  Failure to remove themselves from the vote would be an unconstitutional act in DIRECT violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution… and a reasonable cause for impeachment and removal from office.

As the legislative process and each vote is publicly recorded information, any failure by the lawyers in the General Assembly to remove themselves from voting could affect the validity of the subsequent law.

Consider the efforts of the leadership in the General Assembly to suppress and IGNORE the worst kept secret in Pennsylvania – an unconstitutional Confidentiality imposed upon lawyers by the Supreme Court which the court itself cannot address because of their improper mandate of confidentiality.

Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Ferman’s case against Attorney General Kathleen Kane has been based largely upon what is NOT being presented.  The docket of the case suddenly includes over fifty documents which have been sealed by the DA and the Superior Court BEFORE the items were ever entered into the docket – and backdated as far back as April 2015.

IT IS TIME for action by Governor Wolf pursuant to Article III Section 12. Convene the General Assembly to suspend the improper and unconstitutional Rule 1.6
mandate of confidentiality which has concealed the undermining of the Rule of Law, and the rights purported to be protected by the PA and US Constitutions.   (Per Article I Section 12, the Legislature has the ONLY authority to suspend laws.)

The ONLY profession which has profited from INJUSTICE is the legal profession.

The legal profession remained silent during scandals such as Kids For Cash, Sandusky, and a Foreclosure Crisis based on fraudulent and forged robosigned documents, etc… The nondisclosure by the entire legal profession while the rights of Americans and the Rule of Law were aggressively ignored.  Their silence which has undermined an entire Judiciary held hostage by their own improperly enacted and unconstitutional Confidentiality rules for lawyers and the legal profession.

The improperly enacted and unconstitutional Model Rules of Professional Conduct advanced at the behest of the American Bar Association has permitted the members of it’s various bar associations to profit from the deliberate injustice caused by an unethical, immoral and unconstitutional mandate of silence.

There will be no necessity for the lawyers in the General Assembly to convene when called by the Governor to address the CONFIDENTIAL corruption of the Judicial system, the lawyers can’t vote on it anyway.

YOU MIGHT ASK,…

WHAT ARE THE LAWYERS DOING IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION PREVENTS THEM FROM VOTING TO ENACT LAWS?

WHY HAS THE PA BAR ASSOCIATION FORMED A PAC TO FUND LOBBYING EFFORTS ON LAWYER ISSUES?