12.21
| COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA | # 3166 EDA 2015 |
| # 3151-15 | |
| v. | # 46-CR-0003151-2015 |
| # MJ-38118-CR-0000096-2015 | |
| Terance Healy |
A Copy of the Order filed December 9, 2015 is attached in an effort to provide specificity with regard to the Order being addressed herein.
Appellant is unaware of any document filed in this matter by the Commonwealth (and NOT SERVED) which has challenged or contested ANY documents filed by the Appellant with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Appellant is unaware, and has not been advised nor informed of any proceeding or scheduled appearance held before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania for the purpose of addressing any uncontested Notice.
The Appellant respectfully informs the Honorable Court that VERBAL PERMISSION to file the subject interlocutory appeal was GRANTED on October 14, 2015 in Court by the Honorable William Carpenter.
This information regarding permission by Judge Carpenter was provided in the Notice of Appeal filed on October 20, 2015. (Paragraph 2)
The verbal order permitting the interlocutory appeal having been issued during a proceeding on October 14, 2015, a transcript has not been made available or provided.
The limited Order to Proceed in Forma Pauperis in the Appeal filed on October 20, 2015, neglects to provide for the production of the transcripts in this matter.
The limited IFP Order is the subject of a Notice of Appeal filed on October 27, 2015 seeking to provide the financial resources necessary to produce the transcripts of proceedings in this matter. Cross Reference #3234 EDA 2015.
The Order filed December 9, 2015 improperly offers Pa.R.A.P. 341(b) as the applicable Rule of Law.
Pa.R.A.P. 312 Interlocutory Appeals by Permission is the applicable Rule of Law.
The Order filed December 9, 2015 is undated and unsigned and marked as a PER CURIAM Order.
The Order filed December 9, 2015 includes an improper application of an unrelated rule of Appellate procedure.
The Order filed December 9, 2015 seeks to quash the pending Appeal based on an unrelated Rule of Appellate procedure.
The Order filed December 9, 2015 has been issued where circumstances which apply to the interlocutory appeal and the permission granted by Judge Carpenter have been provided to the Superior Court on numerous occasions.
– Notice of Appeal
– Docketing Sheet
– collateral statements
– collateral documents
Appellant respectfully requests the Court indicate the applicable Rule of Law, Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule of Professional Conduct, or other law or statute which provides support for, excuses or permits, the rights of the Appellant in the matter to be ignored pursuant to an UNDATED, UNSIGNED and UNSUBSUBSTANTIATED Per Curiam Order.
Where the Appellant’s rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitution are being affected, a NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL has been filed as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 521).
The Attorney General will be better able to address any constitutional issues which arise in this matter if the decisions are substantiated by the applicable law.
Appellant respectfully requests the applicable Rule of Law, Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule of Professional Conduct, or other law or statute which permits the assignment of an arbitrary deadline for a response where ANY failure to comply with that deadline could result in the DENIAL of the Appeal, resulting in an implied waiver of rights which could result in the denial of constitutionally protected rights without opportunity for any recourse.
Where the Appellant’s rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitution are being affected, a NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL has been filed as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 521).
The Attorney General will be better able to address any constitutional issues which arise in this matter if the decisions are substantiated by the applicable law.
The Order filed December 9, 2015 is UNDATED, UNSIGNED, UNSUBSTANTIATED and marked as PER CURIAM.
A Letter dated December 9, 2015, used as a transmittal, which accompanied the Order does NOT include an original signature but could be attributed to Deputy Prothonotary Michael A. DiPasquale.
The signature on the document is ARTWORK which fails to demonstrate any real evidence of the involvement of the Deputy Prothonotary in the filing or transmission of the Order to the Appellant and the others on the distribution list.
Appellant respectfully requests the Court indicate the applicable Rule of Law, Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule of Professional Conduct, or other law or statute which provides support for, excuses or permits, the use of any mark in place of an original signature on any court document filed or used in transmission to the litigants
Where the Appellant’s rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitution are being affected, a NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL has been filed as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 521).
The Attorney General will be better able to address any constitutional issues which arise in this matter if the decisions are substantiated by the applicable law.
THE RULEMAKING AUTHORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT
Article V Section 10 (c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution
“The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts, justices of the peace and all officers serving process or enforcing orders, judgments or decrees of any court or justice of the peace, including the power to provide for assignment or reassignment of classes of actions or classes of appeals among the several courts as the needs of justice shall require, and for admission to the bar and to practice law, and the administration of all courts and supervision of all officers of the Judicial Branch, if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of the peace. Nor suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose. All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the General Assembly may by statute provide for the manner of testimony of child victims or child material witnesses in criminal proceedings, including the use of videotaped depositions or testimony by closed circuit television.”
Where any rule enacted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affects the rights of a litigant (abridged, enlarged or modified – directly, indirectly or collaterally), the Supreme Court has acted outside of the authority provided in the Pennsylvania Constitution.
CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW
Since Marbury v. Madison, the Judiciary has maintained the position as sole arbiter/decider when constitutionality is challenged.
There is no established process or procedure for constitutional review when the rule or law being challenged has been enacted by the judiciary.
An apparent and clear conflict of interest prevents the judiciary from any ability to address their own unconstitutional rule.
There is no provision for constitutional review by the Legislative or Executive Branch.
All law remains LAW until there is a determination of UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.
Once determined to be unconstitutional, it is NO LAW, a nullity, as if it had never existed.
A FURTHER COMPLICATION
When the improperly enacted and unconstitutional law IS CONCEALED by the CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION required of ALL legal professionals, lawyers and judges, at every level within the state and federally, the resolution is prevented by the lawyers inability to take any corrective action.
Exposure would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.
Exposure would violate the mandated CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.
Confidentiality can collaterally trigger a denial of any Protection of the Law for a litigant, with ALL rights secured and protected by the US Constitution becoming unavailable to the litigant, ignored by legal professionals, and left unexplained pursuant to the mandate of confidentiality.
It is LAW, until it is not. Then, it never was.
OPPORTUNITY FOR RESOLUTION
While lawful exposure and resolution is available to me, as a non-lawyer litigant with damages and proper standing. There can be no mandate which requires the silence of any American Citizen while experiencing the denial of constitutionally protected rights and denied protection of the Rule of Law.
My efforts to address and resolve legal matters continue to be prevented by unexplained and unsubstantiated actions by lawyers, or court staff acting at the direction of their legal counsel.
While mandated by CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION. They have acted to insulate and prevent the judiciary from being presented with any opportunity to review or addressing the constitutional issues affecting the Appellant.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has neglected to address the unconstitutional affect upon litigants within the courts.
The Legislature has neglected (or been prevented from) action to address the unconstitutional affect upon litigants within the courts.
The Governor’s Office of General Counsel have interfered, misinformed, obstructed and denied access to the Governor preventing any meeting, any discussion, any action or any resolution.
Governor Tom Wolf (pursuant to Article IV Section 12 of the Pennsylvania Constitution) can convene the Legislature to address the issue.
The Legislature (pursuant to Article I Section 12 of the Pennsylvania Constitution) can SUSPEND THE LAW and permit an open discussion of the unconstitutional affect of the improperly enacted Confidentiality of information which has undermined the Constitution, the Rule of Law and the Judiciary.
The incomplete, unexplained, unsubstantiated efforts of the Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania have been executed with deliberate intent. Preventing cases from going before the Judiciary is a violation of rights.
Where excused for their unconstitutional injustice concealed by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, I suggest they consider the eventuality where Rule 1.6 will be recognized to be unconstitutional, a nullity, NO LAW, and can provide no defense for their unconstitutional actions.
The constitutional rights of the Appellant are under threat of being ignored without opportunity for eventual restoration, resolution or recourse as a result of improperly applied rules; undated and unsigned orders which have been issued as Per Curiam; and distributed to the Appellant under the artificial signature of the Deputy Prothonotary.
Where these actions cannot easily be traced by the Appellant to the individual responsible for an egregious encroachment upon the constitutionally protected rights of the Appellant, the Appellant respectfully requests the identification of the person responsible for the document(s).
Where identification is prevented by Law, the Appellant respectfully requests that the applicable law be indicated.
Any law which seeks to conceal the improper and unlawful ability of an individual within the administration of the courts while permitting the denial of rights secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States will definitely be of interest to the state Attorney General where the Appeal has called into question the Constitutionality of laws/actions.
Respectfully Submitted,
Terance Healy
No Comment.
Add Your Comment