12.21
| COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA | # 3166 EDA 2015 |
| # 3151-15 | |
| v. | # 46-CR-0003151-2015 |
| # MJ-38118-CR-0000096-2015 | |
| Terance Healy |
REGARDING THE PER CURIAM ORDER FILED DECEMBER 9, 2015
A Copy of the Order filed December 9, 2015 is attached.
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 Order filed December 9, 2015 neglects to specify the ‘Appellant’s pro se November 9, 2015 notice’ by title.
Appellant respectfully requests the Court indicate the subject document which is being addressed by the Order by title, or some other more specific identifying information.
The Order filed December 9, 2015 fails to indicate the applicable Rule of Law which has resulted in the notice being DENIED.
Appellant respectfully requests the Court indicate the Rule of Law, Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule of Professional Conduct, or other properly enacted law, rule or statute which has been applied to the NOTICE resulting in it being DENIED.
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 and unsigned and marked as a PER CURIAM Order.
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, any NOTICE to be DENIED by an UNDATED, UNSIGNED and UNSUBSTANTIATED 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.
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 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 a 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 preceding four (4) motions contained herein seek information which should otherwise have been provided to the Appellant.
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.
In light of the unavailability of information, and during the pendancy of the information requested in Motions I, II, III, and IV being provided, the Appellant respectfully requests the reconsideration of this Honorable Court regarding the Order filed December 9, 2015 and referred to as the “Appellant’s pro se November 9, 2015 notice”.
The Court clearly has acknowledged the NOTICE which the Order of December 9, 2015 has DENIED.
An Order denying a NOTICE filed with the Court, and served upon the parties, is a contradiction in itself.
As requested in the above-listed Motions, further information is required before the Appellant can address or respond to any issues with any specificity as they relate to the Appeal to the Superior Court.
In addition, the information requested in the above-listed motions , will be of direct interest and necessity to the state Attorney General where the Appeal has called into question the Constitutionality of laws/actions.
The documented deficiencies demonstrate a deliberate refusal to respond to or address the broad failures to adhere to the Rule of Law, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Those documented deficiencies are directly, or collaterally, involved in and affecting the matter before this court while undermining the Appellants rights which are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States which are being ignored without explanation or consequence.
Respectfully Submitted,
Terance Healy
No Comment.
Add Your Comment