A Terroristic Divorce

Pietro J. D’Angelo
Office of the Public Defender
Montgomery County Courthouse
P.O. Box 311
Norristown, PA 19404-0311

Dear Mr. D’Angelo,

Calls, letters, faxes and documents left for your attention at the Office of the Public Defender have continued to go without any response. The failure to communicate is contrary to effective representation in the matter before the court.

I take the matter before the Court very seriously. I have communicated by filing statements before each proceeding. Unfortunately, there is no method by which I can motivate your activity. While you have been silent, I have provided information which is relevant and necessary for my defense.

Statement of Defendant on March 30, 2016
[ PDF Document contains 108 pages (17.3 MB) ]

I would prefer to NOT BE REPRESENTED as your obligations pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct prevent a zealous representation and prevent open communication regarding the case.

Your assignment to the matter has effectively undermined my efforts to communicate and/or file documents with the Court. The ‘order’ by which you have been ‘assigned’ to my case is defective and void for lack of jurisdiction and other procedural issues. The ‘order’ has been appealed to the Superior Court. There are currently three (3) interlocutory appeals filed in this matter with the Superior Court.

Similarly, the District Attorney clearly finds no necessity or obligation to adhere to the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Law or respect rights which are protected by the PA Constitution and the US Constitution.

The ‘order’ dated April 7, 2016 demonstrates the complete disregard for communication. I recognize that you are ignoring the information I have provided. It is clear that you do not intend to permit me to participate or communicate regarding my defense in any way.

Perhaps, your neglect obfuscates the knowledge that your assignment is defective and void. This is further supported by the delay in filing your appearance in the matter.

On March 30, 2016, I informed you that Dr. Rocio Nell would have several issues which create a conflict of interest for her. This information has been ignored.

You filed a document on my behalf without any communication requesting an examination by Dr Nell. I have been unable to obtain the petition you filed with the Court. The clerk indicated that he could not provide the petition or any other documents which are listed in the system but WHICH DO NOT APPEAR on the Court Docket.

An ‘order’ dated April 7, 2016 resulted. The ‘order’ indicates you served that ‘order’ to my address on April 6, 2016. [ The day before? ] The docket indicates that ‘order’ was received by the Clerk of Courts on April 14, 2016.

I traveled to the Courthouse on April 20, 2016 to meet you and to obtain copies of the ‘order’ which had appeared on the docket without any petition filed with the Court. You were unavailable. You did not contact me to follow up.

I was provided the ‘order’ which, aside from the immediate discrepancies regarding the date/time stamps, was carelessly prepared, improperly captioned, not supported by Law, and contained a rubber stamped signature. There was no way to certify its authenticity. This was confirmed by the Clerk.

The Clerk of Courts would not accept a fourth (4) NOTICE OF APPEAL regarding this ‘order’ of April 7, 2016 because the docket reflects your appearance filed on February 23, 2016.

Directly relating to Dr. Nell’s conflict of interest is a matter from 2007 where the same police officer involved in the current matter had falsified documents. Since 2007, repeated requests for Police Reports and other documents have been denied citing an ‘ongoing investigation’. That ‘ongoing investigation’ has never been addressed, or resolved. Reports have never been made available. The matter involves civil and constitutional rights violations by the police officer and failure to follow the Law. Actions by MCES in 2007, and subsequently, have neglected to adhere to Pennsylvania Law. MCES acted without regard for the law and my individual civil rights.

Additionally affecting subsequent criminal complaints, attempts to obtain police reports have been met with the same response. ‘Ongoing Investigations’ which have never been explained, resolved or prosecuted.

The ‘Information’ provided by the District Attorney in this matter also failed to include these documents. The DA has failed to address the missing ‘information’.

Where an investigation has failed to result in prosecution, the Office of the District Attorney will secure their investigative materials using grand jury seals and associated confidentiality. These actions are presumed to prevent an investigated individual from being adversely affected by the failed investigation.

In recent years, the aggressive efforts of the Montgomery County District Attorney with regard to grand jury secrecy have attacked Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane. As owner of the CHRIA data, the Attorney General would have access to all investigative materials, AND visibility to information should it have been improperly sealed behind grand jury secrecy to conceal corruption or abuse.

A meeting on the MCES property with Dr. Nell would require a level of trust which does not exist and one which I can ill afford to extend. The challenge to my competence is unfounded and baseless. The issues are well documented. I understand the legal proceedings.

I recognize the deliberate and intentional efforts by the District Attorney which neglect to follow the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Rule of Law, while ignoring Constitutional rights.

I am unable to prevent the continued abuse of power and obstruction of justice involved in this vindictive and retaliatory prosecution by the Montgomery County District Attorney. The manipulative and abusive tactics demonstrated by the prosecutor are contrary to established law and procedure. I cannot endorse or capitulate to the efforts which deny my rights and seek to prevent any participation in my own defense.

The failure of the Court to address ANY AND EVERY procedural violation by the prosecutor remains unexplained. There is nothing that a victim of retaliatory and vindictive prosecution without ‘rules’ can do except survive and attempt to address the issues with sincerity and in a respectful manner.

The actions of the District Attorney were initiated when the victim of a fraud, the Defendant, reported the crime to the Pennsylvania Attorney General and the Governor.

The District Attorney has chosen to aggressively prosecute the victim of a fraudulent conveyance where neglecting to prosecute the perpetrators of the fraud. The failure of the DA to prosecute does not validate the fraud which has occurred. Efforts which prevent lawful resolution in a timely manner seem determined to run out a statute of limitations for the crime. However, the fraudulent conveyance has resulted in an invalid deed which cannot become valid by ignoring the crimes involved

The validity of the ‘order’ of April 7, 2016 cannot be determined where the issues which affect its validity remain ignored. I will not be complicit in the efforts, purportedly executed on my behalf, which place my security and liberty at risk.

I welcome any opportunity to address the issues which will serve to substantiate the lawful dismissal of the criminal complaint with prejudice.

Terance Healy

PDF version

DISTRIBUTION:
Public Defender, Pietro D’Angelo
Montgomery County Sheriff
Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane
Judge Carpenter, Chambers
Judge Furber, Chambers
Judge Demchik-Alloy, Chambers
Pennsylvania Legislature
Media & Internet