A Terroristic Divorce

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COURT
Docket (Live link to UJS PORTAL)

The ARREST WARRANT was issued on 03/12/2015.
I was ARRESTED on 03/13/2015.
The DATE OF CHARGES is entered as 02/22/2015 on ALL BAIL and SURETY documents.
On 03/13/2017 the PRELIMINARY HEARING was scheduled for 03/27/2015 at 11:00 a.m.

The PRELIMINARY HEARING was re-scheduled for 03/26/2015 at 11:15 a.m.
(A manipulation of a copy of the notice previously signed by Judge Murray.)
The PRELIMINARY HEARING was re-scheduled for 03/26/2015 at 11:30 a.m.
The PRELIMINARY HEARING was re-scheduled for 03/26/2015 at 11:15 a.m.

An AMENDED POLICE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT was issued but lacked the AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE. The ARREST WARRANT is unsupported. No Basis for Preliminary Hearing.

I appeared on 03/26/2015 for the PRELIMINARY HEARING.
I DID NOT SIGN A WAIVER OF COUNSEL.
I DID NOT SIGN A WAIVER OF PRELIMINARY HEARING.
A court reporter was assigned to document the proceeding.
The Court had not requested the court reporter pursuant to Rule 500(a)
There had been no Agreement of the Parties pursuant to Rule 500(b).
The Prosecutor indicated she had not requested the court reporter.
The Chief Court Reporter indicated the reporter had been requested by Lauren McNulty.
Seeking to be represented zealously by counsel unhindered by Confidentiality was cause for a continuance.
The PRELIMINARY HEARING was continued to 04/09/2015 at 10:00 a.m.
There is a transcript.

To support the ARREST WARRANT, and provide Basis for the Preliminary Hearing.
On 04/01/2015, a new four (4) page AFFADAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE was sworn.

The document was not provided until at the PRELIMINARY HEARING.

I appeared on 04/09/2015 for the PRELIMINARY HEARING.
I filed a STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON APRIL 9, 2015.
I DID NOT SIGN A WAIVER OF COUNSEL.
I DID NOT SIGN A WAIVER OF PRELIMINARY HEARING.
A court reporter was assigned to document the proceeding.
The Court had not requested the court reporter pursuant to Rule 500(a)
There had been no Agreement of the Parties pursuant to Rule 500(b).
The Prosecutor indicated she had not requested the court reporter.
The Chief Court Reporter indicated the reporter had been requested by Lauren McNulty.
The modified AFFADAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE required a continuance.
The PRELIMINARY HEARING was continued to 04/24/2015 at 9:30 a.m.
There is a transcript.

I appeared on 04/24/2015 for the PRELIMINARY HEARING.
I DID NOT SIGN A WAIVER OF COUNSEL.
I DID NOT SIGN A WAIVER OF PRELIMINARY HEARING.
A court reporter was assigned to document the proceeding.
The Court had not requested the court reporter pursuant to Rule 500(a)
There had been no Agreement of the Parties pursuant to Rule 500(b).
The Prosecutor indicated she had not requested the court reporter.
The Chief Court Reporter indicated the reporter had been requested by Lauren McNulty.
The PRELIMINARY HEARING proceeded with the Defendant unrepresented by Counsel, without any WAIVER OF COUNSEL, without COLLOQUOY, without any WAIVER OF PRELIMINARY HEARING, and in violation of the constitutional right to be represented at criminal proceedings.
At the conclusion of the ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ the matter was transferred to the Court of Common Pleas.
There is a transcript.

A FORMAL ARRAIGNMENT was scheduled for 06/10/2015.

WHY DOES THE DOCKET INCORRECTLY INDICATE…
03-26-2017 Waiver of Preliminary Hearing	FILER: Terance P. Healy	APPLIES TO: Terance P. Healy, Defendant
03-26-2017 Waiver of Counsel	FILER: Terance P. Healy	APPLIES TO: Terance P. Healy, Defendant
	There no entries which indicate the AMENDED POLICE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT.
04-01-2017	There no entries which indicate the AMENDED POLICE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT.

WHY FAKE THE DATA?

This information is necessary. They are elements of jurisdiction.

Incorrect information which relates to jurisdiction might prevent a judge from recognizing that HE LACKS JURISDICTION to proceed.

It is the responsibility of the judge to assure his valid jurisdiction, but will he look at the actual documents? or an entry which suggests it exists?

Falsified information could cause a judge to act where he lacks any lawful authority to act.

Confidentiality prevents the District Attorney from adversely affecting the integrity of the judiciary. (Leverage which undermines the independence of the judiciary.)
Confidentiality prevents the District Attorney from exposing the unlawful actions of his staffer (Attorney Client Privilege).
Confidentiality prevents the District Attorney from exposing the unlawful actions of his department (Attorney Client Privilege).

From the security afforded by attorney-client privilege, an ADA can act with impunity in violation of laws, procedures and rights. The ADA may get fired, but NOT PROSECUTED. IN THE CURRENT CASE, THE ADA WAS PROMOTED TO CAPTAIN OF THE JUDGE’S COURTROOM.

When the case is reassigned, CONFIDENTIALITY mandates the newly assigned ADA to maintain the farce. The relationship between the ADA and the DAO is an attorney client relationship. Confidentiality is mandated. (Well, unless someone is going to kill you… and they say it outloud.).

AFFECT:

The Defendant has lost any protection of the law.

The Defendant has lost ALL constitutionally protected rights.

The Defendant has lost any possibility of succeeding without regard to effective defense.

WHY DOES THE DOCKET NEGLECT TO INCLUDE THE STATEMENTS FILED BY THE DEFENDANT…

This is not an accidental act of clerical negligence.

The STATEMENT indicates:

At issue is the inability to obtain counsel unhindered and unencumbered by the confidentiality and nondisclosure MANDATED by the Rules of Professional Conduct which have been demonstrated to cause an absolute denial of any protection of the law and the denial of rights secured and protected by the Constitution. The Preliminary Hearing requires the constitution right to representation by legal counsel be addressed before continuing. 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 in where comprehension, acknowledgement and experience demonstrate the affect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of information causing the facts to be ignored.

THERE IS A TRANSCRIPT WHERE THESE ISSUES WERE DISCUSSED.

THERE ARE ACTUALLY THREE TRANSCRIPTS WHERE THESE ISSUES WERE DISCUSSED.
*Requested by ADA with disregard to Rule 500.

THE JUDGE PROCEEDED WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, WHICH THEN OCCURRED, AND THAT PRELIMINARY HEARING, WHICH WAS TRANSCRIBED, DEMONSTRATE THAT IT CLEARLY WAS NOT WAIVED.

The Docket indicates the Preliminary Hearing scheduled for
03/26/2015 @ 11:15
03/26/2015 @ 11:30
03/27/2015 @ 11:00
04/02/2015 @ 11:30
04/09/2016 @ 10:00
04/24/2016 @ 9:30
If a waiver had been signed on 03/26/2015, the court would not continue to schedule the hearing.

LASTLY, as the STATEMENTS filed, and spoken verbally, by the Defendant have indicated his non-waivers and the defect in jurisdiction, there can be no implied or suggested waiver by the Defendant based on a failure to present or raise the issue.
WHY NO MOTION? PETITION FOR RELIEF? PETITION TO DISMISS?
– If the Defendant were to file any document requesting action by the Court, that action would constitute an acceptance and acknowledgement of jurisdiction.
– Statements do NOT constitute or suggest any waiver.
– To avoid accidental waiver of jurisdiction, no motions or petitions will be filed. Only statements which document each issue.
– Notice Of Appeal does not provide jurisdiction.
– The Court has failed to provide the accurate record to the higher court. DENIED petitions to compel production of the record without prejudice permit the Defendant to seek that relief from the lower court, BUT, in doing so THAT MOTION would provide JURISDICTION.

WHATS THE BIG DEAL? So do it. Give them jurisdiction. Well? If a court which did not have jurisdiction was acting without regard for law or rights, why believe that a court with jurisdiction would not commit similar or worse injustices?

NOW… TAKE A BREATH… AND RELEASE…

The Assistant District Attorney has participated with tremendous indifference (and negligent avoidance of even the word ‘jurisdiction’) while the issue of jurisdiction has been challenged in the Court of Common Pleas, raised to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and further raised to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. THREE YEARS have passed.
The Assistant District Attorney is confident. The injustice is permitted and protected.
The Defendant has lost any protection of the law.
The Defendant has lost ALL constitutionally protected rights.
The Defendant has lost any possibility of presenting an effective defense.
The Defendant is being denied any reasonable expectation of justice.
The Assistant District Attorney has NO requirement to adhere to any Rules, Procedures, Laws, or Rights.
The Assistant District Attorney has the confidence of knowing that EVERY action in the higher courts has been undermined by the lawyers in the central legal staff preventing ANY review by the judiciary. The judiciary is held hostage.

There’s more. This is ONLY the first (and shortest) docket.

Once the injustice starts, the system goes off the rails.

In the Court of Common Pleas, THINGS GET MUCH WORSE.

This injustice is an extension of the injustice which began in August 2007, when Judge Rhonda Daniele issued an order which was kept secret from the Defendant. The secret undermined the entire Montgomery County bench. It was found after 3 years. The injustice had been hard, the retaliation has been even worse. It is still continuing….