01.08
“There is no great injustice caused by the January 27, 2016 order…” “having appointed a Public Defender to represent him.” – Judge William R. Carpenter
In his Opinion dated March 9, 2016, where the issue of jurisdiction is not addressed, Judge Carpenter suggests, “There is no great injustice caused by the January 27, 2016 order in which this Court rescheduled the call of the trial list in this matter, having determined Healy to be incompetent and having appointed a Public Defender to represent him.”
Permitting an assault upon the Defendant’s competence, and permitting an aggressive and malicious prosecutor to prevail where every law applicable to the situation is ignored and offers no protection, is an egregious improper incomprehensible and vile personal attack on the self-esteem, character, reputation and the emotional well-being of the Defendant who has persevered through a malicious prosecution conducted outside any Rule of Law or any Rule of Criminal Procedure.
Abuse of power under color of law with intent to cause severe emotional distress.
There could be no more accurate description for the crime committed by Lauren McNulty regarding the persistent pursuit of the contrived allegation, which she has stalled and delayed for three years. Protection in her persistent abusive prosecution secured by an attorney-client relationship with District Attorney Kevin Steele, and previously by District Attorney Risa Ferman.
The Participation in the crime by this Honorable Court while without jurisdiction to hold hearings in the matter in unconscionable, and inescapable for the Defendant who while represented by a court appointed Public Defender has not been permitted to address the court.
Before this Court, this Defendant is without any voice. Liberty threatened by a corrupt abuse.
Where this Court has failed to state that jurisdiction is proper, the Defendant challenges the court for an explanation of why there has been a complete and absolute neglect and disregard to indicate proper jurisdiction at any time in the last three years – through three appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania – through one appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court – while jurisdiction has been challenged at every opportunity.
The neglect to address jurisdiction by the District Attorney in this Court and through three appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The District Attorney avoiding any indication of jurisdiction by filing a “No Answer Letter” with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Court Ordered representation requires at least some representation.
The absence of any evidence of representation by the Public Defender indicates they have provided NO REPRESENTATION.
Effectively, the Court ordered representation (NO REPRESENTATION) denied the Defendant of ANY representation. It serves to prevent the Defendant from representing himself.
Before this Court, this Defendant is denied his right to defend. Liberty threatened by a corrupt abuse.
There has been NO REPRESENTATION provided by the Public Defender Office.
There have been no motions or documents filed by the Public Defender Office.
The Public Defender has indicated a refusal to communicate with the Defendant.
– they will not meet
– they will not discuss the case
– they will not speak via telephone
– they will not respond via email
– they will not read any statements filed by the Defendant
– they will not review the case with the Defendant
– they will not plan the defense with The Defendant
– they will not participate in the defense
– they will not permit the Defendant to participate in his defense.
THE PUBLIC STATEMENTS OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER REGARDING THE REFUSAL TO COMMUNICATE WITNESSED AND CONFIRMED.
– Affadavit of Joan P. Healy
– Affadavit of Todd M. Krautheim
To allege Ineffective Representation by Counsel regarding the Public Defender would require that there had to be SOME representation to show their ineffectiveness.
BUT, the Public Defender provided NO REPRESENTATION;
failed to challenge the competency decision – no hearing, no evidence, no testimony, no chance to defend;
failed to challenge their assignment;
failed to file briefs and two appeals were dismissed;
secretly attempted to withdraw the third appeal and was denied;
secretly raised the third appeal to the Supreme Court while neglecting the issue of jurisdiction (Failing to use the word jurisdiction.);
failed to appear for several proceedings – leaving the Defendant to fend for himself;
has filed no motions in this matter;
has not met with the Defendant to plan a defense;
refuses to communicate with the Defendant;
will not identify the attorney assigned to represent the Defendant;
will not respond to email;
will not respond to phone calls;
has conducted no discovery;
has prepared no witness;
has not reviewed the Information;
has made no effort to represent the Defendant at any time;
AND AS OF THIS DATE THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSIGNED PUBLIC DEFENDER REMAINS UNKNOWN.
Judge Carpenter was mistaken. There has been MASSIVE injustice demonstrated having appointed a Public Defender to represent me.
Lauren McNulty petitioned for the Defendant to be declared incompetent and appointment of a public defender.
– Her request was granted to the exclusion of the stated intentions of the Defendant.
– Her request was granted to the exclusion of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Mental Health Act.
– The decision was based on neither evidence, testimony, law nor experience.
– Her request was granted while the report for which she paid over $7700.00 was not yet written.
– It was her’s for the asking.
PARTICIPATION IN THE DEFENSE
The court appointed Public Defender sabotaged documents filed by the Defendant, and further as indicated in hundreds of emails, The Public Defender failed to respond or permit the Defendant to participate in his own defense.
The Public Defender didn’t participate either. The Chief Public Defender persists in his refusal to identify the attorney assigned.
“There is no great injustice caused by the January 27, 2016 order…” “having appointed a Public Defender to represent him.”
The Defendant strongly disagrees with that Opinion of the Court. [WITH EMPHASIS ADDED]
The negligence and sabotage by the Public Defender for the last two years contradicts the judges opinion WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE and shows their CONTEMPT for his assignment.
The Public Defender was acting against the interests of the Defendant, an active participant in an abuse of power by the District Attorney from which the Defendant could not be heard, and from which the Defendant could not defend.
ENTRY OF FRAUDULENT DATA INTO STATE COMPUTERS
Employees in the Magisterial District Court in Montgomeryville, PA have admitted to their part in the entry of false data into court docket computer system.
The Information which they entered they knew to be incorrect.
The knew that did not have any document, statement or record to support the entry.
They chose to ignore that the information which they were entering was false. They entered it anyway.
They acted to workaround the computer system programming which would not forward the case to the next court without the entry.
False Entry #1:
Waiver of Counsel 03-26-2015 Filer: Terance P. Healy Applies to: Terance P. Healy, Defendant
The existence of the document is false.
The date is false.
The filer is false.
These actions were done to affect the case of the Defendant. (Applies to:)
Court Employees admitted there were no documents to support their entry.
They acted for the purpose of moving the case forward.
Evidence which indicates the data is false exists in written statements by the Defendant and verbal statements by the Defendant.
Evidence which indicates the data is false exists in the Court transcript for the proceeding.
False Entry #2:
Waiver of Preliminary Hearing 03-26-2015 Filer: Terance P. Healy Applies to: Terance P. Healy, Defendant
The existence of the document is false.
The date is false.
The filer is false.
These actions were done to affect the case of the Defendant. (Applies to:)
Court Employees admitted there were no documents to support their entry.
They acted for the purpose of moving the case forward.
Evidence which indicates the data is false exists in written statements by the Defendant and verbal statements by the Defendant.
Evidence which indicates the data is false exists in the Court transcript for the proceeding.
Evidence which indicates the data is false exists within the court docket where a Preliminary was scheduled for multiple dates and times AFTER the date of the entry.
03-26-2015 @ 11:15 am
03-26-2015 @ 11:30 am
03-27-2015 @ 11:00 am
04-02-2015 @ 11:30 am
04-09-2015 @ 10:00 am
04-24-2015 @ 9:30 am
SENT BY EMAIL TO:
adaniels@montcopa.org, agur@montcopa.org, akatzman@montcopa.org, akosinsk@montcopa.org, akostyk@montcopa.org, bhalfond@montcopa.org, bkersey@montcopa.org, callman@montcopa.org, cfortune@montcopa.org, chosay@montcopa.org, csweeney@montcopa.org, dgreensp@montcopa.org, djohnson@montcopa.org, “Marone, Denise”
No Comment.
Add Your Comment