A Terroristic Divorce

Notice is hereby given that Terance Healy, Defendant, Appellant named above, hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the “purported” order entered in this matter on January 2, 2018. (Copy Attached)

“Purported” as the document contains a “robo-signature” and was delivered after a conference where the Defendant was not permitted to be present, and where Defendant was not permitted to be heard, and where the Defendant was not represented, and where the court lacks jurisdiction.

The Defendant has delivered to Judge William R,. Carpenter a MOTION FOR RECOURSE on January 8, 2018. (Attached)

Judge Carpenter having indicated in his Opinion dated March 9, 2016, that “There is no great injustice caused by the January 27, 2016 order…” “having appointed a Public Defender to represent him.”

In hindsight, the Court ordered representation, which provided NO REPRESENTATION, denied the Defendant of ANY representation. It served to prevent the Defendant from representing himself and denies his constitutional right to be heard.

JURISDICTION

The Court of Common Pleas does not have jurisdiction in this matter..

The Court has neglected to respond to any challenge of jurisdiction at any time, in any document, order or opinion, through three prior appeals to Superior Court, and one escalates to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Commonwealth has additionally neglected to address the issue of jurisdiction at any time, in any document, petition, or brief, through three appeal to Superior Court, and having filed a NO ANSWER letter neglected to address the issue with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The lack of jurisdiction, and inability to address the issue of jurisdiction, has caused a farce which threatens the integrity of the Court and the Public Trust in the judiciary.

APPEAL – ALLOWANCE BY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

There can be no permission provided by the Court, which lacks jurisdiction.

Appellant appeals to this Court with regard to a farce which has proceeded without regard for the Rule of Law, The Rules of Criminal Procedure, The Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Pennsylvania Constitutional or the Constitutional of the United States.

Appellant asserts that ANY RULE pursuant to Pa Constitution Article V Section 10(c) WHICH PREVENTS THIS MATTER FROM ANY REVIEW AND PREVENTS HIM FROM ANY RECOURSE subverts substantive rights protected by the US Constitution and has been improperly enacted where the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania authority to enact such rule or mandate requires that
“… such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant…”

THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH

Non-disclosure of ‘the whole truth’ in this matter has been prevented and unsubstantiated by any applicable rule of law.

Appellant challenges that non-disclosure of “the whole truth” is pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information which has collaterally subverted the rule of law and the constitutions, and prevents him protection under any Rule of Law and subverts ALL rights as a litigant.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL PARADOX

Appellant asserts that those persons encumbered by the mandate of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information are prevented from any action to address or challenge or review constitutionality pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.

The unconstitutional paradox is presented for your review, experience, endorsement judicial notice and RECUSAL with escalation to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Appellant is unaware of any transcript regarding the order.

The subject Order dated the 2nd day of January 2018 has been entered in the docket as evidenced by the attached copy of the docket entry.

Terance Healy

Warrington, PA 18976