01.04
CIVIL DIVISION
Bucks County Dept. of Mental Health/ # 17-40117
Developmental Programs
v
Terance Healy
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW FROM REPRESENTATION
The Defendant respectfully requests the Court take the actions which will best serve the prompt resolution of the Appeal.
Where this Court finds it is in the best interest of Mr. Bastedo to be removed from representation, I respectfully accept his withdrawal. Brad has performed his responsibilities professionally, with integrity and with dignity and respect to all involved. I sincerely appreciate his efforts.
With regard to appointment of Conflict Counsel, evidence of the interference of county personnel with my legal representation in this matter including the efforts admitted by County Commissioners at their December meeting, suggest that the appointment of conflict counsel hindered by the purse strings of Commissioners and with unknown obligations of confidentiality which could potentially prevent zealous representation, I respectfully request the court permit me to represent myself as this matter moves forward.
I am an educated person. I can present logical thought. I am familiar with the Mental Health Law as well as the rules of civil procedure. I am familiar with the proper courtesy and decorum expected of those who present within the courtroom. It is not my desire to self-represent. I am aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self representation. Experience has demonstrated the necessity of legal representation unencumbered by confidentiality burdens and obligations which can collaterally affect protection of the Rule of Law and often permit the denial of constitutionally protected rights.
I will proceed within the law and without any deceptive, misleading, improper or incomplete information to those with whom I communicate. I will cite proper procedure(s), law(s), or right(s) when applicable and appropriate.
Out of respect for the court and the vast knowledge and professional experience of Mr. Bastedo, I request he be permitted to continue as a consultant/advisor in the matter. I believe it is in the best interest of the court, and would appreciate the Court’s permission to maintain that relationship until such time as it is no longer believed necessary to have the support.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Brad Bastedo represented himself with sincerity, integrity and dignity at all times
Though he knows far more about the events which bring about the need for his services, at no time did he neglect to treat me with respect. We met under less than favorable conditions. We had limited time to communicate, his representation has been appropriate for the events based on the information provided to him.
He listened. He trusted me to participate in my defense. With the information I provided, and what was served to him, his actions were appropriate at all times.
He accomplished goals as discussed and planned. The anticipated results were reasonable and accomplished.
During the casual proceeding, I interrupted to correct an issue. He immediately took appropriate action to assure the record would reflect the statement correctly.
In a building where no one listens, he listened. He recognized the events and the applicable law for each situation. He took appropriate actions.
He thought he was never going to see me again.
THE APPEAL
The Appeal was filed timely within three days. Copies to the attorneys, the Hearing Officer, and the Mental Health Department. The Mental Health Act indicated the proper place to file was with the Mental Health Department. The Appeal was faxed, and copies were hand delivered.
There was no response regarding the appeal. Not from the Attorneys. Not from the Hearing Officer. Not from the Mental Health Department.
Phone Calls and messages to the Mental Health Department received no response.
The Mental Health Act indicates the Appeal should be heard within a few days.
After weeks, I was contacted by Warminster Township Police. I was told to have no further contact, to make no further calls, to accept no phone calls, to make no further visits to the Mental Health Department. The Department required by law to administer the appeal had called the police (?) to threaten me to stay away or be arrested. No document explaining the reasoning was provided.
I contacted the County Commissioners. Diane Marseglia responded. Our email exchange lead to an introduction to the Public Defenders Office to handle the appeal. As our communication took place via email, they are provided. Attached.
PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR THE APPEAL
I applied and was accepted by the Public Defender. I immediately was reintroduced to Brad Bastedo. So much for never seeing me again. Respectful courtesy was the initial tone. Brad would indicate later he expected a type A – crossing t’s dotting i’s type of experience.
Within two or three minutes, Brad’s experience in Mental Health law was evident. He realized something was wrong, very wrong, troublingly wrong.
Our conversation that first meeting was a review of the documents which had been gathered. Brad could spot issues instantly. Clearly, he knew the paperwork, the Mental Health law, and the issues were very clear.
There was no immediate explanation for the actions of all involved to have completely disregarded the Mental Health Laws and gone off the rails. A false suicide intervention. He didn’t know that there was such a thing because usually people were so happy to be out, they never looked back.
At our second meeting, Brad indicated he may have to consult a lawyer for himself in order to continue representing me. I acknowledged that possibility. Clearly, Brad understood the matter before him.
Brad indicated he had been contacted to drop the case, to withdraw, from people within the courthouse. He never identified them by name. He indicated some email exchanges regarding his representation.
Brad asked if I thought I was a target. My reply was that if there is nothing I can do to prevent being targeted, I do not consider there is reason to worry. Yes, I believed it. He asked some questions and my replies were unparanoid and dismissive of what was out of my control. Was I careful. Sure. Aware of technology/surveillance. Very.
Brad told me I should not feel safe. Call it what you will, but I was under a microscope. He cautioned me to take every precaution to avoid any possible reason for anyone to do anything to me. He also stated that if I lived in Warminster I would have been killed. I knew he was correct. I had done my research.
His advice was reasonable, sincere and not designed to cause alarm. We communicated well. My attention to details may have been something he wasn’t quite used to with his clients.
When the Appeal was dismissed, Brad contacted me with a suggestion to try PCRA. I responded with a suggestion of Reconsideration and listed the reasons which the court may not have considered in the dismissal. The Reconsideration was succesful. A Hearing was scheduled. Teamwork.
At the Hearing, it was clear the appeal would not be resolved in a day. The only person to testify was one of the four police officers. His testimony (with notes permitted) included procedural errors, however, it was that the officer had NOT filled out the paperwork which contained his signature that was unexpected.
There had been three different sets of paperwork. There had been no warrant.
The Court ordered counsel to submit memoranda. The result was an order for the Doctor to appear at the next proceeding.
We had agreed that I would review the memo (and any documents) before it would be submitted to the court. Brad was reminded. He came clean after the court decision, however he wouldn’t provide the documents, or the order. I became concerned. I became determined. I recognized a probable reason for the smaller hearing was discretion. The court heard from only the one Plaintiff witness.
We had already discussed all the flaws on the documents and each of the laws which were ignored. The Mental Health law indicates specific crimes involved for failure to adhere to specific aspects of the law. This was done to protect constitutional rights, and to prevent the rapid spread of liability across organizations which became involved after the error. The law specifies who is to be held accountable in each organization and the actions which are to be taken.
District Attorney Matt Weintraub has indicated to me personally that he does not get involved in Mental Health law. No further discussion. Recognizing the value of experienced lawyer credibility, I had asked Brad to escalate to the District Attorney.
At about this time things went silent. No documents. No Explanations. No communication. I persisted with Brad, then escalated to Christina King, then to the County Commissioners. Diane Marseglia had helped to involved the Public Defender.
After weeks without responses to emails to Public Defenders and Commissioners alike, Brad indicated he would be withdrawing from the matter.
The suggestion that the volume of email was the conflict was unfair. Had there been a response, there would have been no follow up or escalation.
Brad filed to withdraw and the document indicated he filed on behalf of Christina King. It seems he is withdrawing for the entire department.
December 6, 2017, at the County Commissioners meeting I asked the Commissioners why this action was occurring. They indicated they had helped me enough. They admitted their effort to withdraw the Public Defender. Their suggestion of organizations to whom they had just donated thousands of dollars seemed mindlessly indicative of their control. The meeting is recorded.
Available online to review.
http://work2bdone.com/live/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/cmeeting-12-06-17.wma
Public Comment Section: the statement of Terance Healy and statement of Todd Krautheim.
The Commissioners fund both the Public Defender and the Mental Health Department. I had requested meetings with them to inform them of my experience. Clearly, they failed to recognize the reality of the truth which I had presented to them before they involved the Public Defender.
After learning the reality of the story which they did not want to hear, the Commissioners acted to end any further legal representation.
LAWYERS AND CONFIDENTIALITY
Brad knows I am familiar with Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, and the cross-referenced application of the mandate.
Brad’s silence is mandated by law. He needed to protect prior clients to whom he may have done a disservice. Though they were unaware. He needed to protect the Public Defenders Office and the attorneys who may have done a similar disservice to their clients.
At the same time, opposing counsel was facing the same realizations. Very outdated forms had been used. But, had those involved read the forms, the instructions required to abide the law are on the form document. The negligence was deliberate.
The use of involuntary commitment as a weapon has little to no regard for the law. Once triggered, it creates a liability for everyone who becomes involved.
Deliberate negligence or lack of proper training affect the initial actors – the Police and Mental Health Dept.
Their failure causes participation which ensnared Doylestown Hospital, Ambulance Service, Lenape Valley Foundation and Horsham Clinic. Hundreds of people participated and failed to act on my behalf. Their policy prevented any actions to help me. Their policy created liabilities for everyone who became involved. The law hold their board of directors responsible and accountable.
Brad never intended to find the complete breakdown of the system. He saw what occurred. He recognized it as unlawful, and criminal. He had not seen a case with so much evidence of abuse and malfeasance by the persons involved and who became involved.
The Mental Health Act was specifically drafted with great concern for constitutional rights and the right to liberty. The disregard for the law caused a complete disregard for constitutional rights.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality prevents exposure of corruption in government. Confidentiality prevents exposure of the clients misdeed. A District Attorney represents himself, his staff and his office. If he discovers a crime by a staffer, confidentiality prevents him from exposing his client. District Attorneys discretion avoids prosecution for a crime. Confidentiality mandate is not discretionary.
The victim of those staffer crimes is left without recourse. Confidentiality is forever. To maintain confidentiality fraud in the furtherance is held confidential. Anything the victim learns to expose the crime is subject to confidentiality, and fraudulent efforts to maintain confidentiality. It can be difficult to differentiate something being ignored compared to it being held confidential.
It is possible for others to prey on the victim further. They can leverage confidentiality to protect their crimes from prosecution as well.
This event is exactly that.
Confidentiality affected a divorce which remains unresolved.
Confidentiality extended to the fraudulent conveyance of property.
Confidentiality extended to the false criminal prosecution for terroristic threats.
Confidentiality extended to the false suicide intervention.
The victim has no recourse. The best he can attempt is survival.
Recognizing the situation, in 2008, I wrote:
I am a sane man dealing with an absolutely insane situation. Every person in a position to help has acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter… they each make the situation worse… NO ONE HELPS
The divorce was undermined in 2007. It’s been necessary to believe that people were not acting out of their personal malice towards me. Their behavior defied logic, ignored procedure, law and rights.
In July 2013, realizing the application of Rule 1.6 explained why people were participating provided clarity. Lawyers had been trained for over thirty years not to see it. There are important nuances.
My efforts since 2013 have been spent addressing the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information. Filed in federal court and served upon the state Attorneys General from every state. Each defaulted. Their silence indicative of the mandate to maintain confidentiality, and do nothing to expose the information. They could work neither for nor against because either could have the consequence of exposure.
A fraud in the furtherance to prevent the exposure of the unconstitutional law, required an appeal to the Third Circuit Court where another fraud in the furtherance prevented the judiciary from any review. One Fraud affirmed another in the lower court.
The Supreme Courts of each state had been responsible for The ABA Model Rules being promulgated into law. Information which adversely affects the integrity of the judiciary must be held confidential by lawyers. There can be no state Supreme Court review of the Confidentiality law where exposure will violate confidentiality. The Confidentiality law prevents itself from being exposed.
Federally, The McDade Murtha Act, which failed to be passed by Congress, was passed while concealed in an appropriations bill. It requires government lawyers to follow the rules in the jurisdiction where they are working.
SOLUTION PREVENTED
The solution is for a non-lawyer Governor to assemble the Legislature to suspend the law. Once suspended, the lawyers may join the discussion. Lawyers in the Office of General Counsel, and counselors to the Senators and Representatives in the Legislature prevent their colleagues from taking any action.
Improperly enacted and unconstitutional in every state. Promoted gradually from 1983 New Jersey to 2009 Maine.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality is the cause of the constitutional crisis in the United States. Currently, the government lawyers in Washington are twisted by Confidentiality/Fraud mandate which prevents effective law enforcement and simultaneously endorses and mandates disinformation to protect confidential information.
The false prosecution of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane occurred because Kane received two secret orders from unidentified courts to neglect the responsibilities of her office. Done personally and not as Attorney General, she could not inform the Governor or Legislature. The orders require her to ignore the constitutional violations exposed in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in Healy v Healy and Healy v Miller.
Healy v Healy leveraged a secret order from Judge Rhonda Daniele through hundreds of petitions and the entire Montgomery County Bench.
Next, Healy v Miller leveraged to prevent resolution of the fraudulent conveyance of property.
Next, Commonwealth v Healy leveraged the false allegations initiated by Warrington Police thru Montgomery Township Police to David & Jennifer Miller – Warrington Police Chief James Miller is the father of David Miller.
– three appeals to Superior Court.
– One escalated to Supreme Court
All sabotaged by court-ordered Public Defender representation. I am left with no voice.
Plea Offer: Relinquish the deed and all charges will be dropped.
Additional crimes: Title Insurance claimed, documented Murder Threats, false testimony, Abuse of Power under color of law
A coerced plea deal would not prevent a future claim to the property. Only death could end the claim to the deed. A plea agreement would serve as a tool for further injustice.
Murder being a serious crime, the false suicide intervention was staged as a way to conceal murder.
With completely careless disregard, every aspect of the false suicide intervention ignored the law.
Experience demonstrates my loss of protection of the Rule of Law and rights. This time the leveraged crime is in Bucks County.
All previous negligence to abide any law has been protected and unexposed and unprosecuted where the judiciary and law enforcement were prevented by Confidentiality from any action in Montgomery County.
In Bucks County, the failure to abide the Mental Health law had been exposed in court, on the record, with judicial notice and action. The court ordered the doctor to appear on court. A success.
I realized the change in demeanor from Brad. The lack of communication caused me to communicate with him the goals which we had set. The email reminders of the actions we hoped to accomplish and those which would have negative consequences seemed necessary.
When meetings were cancelled and not rescheduled, it was necessary to document the plan in email.
They failed to abide any Mental Health Laws because they have been excused from the Rule of Law for the last ten years. Crossing the county line had unanticipated consequences.
RETALIATION
The chaos involved in the matter before this court cannot be compared to the experience or the current events in Montgomery County.
“If you can keep your head when all around you are losing theirs and blaming it on you…” – Kipling
To avoid prosecution for the criminal actions of David and Jennifer Miller, and their ex-police Chief father, they intend to destroy me. They took everything. They have taken my voice. They want the only thing I have left – my Liberty. If no one intervenes, the deed may soon be unchallenged.
Recognizing this is a Mental Health Court, It is with both confidence of the facts and fear for credibility that I submit the recent filing in Montgomery County where there is no Rule of Law and No Rights.
The hearing is next Wednesday. This exercise may be moot.
TRUST and RESPECT
It is not easy to trust anyone after my experience the last 12 years. I found that I could have trust and confidence in the representation provided by Brad Bastedo.
Sadly, what has occurred to every person who has attempted to help me in any way. They are threatened and coerced. They are gone.
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to present my view. I am certain it was more than expected. I hope it explains at a basic level what is occuring.
I pray for the continued justice of this Honorable Court,
Respectfully,
Terance Healy
No Comment.
Add Your Comment