01.02
| COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA | # 3151-15 |
| #MJ-38118-CR-0000096-2015 | |
| v. | |
| Superior Court | |
| Terance Healy | #3166 EDA 2015 |
| #3234 EDA 2015 | |
| #376 EDA 2016 | |
| Supreme Court | |
| #126 MAL 2017 |
The criminal allegations are unfounded. I have not previously and do not intend to waive any rights under Pennsylvania Law, the Pennsylvania Constitution or the Constitution of the United States.
JURISDICTION
The docket incorrectly reflects entries which may have mislead the Court regarding jurisdiction in this matter.
There has been NO WAIVER OF PRELIMINARY HEARING
There has been NO WAIVER OF COUNSEL
Statements have been filed/stated by the Defendant that he makes/has made no waivers of any kind.
The docket also clearly indicates the scheduling of the preliminary hearing six (6) times after the date of the incorrect entry.
The Defendant was NOT REPRESENTED at the Preliminary Hearing. The reasons were documented in the statements filed and stated on the record.
There has been NO FORMAL ARRAIGNMENT.
Defendant appeared for the scheduled arraignment proceeding, however he was coerced into signing a waiver under threat of having a bench warrant issued for his arrest.
The waiver document indicates the Defendant had filed a Statement with the court indicating the reasons a Formal Arraignment was very necessary. A primary reason for the necessity of the arraignment was a repeated refiling of amended Criminal Complaint documents which are not reflected on the docket.
The docket incorrectly indicates “PROCEED TO COURT (Arraignment Waived) Defendant was not Present,”
Defendant was present. This is supported by the coerced waiver document and the time-stamped statement filed with the court clerk.
Jurisdiction has been challenged and ignored by the Commonwealth. The elements of jurisdiction, due process and the Rule of Law have not been addressed, indicated or provided.
The Commonwealth has failed in it’s responsibility to present that the matter is before this court with proper jurisdiction.
There have been three appeals filed primarily for the reason of ascertaining jurisdiction.
There has been no statement of jurisdiction from the court. There has been no mention of jurisdiction by the Court or the Commonwealth in any filing, response or opinion.
One (1) appeal was subsequently raised to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The docket indicates that the Commonwealth filed a NO ANSWER LETTER FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL. The Commonwealth again neglected the opportunity to assert the elements of proper jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is a requirement. Jurisdiction cannot be waived. Jurisdiction cannot be retroactive.
Jurisdiction cannot be ignored. A Challenge to Jurisdiction cannot be ignored.
|
Jurisdiction cannot be derived from the failure to acknowledge the lack of jurisdiction.
The Commonwealth has persisted in their negligence and failure to address jurisdiction, while also ignoring ALL other procedural and due process problems which have been raised to their attention in statements filed by the Defendant.
REPRESENTATION BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
For all of the reasons presented in prior statements and included in the documents filed relating to the appeals, the Defendant adds the following experiences with the Public Defender office.
No attorneys from the PD have filed appearances in this matter ion this court. Raymond Roberts had filed an appearance which related to the appeals.
The ENTIRE Public Defender Office has failed to identify the person assigned to this matter. When names have appeared on court notices, the named person has denied responsibility.
The ENTIRE Public Defender Office has failed to respond to phone calls and emails seeking the identity of the attorney assigned to the matter.
The Public Defender, Dean Beers, and the ENTIRE Public Defender Office have been contacted by email on multiple occasions. NO ONE HAS RESPONDED.
The ENTIRE Public Defender Office does NOT communicate to the Defendant by Phone call and/or email and/or Mail services provided by the US Postal Service.
There have been no meetings with the Defendant.
There has been no discussion of the matter with the Defendant.
The Public Defender had neglected to respond to two (2) appeals. Those appeals were subsequently quashed.
The third appeal additionally related to the assignment of the Public Defender to represent an incompetent Defendant. The order was issued without any hearings, evidence, testimony, jurisdiction, etc. This was done in chambers while the Defendant sat in the courtroom.
The Defendant has been very clear regarding the issue of Representation.
The Defendant is competent.
The Public Defender attempted to withdraw the third appeal. The reasons provided to the superior court were false, incorrect and inaccurate. The withdrawal was filed without informing the Defendant.
The Superior Court denied the withdrawal request.
Subsequently, upon dismissal of the appeal without ANY review, Ray Roberts notified the Defendant that the appeal was completed, and the matter returned to the Common Pleas Court. Ray Roberts indicated he would have no further actions as the appeals were completed.
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
The next day, without any discussion or communication with the Defendant, or even any attempt to communicate with the Defendant, Ray Roberts filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
In his filing he neglected any Statement of Jurisdiction.
The Commonwealth NO ANSWER LETTER also ignored the issue of jurisdiction.
In August 2017, the Order Denying Petition for Allowance of Appeal was denied. A one sentence per curiam order without any substantiation and without any mark which might authenticate, validate, or certify the page as an order from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
I requested a copy of the document for over a month. Ray Roberts obstinately refused to provide it.
During that month, Ray Roberts failed to file a Request for Reconsideration.
Ray Roberts had failed to provide ANY documents to the Defendant. When the Defendant asked for the documents, Ray Roberts demonstrated an obstinance and determined refusal which defied logic and reason.
There could only be one reason for such dogged and deliberately frustrating refusal to email the documents, or to send the documents via the US Postal Service. Mail Fraud. Wire Fraud. Honest Services Fraud. The documents requested have yet to be provided by Ray Roberts, or anyone in the Public Defenders Office. The extensive multi-month email exchange is available for review.
There have been no meetings regarding the matter with any member of the Public Defenders Office.
On March 30, 2016, there was no one from the Public Defenders office at the Call of the Trial List. Defendant appeared. Alone. Defendant indicated he had filed a Statement with the Clerk.. Defendant was excused.
On May 4, 2017, there was no one from the Public Defenders office at the Call of the Trial List. Defendant appeared. Alone. Defendant addressed the lack of jurisdiction and indicated filing a Statement with the Court. Defendant was excused.
The Defendant did NOT wish to be represented by the Public Defender. HE is prevented from filing documents as the Clerks believes he has representation by the Public Defender.
Representation was accomplished on a scheduling order which the Defendant believes to be defective where the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order. (This was the issue involved in the third appeal)
The Public Defender has failed to represent the Defendant.
The Public Defender has not communicated. The Public Defender has not responded. The Public Defender has not kept the Defendant informed. The Public Defender has failed to attempt any meeting to review the matter or to plan or prepare any defense.
There are two possible reasons which explain the Public Defender Office.
1. The Public Defender is in contempt of the order which assigned the matter. The deliberate actions which neglect their responsibilities to the client and ignore their responsibilities as an officer of the legal system show a contempt for the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct. The failure to meet the obligations of their professional calling and the neglect of their responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves.
2. The Public Defender knows the order is defective and without jurisdiction and is limiting their participation in the corruption/farce which is being perpetrated on the Defendant. The Public Defender is avoiding federal charges for failing to provide honest services. Further, the Public Defender is not participating in the distribution or transmission of documents which they know to be fraudulent to avoid federal criminal charges for each use of mail or wire services.
BACKGROUND
The Defendant has indicated his belief that the basis for this action is retaliatory and related to the fraudulent conveyance of his property.
In October 3, 2013, Defendant filed an Action in Ejectment and served it upon David and Jennifer Miller.
The Millers contacted Montgomery Township Police who harassed and threatened the Defendant with arrest. On October 16, 2013, Defendant contacted Montgomery Township Police and asked them to cease their harassment. Defendant provided police with copies of the court filings. Defendant filed copies of letters to the police with the Court.
On October 16, 2013, Defendant contacted Warrington Township Police who had dispatched an officer to his mothers residence. The officer was threatening, requesting information regarding the defendants whereabouts, the type of car I drove and how often I drove the vehicle. In a letter to Chief James Miller, Dedendant also provided copies of documents filed with the court. Defendant filed copies of letters to the police with the Court.
The Common Pleas Court indicated a lack of jurisdiction in the matter.
On Appeal (filed on March 6, 2014), The Superior Court affirmed the order of the lower court indicating the lack of jurisdiction. (February 2015)
The County Recorder of Deeds, Nancy Becker, was made aware of the property issues and introduced the Defendant to a Montgomery County Detective so the matter could be investigated.
Problem: Jurisdiction for an Action in Ejectment when owner is without possession of the property is proper in the Court of Common Pleas. The Common Pleas Court got it wrong WITH PREJUDICE. The Superior Court affirmed. Under current law and in the current situation, The Defendant had no recourse within the judicial branch. The Judicial branch had additionally affirmed they could take no action.
In February 2015, Warrington Township Police were conducting an investigation relating to the Defendant.
Though the courts removed themselves from involvment in any resolution, the defective deed could be challenged by the rightful property owner. If the Defendant were to die, the claim to the property/deed would die with him.
The Montgomery County Detective investigating the fraudulent conveyance of the property (was in the area) visits the Defendant at his mother’s home to inform him the investigation has been ended at the direction of ‘his boss’. There would be no letter or notice indicating the cancellation of the investigation. There would be no explanation or any further discussion from Montgomery County Detectives.
On February 22, 2015, The Defendant contacted the Executive and Legislative branches of Pennsylvania.
Warrington Township Police contacted Montgomery Township Police regarding the Defendant who had posted his letter to the Governor and Legislature to a web site.
Montgomery Township Police contacted David and Jennifer Miller, they are the witnesses to a story contrived by the Affiant in this matter.
On March 13, 2015, The Defendant was arrested by Montgomery Township Police.
PLEA DEAL
In August 2015, after the matter improperly was moved to the Court of Common Pleas, and the Rule of Law and every procedure had been ignored and neglected, constitutional rights were not given any consideration at any time, the Assistant District Attorney made the Defendant an offer. The Defendant would face no charges, if he relinquished all rights and claims to the property.
The Defendant passed on the plea offered on behalf of the Commonwealth. Extortion by any other name is still extortion. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality would protect the ADA from any prosecution by the DA – attorney client privilege.
District Attorney Kevin Steele may not have been able to prosecute Lauren McNulty, BUT he could have fired her. He didn’t. He has refused to address his office’s abuse of power under color of law with intent to cause severe emotional harm while perpetrating a fraud designed to convey property.
QUESTIONS
If Chief James Miller is the father of David Miller, why was Montgomery Township Police used an an intermediary to inform, frighten and involve his son David and Jennifer Miller?
The Information provided by the DA included a letter written by Jennifer Miller which provisions, plans and trains to execute The Defendant. Her actions are based on imaginary, false, deluded and incorrect sightings of the Defendant at the property. The letter details the purchase of a gun(s) and shooting at an image of the Defendant.
There was never any mention of a relationship between the witnesses and the Police Chief at the police department where the matter initiated.
The was no explanation of why the Defendant was being investigated by Warrington. The Defendant is unaware of any result from their investigation.
If the Defendant were to die, the claim to the property/deed would die with him.
In April 2017, the Defendant was wakened in the middle of the night by Warrington Police ambushed , beaten, abducted, stripped and held hostage for days. Without any warrant and neglecting any application of the Mental Health Act, Warrington Police seems to have called themselves and commenced a botched false suicide intervention. The matter is currently in litigation in Bucks County.
A good way to conceal a murder is the suggestion of suicide.
CONCLUSION
This matter has been an aggressive and false malicious prosecution of the victim of a fraudulent conveyance executed at the behest of a public official with a person interest in the outcome for his family. Seeking to prevent their prosecution for fraudulent conveyance and insurance fraud.
The actions of all involved have usurped and ignored the Rule of Law, the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States while threatening the liberty of an innocent man who sought resolution in accordance with the law, in a sincere, honest, moral and ethical way.
The assignment of the Public Defender was done with the intent to sabotage the rights of the Defendant and to hinder and undermine any defense.
The Defendant has demonstrated his competence in the document before you. The Defendant has demonstrated the ability to keep his head when all about him are losing theirs blaming it on him.
Defendant requests the immediate removal of the Court Appointed Public Defender (who had been previously removed after usurping the case in September 2015).
Where the court has ordered the uninterested Public Defender to represent me, the result has left me unrepresented and not permitted to represent myself.
The Pennsylvania General Assembly has noticed the efforts to ‘chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for redress of grievances’. Further declaring it ‘in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process.’
I am being denied protection of the law. My Constitutional rights are being denied and ignored.
I survive. I persevere. I am a Defendant in this matter. I am required to defend.
This matter should be dismissed.
Terance Healy
No Comment.
Add Your Comment