01.23
CRIMINAL DIVISION
| 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 of Pennsylvania | |
| #126 MAL 2017 |
and
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL (Pursuant to Rule 600)
Defendant seeks an indication that this matter will be moving forward to permit the Defendant to defend against the allegations/criminal charges or an indication if it the intent of the Assistant District Attorney to continue in efforts seeking to damage the Defendant’s reputation with an administrative punishment (ie. Bench Warrant) is the goal.
On January 23, 2018, …
– it has been 1,066 days since the Offense.
– It has been 1.048 days since the Complaint was filed.
– it has been 1,047 days since the Defendant was arrested.
Defendant reminds the Court of the necessity of jurisdiction and that there is/are defect(s) which has left the Court of Common Pleas without proper jurisdiction.
The Assistant District Attorney was to document those elements for proper jurisdiction in this matter as agreed in September, 2015. She neglected.
Instead of addressing ‘jurisdiction’, the Assistant District Attorney pursued a challenge to the Defendant’s competence.
Where the jurisdictional issue has been raised once again, the Assistant District Attorney is now challenging competence – however she has neglected to indicate under which law she is making her challenge. Competence to Stand Trial? or Competence to understand the proceedings and the charges.
Defendant re-asserts that
– there has been No Formal Arraignment.
– he has received NO copy of an Information
– he has received no copy of a charging document
– there has been No Pre-Trial Conference.
– there has been No Pre-Trial Motions – timing is based on the Formal Arraignmernt.
– there have been three appeals to the Superior Court where the issue of jurisdiction has been neglected.
– there has been one appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court where the issue of jurisdiction has been neglected.
Defendant has NOT SIGNED any waiver of counsel.
Defendant has NOT WAIVED the preliminary Hearing.
The docket incorrectly states otherwise. CORRECTION REQUESTED.
Defendant is not currently represented by Counsel.
Defendant has indicated from the first proceeding that he cannot afford representation and wishes to be represented in this matter.
Defendant asserts that the right to representation provided by the US Constitution is a right to representation unhindered by an improperly enacted and collaterally unconstitutional Confidentiality of information which prevents zealous representation while excusing and ignoring the denial of the Rule of law and the denial of rights protected by the constitutions.
NO GREAT INJUSTICE?
Defendant asserts that right to representation is not for representation outside of his participation, involvement and direction as was performed by the court appointed Public Defender.
Where this court has indicated “There is no great injustice caused by the January 27, 2016 order…” “having appointed a Public Defender to represent him”, the Defendant disagrees strongly and with the experience of the last two years where the lack of any representation prevents any suggestion that the representation was not effective.
The actions of the Public Defender served to undermine two appeals for failure to file any brief, while attempting to secretly withdraw the third without any communications with the Defendant.
The Public Defender refused to provide documents filed with the Courts.
The Public Defender refused to respond to email or phoen messages.
The Public Defender filed no motions to dismiss – this matter is currently on the 1,042nd day since the Defendant was arrested.
The Public Defender has neglected to challenge the jurisdiction of the court.
It is possible that the Public Defender has become aware of crimes occurring which affect their client, yet the Public Defender is mandated by non-disclosure.
NOISY WITHDRAWAL
The filing of a motion by the Public Defender to withdraw with the Court without any related communication to the Defendant suggests that the two (2) sentence motion seeking the withdrawal is neglecting to indicate the true reason for their motion.
The two sentences are considerably weak when you consider that the Defendant was opposed to their appointment, AND that the Defendant had prevailed in having the Public Defender removed from the matter in September 2015 after usurping the representation in the matter without any application or request – and against the expressed (verbally and written) requests of the Defendant.
It has been suggested through a lawyer with the Public Defender, that there is the potential for an ambush by the Assistant District Attorney seeking false testimony in an effort to revoke bail – another administrative solution providing punishment without any trial. This could potentially prevent the Defendant from ANY release where the court lacks proper jurisdiction to conduct any trial in this matter.
The Public Defender was permitted to withdraw on January 18, 2018. However, there are laws/rules which prohibit this type of withdrawal. Where the Public Defender was assigned to the matter based on the allegation of the Defendant’s incompetence, which was never adjudicated, but granted without hearings or testimony or evidence or any opportunity for the Defendant to be heard pursuant to Title 42 Pa. 2501(b) (“In all criminal prosecutions the accused has a right to be heard by himself and his counsel.”)
Defendant is concerned by the discrepancies in the orders received from this Court. Inconsistencies in the Caption, the case # format, the misspelling of the Defendant’s name, and the use of rubber stamps for the signature of the judge.
There is no record or transcript of these proceedings.
There are no scheduling orders indicating that the Defendant was given proper notice of the proceeding and the purpose for the proceeding.
The Defendant has been available and in the courtroom, but prevented from any involvement or participation or awareness of issues being discussed, and those involved are NOT identified or indicated. There has been no explanation, or indication of any Rule or any Law which directs these activities.
On January 18, 2018, Defendant had been instructed to appear to indicate his cause for not appearing on January 10, 2018.
The court appointed Public Defender did not review anything with the Defendant and also did not appear in court to represent the Defendant.
The Defendant’s reasoning had already been provided to the Court directly by correspondence.
A Notice of Appeal had been filed indicating the cause for the Defendant’s non-appearance on January 10, 2018.
A courtesy copy was sent to the judge’s chambers. The Defendant confirmed that the judge had received his correspondence.
Then, the court proceeded to discuss the Motion to Withdraw filed on January 11, 2018 by the Public Defender.
Defendant had no input in the appointment of the Public Defender two years prior. The Public Defender had proceeded to sabotage, neglect and undermine my efforts. Defendant had indicated that he did NOT want to be represented by counsel encumbered and hindered by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandates as it permitted the denial of the Rule of Law and ignored constitutional rights. Every aspect of this matter proves that statement yet again.
Entering the courtroom, as if on cue, the court asked Denise Marone her impression of the Defendant’s competence. This information is privileged. But, without any hesitation, Marone indicated her opinion of the Defendant. And she was gone again.
Next, The Assistant District Attorney read from a document which had never been presented to the court as an exhibit, or testimony, or affidavit.
Defendant indicated the defects in the document, in the examination, the general and deliberate negligence to adhere to any rule or law which would have produced the report and permitted it to be admissable in any hearing to any court. Those defects are fatal. Defendant objected indicating the document was inadmissable and the reasoning. The Assistant District Attorney just continued.
Where the court lacks jurisdiction, there are no rules to abide. There are only opportunities to denigrate, demean, humiliate, and attack the reputation of the Defendant while threatening his freedom.
MISREPRESENTATION
Defendant requests an explanation for the misrepresentations which appear on the Order dated January 18, 2018.
Incorrectly indicating that “the above matter having been scheduled for a COMPETENCY HEARING before Judge William R. Carpenter at 9:30 AM in Courtroom C was heard and the matter is:
– to be rescheduled for the Call of the Trial List by Court Administration
– scheduled for January 23, 2018”
Where the Defendant had NOT been provided ANY notice of ANY Competency Hearing
AND
Where the Defendant had not been provided with ANY petition or ANY motion for a Competency Hearing
And
Where the Defendant had appeared based on the Order of January 10, 2018 indicating the Assistant District Attorney had requested the court issue a bench warrant.
Defendant appeared as ordered at 8:45 AM on January 18, 2018 in Courtroom C.
Defendant raises the question as to the purpose for misrepresenting the matter as a scheduled Competency Hearing and requests a reply and correction be issued, distributed and filed.
(Copies of Both Orders are attached.)
Defendant incorporates by reference his prior Statements filed at each appearance, and requests an explanation from the court for the failure to address any issue.
MOTION TO DISMISS – PURSUANT TO RULE 600
Defendant has indicated that he has not been brought to trial within the time limits set forth in Rule 600(A) and requests that the charges be dismissed with prejudice on the ground that Rule 600 has been violated.
Service to the Assistant District Attorney by hand delivery on January 23, 2018 and interoffice from the Clerk of Courts.
A Hearing is requested.
It has approaching three (3) Years since the arrest, there has been no movement towards prosecution in a trial.
There has NEVER been ANY opportunity for the Defendant to defend.
Proceedings have been repeatedly rescheduled where the Assistant District Attorney indicates her lack of preparedness to go to trial, and then reschedules for the next month while making constant threats of bench warrants being issued for arrest.
Defendant can only surmise that the defect in the jurisdiction is preventing the court from holding any proper hearings.
The neglect or refusal of the court to address the proper jurisdiction has been exacerbated with every notice of a proceeding or scheduling order.
Every threat of a bench warrant is another threat to the liberty of the Defendant who has been prevented from any recourse or resolution or escape by and through an aggressive and malicious prosecution determined to exact a punishment without regard for ANY Rule of Law or Constitutional right.
I recognize that District Attorney Kevin Steele has a privileged relationship with the Assistant District Attorney which prevents him from prosecuting her for her crimes. Mr. Steele is not prevented from terminating her employment with the District Attorneys Office. I request that action be taken immediately.
I seek dismissal with prejudice and a referral to the proper law enforcement agency to address the crimes committed against me.
Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Defendant
…since 2007
I verify that the facts contained herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge or information or belief.
I understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
_______________________________
Terance Healy
c/o/ 871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976
No Comment.
Add Your Comment