MOTION TO STRIKE A DEFECTIVE AND VOID ORDER

MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NORRISTOWN, PA

TERANCE HEALY	NO. 2013-29976
v.
DAVID R. MILLER AND JENNIFER K. MILLER

MOTION TO STRIKE A DEFECTIVE AND VOID ORDER

1. Defendants have presented on October 22, 2013, as part of their Preliminary Objections in this matter, a defective and void order dated May 9, 2011. [#2013-29976-10 Defendants Exhibit 2]

2. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court strike the defective and void order which has been used to defraud, misrepresent and misinform individuals, organizations, law enforcement and county departments.

3. To be valid and enforceable, a judgment must be supported by three elements:
(1) the court must have jurisdiction of the parties;
(2) the court must have jurisdiction of the subject matter; and
(3) the court or tribunal must have the power of authority to render the particular judgment.
If the requirements for validity are not met, a judgment may be subject to avoidance.

4. Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court.

5. Such a judgment is void from its inception, incapable of confirmation or ratification, and can never have any legal effect.

6. A void judgment must be dismissed, regardless of timeliness if jurisdiction is deficient.

7. When providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary.

8. The passage of time, however great, does not affect the validity of a judgment and cannot render a void judgment valid.

9. The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process of law extend to judicial, as well as political, branches of the government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guaranties.

10. A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.

DEFECTIVE AND VOID DIVORCE DECREE

11. In the matter of Healy v Healy #2007-12477, the docket for the matter demonstrates and supports that neither Sonya Healy, nor Terance Healy filed a Request for a Divorce Decree under 3301(c) or 3301(d) of the Divorce Code. [ Docket attached as Exhibit A ]

12. The parties in Healy v Healy #2007-12477 have never indicated by documentation or action any intention to request a divorce decree. As such there can be no divorce decree.

13. Additionally, in July 2009, Sonya Healy's attorney, Robert Angst, filed a document with the court indicating the intention to NOT request a divorce decree until hearings had been held on unresolved claims.

14. In the matter of Healy v Healy #2007-12477, the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue a divorce decree where the parties have not consented to or made any such request.

DEFECTIVE AND VOID EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION

15. “The Court has made it clear that 'unless and until a valid decree in divorce has been entered, then there can be no equitable distribution of marital property.'” Reese v. Reese, 351 Pa.Super,521,506 A.2d 471, 473-474(1986)

16. The courts of common pleas are only empowered to make equitable distribution contemporaneously with or subsequent to a decree in divorce. Campbell v. Campbell, 357 Pa.Super, 483, 516 A.2d 363, 366 (1986)

17. This is because the settlement of economic and property claims is merely a part of the trial court's broader power to terminate the marriage. Campbell, 516 A.2d at 366

18. Equitable distribution is an incident of divorce, not marriage.

19. As there is no valid divorce decree, there can be no equitable distribution order.

20. On June 6, 2011, the procedural defect of the void divorce decree was brought to the attention of the Court and ignored.

21. The issue of the defect has been raised in every subsequent court proceeding and ignored.

22. Sonya Healy, and her attorneys Robert Angst and Valerie Angst, have failed to take any action to address, correct or resolve the defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT

23. This issue is properly before this court as the defective and void order has been presented by the Defendants in defense of the Action in Ejectment filed on October 3, 2013.

24. The defective and void order of May 9, 2011 issued where the court lacked jurisdiction and authority is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court.

Whereas, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to adjudge, decree and strike the defective and void order of May 9, 2011 and prevent it from any future use to misrepresent and defraud.

Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Pro Se

BACKGROUND – THE NECESSITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALENGE

( relating to Healy v Healy )

1. Since 2007, after years of seeking assistance from local, state and federal law enforcement and being summarily disregarded; and after years of requests seeking local, state and federal government involvement were completely ignored; and after years of filing documents exposing the deliberate injustice which were summarily dismissed without review or explanation. The failure of everyone in a position to address or resolve any legal issue was absolute and the failure to provide any explanation was unacceptable.

2. Those who were ignoring the clear and well-documented reports of the injustice were concealing the matter and enabling and causing further injustice.

3. Those who were deliberately failing to follow state law and documented court procedure excused their own misconduct without consequence and never explained, justified or addressed their actions.

4. The state court absolved without penalty the failure of others to follow court orders; to follow state law; and to follow court procedures. This 'courtesy' was not granted to plaintiff, Terance Healy. Never. Ever. EVERY false allegation against plaintiff, Terance Healy, was scheduled with the state court for immediate review and was required to be disproved. Plaintiff, Terance Healy, followed every state court order issued in the matter whether the order was valid, invalid, unjust, void, voidable, within or outside the jurisdiction of the court. Even where the order was unconstitutional. Even where the court order caused irreparable harm.

5. Plaintiff, Terance Healy, petitioned the state court to address and correct their improper, unlawful and unjust actions. The state court ignored and dismissed those pleadings. As a result of diligence and perseverance, the injustice is well-documented on the state court record.

6. Everyone acting, or not acting, in any regard failed to remedy or resolve any issue and each believed their actions were lawful.

7. Since 2007, a lack of jurisdiction was the most frequent reason given for inaction by law enforcement even where the law clearly indicated their proper jurisdiction for the situation.

8. Since 2007, no explanation was provided for the injustice of the state court. Eighteen judges have been assigned to the divorce matter. None have explained the injustice. Each subsequent judge sacrifices their integrity to deny, conceal and endorse the lack of integrity of the prior judges in the matter.

9. The injustice was inescapable. Any order could be raised in any court at any time by any party to cause an additional injustice which the court would not explain or justify. Appeals filed timely and served properly were prevented from being transmitted to the appellate court. The law, the truth, court procedures and jurisdiction were not a necessity or a concern to the state court.

10. It was necessary to determine the cause of the complete breakdown of the legal system and the state judiciary, and why each level of law enforcement and the judiciary believed their actions were lawful.

11. It was necessary to find, define, document and address a law that made deliberate injustice 'lawful'.

12. Rule 1.6 is the unconstitutional law which mandates deliberate injustice.

13. Rule 1.6 must be followed by legal professionals, lawyers, law professors, district attorneys, attorneys general, the judiciary, a majority of each state legislature, a majority of the United States Congress, employees of the United States Department of Justice, the legal counsel consulted by law enforcement agencies, the legal counsel who advise the media, and many others.

14. Since 2007, every person and court to whom plaintiff, Terance Healy, pleaded for assistance and relief was mandated to follow Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information. Non-legal professionals were advised to ignore the injustice by their legal counsel who is mandated to follow Rule 1.6. The mandated 'confidentiality' extends to any explanation for actions or inaction.

Motion for Reconsideration

Filed November 26, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Terance Healy	)
Todd M. Krautheim	)
in the name of the United States	) Civil Action No# 13-4614
	)
v.	)
Kathleen Kane	)
Pennsylvania Attorney General;	)
and	)
The Attorneys General of the United States	)

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1. Plaintiffs respectfully request the Reconsideration of this Honorable Court regarding the Order of 29th day of October 2013.

2. The Court has written that the decision was based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which does not subject this matter to dismissal, and the Younger abstention which is not relevant to the constitutional matter before this Court, and Article III which grants judicial power to the District Court for cases which arise under the US Constitution.

3. Plaintiffs respectfully address the issues presented by the Court's Memorandum dated October 29, 2013.

LAWFUL APPROACH

4. Plaintiffs have filed this Constitutional Challenge to address the denial of their civil rights and liberties which are guaranteed by the US Constitution.

5. The denial of their rights and liberties has been caused by an improperly and unlawfully enacted state law – Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

ARTICLE V SECTION 10(c)

6. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968, Article V, Section 10(c), “... the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure, and conduct of all courts... if such rules are consistent with Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive right of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of peace, nor suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose. All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions.” As Rule 1.6 causes the denial of substantive rights of a litigant, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court lacks the authority required to properly and lawfully enact Rule 1.6 into law.

NECESSITY

7. The Plaintiffs have been directly harmed by the denial of their constitutionally protected rights. The harm suffered will continue until the law which mandates that the state courts ignore their rights is nullified and their rights and liberties are restored.

8. The Constitutional Challenge before this court is a NECESSITY. The Challenge presents the loss of constitutionally protected rights and liberties and the irreparable harm and inescapable injustice which occurs when basic rights and liberties are irretrievably denied and prevented.

ROOKER – FELDMAN DOCTRINE

9. While the plaintiffs have clearly stated their singular intention to present the constitutional challenge to this Honorable Court for review, the Court has inappropriately and incorrectly written “that plaintiffs seek review and rejection of decisions previously made by the Pennsylvania state courts.” The state court records are evidentiary for the purpose of demonstrating the unconstitutionality of actions mandated by the law being challenged.

10. The Court incorrectly writes that “it is clear that plaintiffs are, at bottom, asking the Court to consider and reverse determinations made in the state court divorce and mortgage foreclosure proceedings.”

11. The referenced footnote on page eight correctly indicates “To the extent that plaintiffs do “not, [in their complaint,] complain of injuries caused by a state court decision,” and instead raise “a direct challenge to the constitutionality” of Rule 1.6, their complaint is “not subject to dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.” Gray v Yavil, 513 F. App'x 210,212(3d Cir. 2013)

12. Plaintiffs have not petitioned this Honorable Court to affirm or reject any decision or opinion of the state court. Plaintiffs concur with the Court that the constitutional challenge is “not subject to dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.”

VENUE

13. This matter is properly placed in the US District Court as the proper court of first instance for a Constitutional Challenge. The underlying state court cases are not the subject of review. The state court actions and decisions are the evidence which demonstrates the constitutional issue and the necessity for this challenge.

YOUNGER ABSTENTION

14. The state court lacks jurisdiction to address a Constitutional Challenge where the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution have been denied as a consequence of a state law. Additionally, the state court is prevented from a proper review of the matter as the law being challenged mandates and prevents any proceeding or remedy at the state level. The constitutionality of the law must be addressed at a federal level.

15. The state supreme court's direct responsibility for authoring, enacting and enforcing the law in question represents an undeniable conflict of interest which would preclude the state supreme court from proper jurisdiction. The state supreme court is prevented by Rule 1.6 from acting sua sponte to address the unconstitutional law. Rule 1.6 resists lawful resolution of the constitutional issue further demonstrating the necessity of this matter before this Honorable Court.

16. The Younger Abstention does not apply to this constitutional issue as there can be no state proceeding which affords any opportunity to raise this federal/constitutional claim.

ATTORNEYS GENERAL

17. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5.1(a)(2) Constitutional Challenge to a Statute – Notice, Certification, and Intervention, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane and the Attorneys General of the United States have been served with the Constitutional Challenge as “a party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned – or on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned.”

18. There has been no record on the Court docket regarding Certification by the Court with the Attorneys General that a statute has been questioned pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5.1(b).

19. Attorney General Kathleen Kane and this Court have improperly understated and paraphrased the law being challenged in this matter with the implication that the plaintiffs are challenging 'attorney-client privilege'. Plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 in it's entirety.

20. Analysis of Rule 1.6 indicates it is not a necessity for justice. It was only after Rule 1.6 was enacted into law that the denial of Constitutional Rights became lawful and injustice was ignored.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES

21. Once this Court has ruled on the constitutionality of the law, the litigants rights will be restored and state court will be lawfully permitted to hear, address and resolve the injustices experienced in the state courts. The Judiciary will have the ability and opportunity to correct injustices and restore their integrity through each judges own actions and rulings. The judiciary should never have been mandated to suffer the loss of integrity required to conceal injustice.

22. The evidence in support of the facts in the complaint demonstrate the denial of constitutionally protected rights by the state courts. Those civil rights and liberties have been denied and ignored as a mandate of the law being challenged.

23. The Plaintiffs have yet to present this Court with their experience in the state courts which clearly demonstrates the denial of their rights, the injustices experienced in their respective cases, and the inability of the courts and the government to permit due process and procedure to petition the government for redress of grievances.

24. The relief requested will not usurp state jurisdiction or authority, or overturn any state decision(s) or opinion(s). The remedy will permit the state court to address parties in an unbiased, unaffected and fully informed equal forum.

25. It is not appropriate or lawful for this Honorable Court to dismiss this Constitutional Challenge and further deny, delay and prevent the plaintiffs from their civil rights and liberties under the United States Constitution.

STANDING

26. Plaintiffs have presented their 'injury in fact” and the causal connection between the injury and the law being challenged. A determination that Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional would permit the injury to be addressed by restoring their constitutional rights in the state courts.

27. The injury is defined, documented and evident upon review of the state court record.

28. The chance of future injury occurring is likely and demonstrated by the matter already indicated for inclusion in this matter. In Healy v Healy where a defective and void series of court orders has been used as the basis for a penalty in excess of $300,000 ordered in March 2013.

29. The chance of future injury occuring is actual and demonstrated in the matter of Healy v Miller, where a defective and void order from Healy v Healy has been improperly presented by Miller in November 2013 as a valid order of the court with statement that the validity of the order cannot be collaterally challenged in an Action for Ejectment.

RECONSIDERATION

30. The Court's review of the pleadings indicates proper subject matter jurisdiction, a valid statement of a claim for which relief can be granted, proper authority and jurisdiction for this Court to proceed with the matter, and a concise statement of the case being presented to the Court.

31. As the Court is not required to dismiss the matter under Rooker-Feldman doctrine, or Younger abstention.

32. Article III of the US Constitution provides jurisdiction and authority to the Court for all cases which arise under the constitution.

Plaintiffs respectfully request the review and Reconsideration of this Honorable Court to address the improper and unsubstantiated dismissal of this matter in the Court's Order of 29th day of October 2013.

Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

Healy v Miller ( Desperation and complicitness is showing. )

PDF Version

[ The Millers raised a defective and void divorce decree/court order as their evidence of ownership. NOW, they act like I brought it up. AND they ignore EVERYTHING I did bring up. The court lacked jurisdiction to issue the divorce order. The court cannot obtain jurisdiction retroactively. Their order is void and a nullity. It will always be void and a nullity. The deliberate malice of Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio will continue to destroy lives, and fill the pockets of the lawyers whom she served as President of the Montgomery County Bar Association. ]

ZARWIN BAUM DEVIT0 KAPLAN SCHAER TODDY P.C.
GARY A. DEVITO
PHILIP A. MAGEN
ATTORNEY ID Nos. 36421/202181
1818 Market Street
13th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215-569-2800
FAX: 215-569-1606

Attorneys for David R. Miller & Jennifer K. Miller

MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CIVIL ACTION

	NO. 2013-29976
TERANCE HEALY
v.
DAVID R. MILLER AND JENNIFER K. MILLER

DEFENDANTS DAVID R. MILLER & JENNIFER K. MILLER'S
REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT

Defendants David R. Miller and Jennifer K. Miller ("Defendants"), by and through their attorneys, file the following Reply Brief in Support of Defendants'Preliminary Objections to the Complaint of Plaintiff Terance Healy ("Plaintiff'):

In response to Defendants' preliminary objections, Plaintiff primarily argues two points. First, that the Honorable Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio lacked the authority to grant Plaintiff's ex-wife, Sonya Healy ("Sonya"), a power of attorney to dispose of the residence located at 110 Banbury Avenue, North Wales, Pennsylvania, 19454, Montgomery County Parcel No. 46-0000467-11-7 (the "Property't). Second, that Plaintiff's appeal of the May 9,2011 divorce decree (the "Decree") should have acted as a stay. For the reasons set forth below, neither of Plaintiffs arguments has merit and his Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.

[ Plaintiff presented over a dozen points. 1. No Power of Attorney 2. Invalid Power of Attorney 3. Defective Divorce Decree 4. Void Divorce Decree 5. Pending Appeal 6. Efforts to Avoid Fraudulent Conveyance 7. Obstruction 8. Denial of Rights 9. Failure to Demonstrate Ownership 10. Fraud 11. Forgery 12. Bad Power of Attorney 13. Misrepresentation of Marital Status Oddly, they address NONE of those issues. ]

The May 9th Divorce Decree is Valid and Binding

[ Definitely selected the wrong argument for this one. They should ask and not assume... or read this web site.]

Though Plaintiff attempts to ground his argument regarding the power of attorney in the statutory requirements set forth in 20 Pa.C.S. § § 5601-5611, Plaintiff falls to address that these statutes only govern statutory powers of attorney concerning the appointment of a fiduciary. The court has both'inherent and statutory to grant a power of attorney to a spouse in the context of a divorce. The Divorce Code specifically provides:

A decree granting a divorce or an annulment shall include, after a full hearing, where these matters are raised in any pleadings, an order determining and disposing of existing property rights and interests between the parties, custody, partial custody and visitation rights, child support, alimony, reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses and any other related matters, including the enforcement of agreements voluntarily entered into between the parties. In the enforcement of the rights of any party to any of these matters, the court shall have all necessary powers, including, but not limited to, the power of contempt and the power to attach wages. 23 Pa. C.S.§ 3323(b) (emphasis added).

Under § 3323(b), Judge Carluccio had the power to take all necessary actions and order all necessary remedies to ensure the swift disposition of the Property, including granting Sonya a power of attorney to transfer the Plaintiffs interest in the Property.

[ ONLY WHEN THE JUDGE HAS JURISDICTION. The Divorce Decree is a nullity. It cannot be presented in any court as valid. It doesn't exist. ]

Moreover, Plaintiff is barred from attacking the validity of the Decree in this action. The Divorce Code further provides:
The validity of a divorce or annulment decree granted by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter may not be questioned by a party who was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court except by direct appeal provided or prescribed by law. A party who sought and obtained a decree, financed er agreed to its procurement, er accepted a. property settlement alimony pendente lite or alimony pursuant to the terms of the decree, or who remarries after the decree, or is guilty of laches, is barred from making a collateral
attack upon the validity of the decree unless, by clear and convincing evidence, it is established that fraud by the other party prevented the making of a timely appeal from the divorce er annulment decree. 23 Pa. C.S. § 3333.

[ They present void orders as evidence and suggest I cannot attack. Well, the order is void, there is nothing to attack. It is a nullity. ]

Now, more than two years after the date of the Decree, Plaintiff attempts to collaterally attack the validity of the Decree in this action. Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 3333, Plaintiff is clearly prohibited from questioning the validity in this forum. Plaintiffs efforts to declare the Decree invalid fail and the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Attempted Appeal Did Not Stay the Effect of the Decree

[ What about those Petitions to Stay the Order while under Appeal? ]

Plaintiff implies that his appeal should function as a stay of the Decree. Plaintiff is mistaken. Regardless of the current status of the appeal, an appeal is not an automatic stay. See Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n v. Process Gas Consumers Grp., 502 Pa. 545, 553, 467 A.2d 805, 809 (1983) (noting that an application for stay pending an appeal should only be granted when the applicant makes a strong showing in support of the stay). An application for a stay pending appeal always involves a situation in which the merits of the dispute have been fully considered in an adversary setting and a final decree rendered.

In cases involving more than a judgment for a payment of money, an appeal will "operate as a supersedeas only upon the filing with the clerk of the court below of appropriate security as prescribed in this ru1e.' Pa.R,A,P. 1733(a). In such cases, an application for stay pending appeal must first be filed, See Pa.R.A.P. 1732. Since Plaintiff did not follow the procedures for obtaining a stay, the Decree remained in effect throughout the course of the sale of the Property.

[ A void nullity cannot be in effect. It was never effective. It never could be effective. It never can be effective. ]

For the foregoing reasons, together with the reasons Set forth in Defendants' Preliminary Objections, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court sustain Defendants' Preliminary Objections and issue an order dismissing Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice.

By Philip A. Magen

[ The issues here aren't in the usual scripts offered by the ABA. It's important to read the law. To understand the law. To follow the law. It is important for lawyers to be concerned with their clients liability and the effect these actions and statements may have when they go to prosecute the crime committed against them. ]

Gary Kline, Do your job, or resign.

November 22, 2013
Gary Kline
Domestic Relations Office
P.O. Box 311
Norristown, PA 19404-0311

By facsimile (610) 239-9637.

Healy v Healy 2007-12477
PACSES 853111584

Dear Gary,

Arm of the Court? Seriously? If so, would you care to address the deliberately defective and void order as invalid? Or valid? Things which supercede the Court’s authority include the Law, Due Process, Procedure, etc… A Judge is required to have jurisdiction to issue an Order of the Court.

Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio did not have jurisdiction, therefore she was NOT acting as a judge when she knowingly issued her deliberately defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

The Domestic Relations Office has a responsibility to execute a Court Order when it is valid. When given an invalid and defective order the Domestic Relations Office has a responsibility to respond accordingly to address the defects in the order.

Your department can address the defect in the void order of May 9, 2011. Your department can schedule a hearing to address the defect. The defect is not a judgment, it is procedural. The judge lacked jurisdiction. There is no way to retroactively obtain jurisdiction. The void order is never going to be valid. Never. Ever.

You continue to evade the defect while you perpetrate the invalid order and are complicit in the deliberate corruption ordered and where the County is feigning an obligation to follow a void order while it continues to harass my life.

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia has additionally been served the void and defective order. The deliberate void and defective order continues to attack every aspect of my life.

If you wish to do the right honorable and lawful action, simply recognize the defective and void order and resume APL until the a proper and lawful order can be issued.

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 exposes the inability of a litigant to get a hearing when an act of judicial misconduct or corruption is involved in a matter. This will explain why Court Administration has been so directly involved in denying access to the court to address the matter.

If you are an attorney who may not lawfully take any action to expose the criminal misconduct and corruption of the judiciary, you are welcome to respond that ‘Pursuant to Rule 1.6, I am unable to take the lawful actions required by my office.’

Another matter, Healy v Miller #2013-29976, also awaits scheduling by Court Administration. In that matter, the Millers are attempting to assert the same void order as a power of attorney instrument. They were the victims of fraud in an amount in excess of $400,000.00.

My personal property and possessions were disposed of as a result of the same defective and void order.

According to the information returned in Healy v Miller, there is support owed which has not been collected by the Domestic Relations Office.

You have not explained why my file is marked CONFIDENTIAL? I am aware that the file has been altered and electronic records have been deleted.

I asked for a meeting, conference or proceeding. None has been scheduled.

I asked for a review of the void and defective order. No review has been scheduled.

I asked for an explanation of the rudeness and false allegations of your staff. It has been ignored.

I am spending another Thanksgiving destitute and homeless because of the complicity of Montgomery County in concealing the corruption and defective order of May 9, 2011. I have persevered through this injustice and terror since the initial concealed act of misconduct in August 2007. The facts are clear. The law is clear. The corruption is clear.

I presume you wanted to be the Director of Domestic Relations, SO DO THE JOB… or resign.

Sincerely,
Terance Healy

cc: Montgomery County Commissioners
Josh Shapiro, Chair
Leslie S. Richards, Vice Chair
Bruce L Castor Jr, Commissioner

Gary Kline, Arm of the Court?

November 19, 2013

Dear Mr Healy,

I noted in my previous letter that the information you attempted to deliver was received. I looked through the case and the docket with the Courts. I want to assist you but I cannot find anything that would supersede the Courts's Order. I did see that appeals have been filed.

My office is merely an arm of the Court charged with enforcing the Court's Order. At such time as your appeals have been decided upon and an order is entered please let me know and I'll immediately update our records if I haven't already received the new order.

Sincerely,

Gary Kline
Director

---

Arm of the Court? Seriously? If so, you would address the defective and void order as a part of the judiciary.

Things which supercede the Court's authority include THE LAW, DUE PROCESS and PROCEDURE. A Judge is required to have jurisdiction to issue an Order of the Court. Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio did not have jurisdiction, therefore she was NOT acting as a judge when she issued her deliberately defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

The Domestic Relations Office has a responsibility to execute a Court Order when it is valid. WHEN IT IS GIVEN AN INVALID AND DEFECTIVE COURT ORDER there is a responsibility to respond accordingly to address the defects in the order.

Your department can address the defect in the void order of May 9, 2011. Do your job, or resign and give it to someone who will do the job lawfully.

If you are an attorney who may not take any action to expose the criminal misconduct and corruption of the judiciary, or you have been advised by legal counsel, you are welcome to respond that 'Pursuant to Rule 1.6, I am unable to take the lawful actions required by my office."

Then write your resignation letter, before the County Commissioners must ask for it.

I asked for a meeting. None has been scheduled.

I asked for a review of the void and defective order. No review of the defects has happened.

I presume you wanted to be the Director of Domestic Relations, SO DO THE JOB.

Montgomery County Commissioners

November 21, 2013

Montgomery County Commissioners
Norristown, PA


Josh Shapiro
Leslie Richards
Bruce Castor


Commissioners.

I am writing to ask your intervention in expediting the actions documented in the following documents.

I have been surviving against tremendous injustice since 2007.

Litigation to obtain the home I was illegally removed from has been stalled without explanation and remains unscheduled. All evidence indicates the fraud involved and the lack of jurisdiction regarding the defective and void court order dated May 9, 2011.

Nancy Becker personally assisted in moving the criminal prosecution forward by introducing me to Det. Greg Henry who was already aware of the issues involved in the fraudulent conveyance of my home and property.

Additionally, Gary Kline has failed to respond to questions about the mistreatment by his staff. The Domestic Relations Office is violating my rights, the law and the responsibility of Domestic Relations by following a defective and void order while refusing to address the issues which demonstrate the defects of the order.

I has been destitute and homeless since 2011 and somehow find the ability to persevere awaiting justice. I ask your assistance to address the issues currently before the County.

I beg your intervention and action.

Sincerely,
Terance Healy

included:
Letter November 7, 2013 DRO
Letter November 7, 2013, Gary Kline
Letter November 8, 2013, Sheriff Behr
Response November 13, 2013, Gary Kline
Letter November 19, 2013, Gary Kline
Letter November 19, 2013, Sheriff Behr

Gary Kline - Domestic Relation Office

November 19, 2013

Gary Kline, Director
Domestic Relations Section
P.O. Box 311
Norristown, PA 19404-0311

Dear Mr. Kline,

In response to your letter of November 13, 2013, the Order of the Court to which you refer is a void order issued where the court lacked jurisdiction. The order is a nullity.

The evidence of the defect and lack of jurisdiction is on the court record and listed in the court docket for the matter. Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio lacked jurisdiction and authority to issue the Order of May 9, 2011.

Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is “without authority, it’s judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no jurisdiction; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers.”
[Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)]

The Domestic Relations Office by executing and continuing to execute a void order where informed that you are acting on a void order while refusing and denying the opportunity to address the defective order issued without jurisdiction is a violation of your responsibility, a violation of the law, and a violation of my rights.

Your reply also failed to address the behavior of your staff which demonstrates a complicity to deny justice and deliberately deny access and communication with the Domestic Relations Office. It was clearly not the first time a false allegation was used to remove a litigant from the office without recourse. I remind you I was attempting to simply deliver a letter to your office which your clerk refused.

Tampering with the administration of justice in the manner indisputably shown here involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society.

The public welfare demands that the agencies of public justice not be so impotent that they must always be the mute and helpless victims of deception and fraud. Surely it cannot be that preservation of the integrity of the judicial process must always wait on the diligence of litigants and demand excessive perseverance.

Take immediate action to review my letter of November 7, 2013. Review the data presented, the court record and issue a decision, or arrange a conference where the information may be presented formally to your office to arrive at a decision.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. The corrupt actions have left me homeless and destitute since 2011. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Sincerely,


Terance Healy
c/o 871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976

Gettysburg Address - More relevant today than in 1863

READ IT. The Gettysburg Address is only three paragraphs. It takes less than a few minutes to read. Give it a read.

---

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863

KIDS FOR CASH (in Theaters February 2014)

KIDS FOR CASH is a riveting look behind the notorious judicial scandal that rocked the nation. Beyond the millions paid and high stakes corruption, KIDS FOR CASH exposes a shocking American secret. In the wake of the shootings at Columbine, a small town celebrates a charismatic judge who is hell-bent on keeping kids in line... until one parent dares to question the motives behind his brand of justice.

---

Kids for cash scandal (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Luzerne County Courthouse in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania

The "kids for cash" scandal unfolded in 2008 over judicial kickbacks at the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Two judges, President Judge Mark Ciavarella and Senior Judge Michael Conahan, were accused of accepting money from Robert Mericle, builder of two private, for-profit juvenile facilities, in return for contracting with the facilities and imposing harsh sentences on juveniles brought before their courts to increase the number of inmates in the detention centers.

For example, Ciavarella sentenced children to extended stays in juvenile detention for offenses as minimal as mocking a principal on Myspace, trespassing in a vacant building, and shoplifting DVDs from Wal-mart. Ciavarella and Conahan pled guilty on February 13, 2009, pursuant to a plea agreement, to federal charges of honest services fraud and conspiracy to defraud the United States (failing to report income to the Internal Revenue Service, known as tax evasion) in connection with receiving $2.6 million in payments from managers at PA Child Care in Pittston Township and its sister company Western PA Child Care in Butler County. The plea agreement was later voided by a federal judge, who was dissatisfied with the post-plea conduct of the defendants, and the two judges charged subsequently withdrew their guilty pleas, raising the possibility of a criminal trial.

A federal grand jury in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania returned a 48 count indictment against Ciavarella and Conahan including racketeering, fraud, money laundering, extortion, bribery and federal tax violations on September 9, 2009. Conahan entered a revised guilty plea to one count of racketeering conspiracy in July 2010. In a verdict reached at the conclusion of a jury trial, Ciavarella was convicted February 18, 2011 on 12 of the 39 counts he faced.

Following the original plea agreement, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered an investigation of the cases handled by the judges and following its outcome overturned several hundred convictions of youths in Luzerne County. The Juvenile Law Center filed a class action lawsuit against the judges and numerous other parties, and the state legislature created a commission to investigate the wide-ranging juvenile justice problems in the county.

---

So the question which is never asked is WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG FOR SOMEONE TO REACT TO THE VOLUMINOUS REPORTS ABOUT THE CORRUPT JUDGES? The Judicial Conduct Board ignored EVERY complaint and usurped all responsibility to address the judicial crimes. THEY THEN DID NOTHING while the people were terrorized..

THE ANSWER: The law indicates it is not lawful to prosecute a corrupt judge. Not by a lawyer, prosecutor, district attorney or attorney general. Those who must follow Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The same rule exists in every state. Same name. Same number. Same dead end for the victims of injustice.

---

DELIBERATE OBSTRUCTION OF REMEDIES FOR THE INJUSTICE

The bigger question is WHY DID THE SHERIFFs who are by constitution and law the Chief Law Enforcement Officers in each County lose their power? It seems that judges and lawyers somehow reduced the Sheriffs responsibilities to prisoner taxi service, foreclosure sales and protection of the judges. Protecting the corrupt as well as the lawful.

The County Sheriff is not required to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Sheriffs could have acted. The Sheriffs could act. The Sheriffs have a responsibility to act. Yet, somehow the Sheriffs have been convinced by the County District Attorneys that the Sheriff has no power.

The Constitutional Challenge, and the sedition it exposed, demonstrates why all of the law enforcement power was not placed under the one branch of government.

In order for the American Bar Association to conceal their sedition of every state government, and their continued protection of corrupt and criminal judges, it was necessary to disenfranchise the Sheriffs from law enforcement. AND THEY DID.

---

This is not an issue of judicial immunity which can be viewed as occasionally unfair. The issue is deliberate unlawful actions by judges who refuse to address their errors, and the judges who are bound by law to ignore their corruption. Judges who must sacrifice their integrity to conceal the lack of integrity of the corrupt.

Judicial immunity protects judges from prosecution from unintentional errors in judgment. Immunity is a necessity for the courts to function. Judges are permitted to make bad decisions - as long as a judge follows the process and the law, the judge has jurisdiction to act.

When a judge fails to follow the process, the judge does not have jurisdiction to act as The Court. When a judge acts without jurisdiction, they are acting without the protection of judicial immunity. This is why they get multiple opportunities to fix their errors. Reconsideration, appeals, etc... Judge's maintain their immunity even when they just don't want to believe the testimony. So, if the judge doesn't like you, YES THE JUDGE CAN RULE AGAINST YOU... as long as the proper process was followed for a hearing. A HUGE part of the job of being a judge is making certain that the judge has jurisdiction in the matter, otherwise the judge has no authority to order anyone to do anything.

When the court lacks jurisdiction... their actions, when documented and presented to the court, present the case for criminal prosecution against the judge. Any deliberate actions to destroy a litigant in the court subsequent to reports of judicial misconduct and crime are retaliatory and bring disgrace upon the entire judiciary. All the judge must do is follow the process, and then they have immunity for their malice.

For example:
1. When Judge Rhonda Daniele concealed her order in my family court matter for 3 years while it was used to leverage every proceeding against me.
No Hearing. No Jurisdiction. Not Valid.

2. When Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio issued a deliberately defective and void order as a divorce decree. When raised to her immediate attention that she lacked jurisdiction to issue the order, she ignored it and issued another order compounding the error. When presented to the court, she again ignored the defect. When appealed to the Superior Court, she acknowledged the Appeal ordering a list of the errors involved in her order. She then prevented the appeal from being transmitted to the Superior Court.
No process. No Jurisdiction. Not valid.

3. When Judge Richard Haas was asked to conduct a penalty for a contempt that did not occur, he was set up to not have jurisdiction in that, AS WELL AS the penalty being part of a void order based on a void order based on a void order based on a defective order. Judge Haas never scheduled the hearing.
The only way to save the judge's integrity was to do nothing.

4. When Judge Garrett Page conducted that hearing with the knowledge that jurisdication for the matter was with the Superior Court which was awaiting the Appeal paperwork, Judge Page ignored the pending Appeal. Judge Page ignored the nested void orders. Judge Page ignored the defective orders and the evidence on the court record and documented in testimony in his courtroom. Judge Page issued a contempt penalty without a finding of contempt. That penalty was over $300,000.00. This was done with deliberate intent. When a person fails to pay a contempt fine, they can be incarcerated until the amount is satisfied. Contempt penalties are unlike other monetary judgements.
No law. No process. No Jurisdication. Not valid.

5. When the Superior Court of Pennsylvania went to hear the appeal on Judge Page's absurd order, Montgomery County did not send the exhibits or the documents for the matter.
No law. No process. No power to compel the Lower Court. Not valid.

6. Judge Garrett Page contacts Court Reporters to prevent transcripts from being produced and delivered. Judge Page cancelled the permission granted to proceed In FORMA PAUPERIS. All done without hearings, without explanations, without any regard for justice. All done to conceal the criminal actions of the 17 judges before him on the matter.. as the clear criminal actions by Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio effectively voided all judicial immunity.
No Law. No process. Not valid.

7. When Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio sent the sheriff to execute her void and defective order, the judge was expanding the liability for her criminal action to include the Sheriff's department.
Actions by other parties based on void orders are subject to prosecution.

Those following a judge's orders are responsible for making certain the orders are proper. THAT SIMPLY DOESN'T HAPPEN. No on ever confirms the jurisdiction or authority of a judge. Even when presented with the errors and defects, they ignore and act. It's not a courtesy to ignore a judge's corruption. It's becomes a conspiracy.

There is a considerable amount of intimidation involved when it comes to concealing judicial corruption. Even the Montgomery County Employee Ethics rules immorally and unethically require silence. It is unlawful to be a whistleblower in Montgomery County.

For these reasons many counties have begun electing and appointing lawyers to the row officer and county management positions. Clerk of Courts, Controller, Coroner, District Attorney, Jury Commissioners, Prothonotary, Recorder of Deeds, Register of Wills, Sheriff, Treasurer, Court Administration, Domestic Relations. Where a Row officer is a lawyer, they must follow Rule 1.6 and must take no action to expose the corruption and crimes of the court.

---

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct demonstrate the loss of civil rights and liberties. That was the primary issue. It was the information from Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane which exposed the law improperly enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Their own act of judicial misconduct was immediately impossible to lawfully address - as they would expose their misconduct if they took action.

The conspiracy involved to get away with denying peoples rights has been very elaborate. Right in front of a distracted American Public, the American Bar Association - the lawyers and the judges - executed a plan which resulted in the loss of rights for American Citizens. They wrote themselves into a corner they could not lawfully escape.

1. Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional.

2. A Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the County, NOT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. The reason for that is very clear. The reason everyone was convinced otherwise shows the extent of the conspiracy to avoid prosecution.

After Operation Graylord, the best way to protect the judiciary from losing their integrity was to have a judiciary with integrity... NOT to make it impossible to prosecute the corrupt judges. That is plain stupid and wrong on every level.

When you remove Rule 1.6 all of the other laws and aspects of immunities work. It's how the system was designed.

Judges who commit crimes by not following due process, court procedures and the Law, are deliberately acting without jurisdiction and MUST be prosecuted.

The American Bar Association is the biggest and most corrupt racketeering organization ever to exist in the US. Their sedition and treason must be addressed. They deliberately destroyed the integrity of the judiciary nationwide. There is no excusing their crime.

The law is for the protection of the people...

Healy v. Miller

When a corrupt judge issues a corrupt and defective order (AND DOES SO WITH DELIBERATE INTENT TO ISSUE A VOID ORDER), it causes lawlessness and terror which cannot be addressed. NO ONE WILL ADDRESS THE CORRUPT JUDGE's CRIME AND INJUSTICE. Your life becomes daily terror, additional injustice and constant frustration - 24 HOURS A DAY.

Any and all lies and fraud are ignored, because if you attempt to assert your rights or the truth, the corrupt judge will be exposed. It doesn't matter how many people become involved in the crimes against you. You have little recourse but to suffer continuing criminal acts against you.

All anyone has to do is connect the void and defective order of the corrupt judge to their actions and you get hurt. There is no escape until they kill you.

Healy v Miller is a case where I am attempting to recover my home and property. By law, the home and property is mine. By deed, the home and property is mine. Miller invalidly asserts 3 words on one page of a defective order against the facts. For the last 2 years, Law enforcement will not prosecute the theft of my home, or the theft of the Miller's money.

Until I succeed, I remain homeless and destitute. That was the intent of the 18 judges involved in my divorce. I received my injustice (and death sentence) when Judge Rhonda Daniele issued a secret order in my divorce. The order was hidden for 3 years and destroyed my life, my relationships with everyone, my reputation, caused problems with law enforcement and denied me my children. No hearing. I've never seen Judge Rhonda Daniele. Judge Rhonda Daniele was never assigned to my case, yet her corrupt order was the impetus to injustice and denial of civil human and parental rights since 2007. Through 17 other judges who sacrificed their integrity to conceal her crime - terrorizing my life in the process.

When the secret order was found and presented in court, the retaliation from the court became worse. The corruption and and retaliation escalated taking everything from me. It has been two years since that defective and void order was issued. It was issued defective and void intentionally so that no one would ever address the evil that Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio was executing. They return to attack constantly. I cannot get hearings, but everyone else does. The hearing then delivers another injustice. In March 2013, Judge Garrett page ordered me to pay over $300,000 for a penalty of contempt BUT without a finding of contempt. A contempt order will put a person in jail until it is satisfied. Their goal was Jail. It lead to the proof necessary to demonstrate complete loss of rights when the matter made it to the superior Court. It lead to the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6. It proved the corruption was based on the Rule. And the Rule proved to be so much more evil by design and intent.

I present the facts in court and when the judge realizes the corruption of the court, the judge perpetrates further terror. Eighteen judges have terrorized me since 2007.


CASE DOCUMENTS
Civil Complaint – Action in Ejectment ( PDF )

Emergency Praecipe for Immediate Eviction / Order of Possession( PDF )

Emergency Praecipe for Immediate Eviction/Order of Possession (Addendum)( PDF )

Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and Defendant’s Memorandum of Law ( PDF )

Plaintiff Responds to Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and Defendant’s Memorandum of Law
( PDF )

Gary Kline - Domestic Relations Office

Dear Mr Healy:

I received your packet of information and letter dated November 7th, 2013. The most recent Order of Court we have is the order dated May 9th, 2011 entered by the Honorable Carolyn Carluccio. APL terminates when the Divorce is Ordered. There are no additional Orders with regard to support that would permit reinstatement at this time.

Sincerely,
Gary Kline

A typical non-responsive letter to the questions asked, while entirely indicative of the reason for their harassment.

So the apparent answer to everything that is wrong is Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio. A defective and void order by a corrupt judge causes the denial of EVERYTHING. And for some reason is the answer to everything. And the reason for no hearings meeting or correspondence. It prevents a letter from being delivered and filed.

The defective and void order which was designed to destroy every ASPECT OF MY LIFE. because without that destructive order, the prior judges corruption would be exposed and prosecuted. Carolyn Carluccio's corrupt actions would void judicial immunity. The deliberate actions of a judge to destroy a person.


THE DEFECTIVE AND VOID ORDER YOU REFER TO HAS BEEN UNDER APPEAL SINCE 2011. BOTH PARTIES HAVE SWORN TO IT BEING INVALID. STOP ENABLING THE TERROR OF CAROLYN CARLUCCIO.

Operation Greylord

Operation Greylord was an investigation conducted jointly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Chicago Police Internal Affairs Division and the Illinois State Police into corruption in the judiciary of Cook County, Illinois (the Chicago jurisdiction).

A total of 92 people were indicted, including 17 judges, 48 lawyers, ten deputy sheriffs, eight policemen, eight court officials, and a state legislator.

Operation Greylord lead to many other similar investigations targeting corruption in Cook County including Operation Silver Shovel, Incubator, Lantern, Operation Gambat, and Safebet.

The key undercover FBI agents and lawyers were David Grossman, David Reis and Terrence Hake. Hake was a Cook County prosecutor, who complained about the bribery and corruption in the Murder and Sexual Assault preliminary hearing courtroom in Chicago.

The Bar Association and the Judiciary were determined that something like this would never happen again. It was then that Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information became LAW in each state preventing injustice and judicial corruption from being reported to authorities by attorneys and judges.

Preventing District Attorneys from prosecuting corruption and other crimes which would expose the corruption.

Preventing Attorneys General from prosecuting corruption and other crimes which would expose the corruption.

Each judge forced to sacrifice their integrity to conceal the lack of integrity of other members of the judiciary.

The moment the Supreme Court in each state illegally enacted the LAW, it became ILLEGAL for them to remove it. It would expose their violation - the Supreme Court does not enact law. The legislature and the Governor enact law. BUT, The Supreme Court of the State would be violating the law if they exposed it as unconstitutional, unlawful, or improperly enacted.

Rule 1.6 has destroyed too many people, and families.

Rule 1.6 has no purpose or reason other than to conceal injustice, prevent truth and permit corruption.

Rule 1.6 is a nullity. Not a Law, as it is unconstitutional. For that reason every judge and attorney who has heard of the Constitutional Challenge has an obligation to stand up and defend the US Constitution and restore the rights of the People of the United States.

Read the FBI report on Operation Greylord.... The roundup of prosecuted corrupt court and law enforcement personnel in Greylord is considerably smaller than those who participated in the Terroristic Divorce.

There is ONLY one person who is an attorney who is permitted to address Rule 1.6 and expose it. The US Attorney General Eric Holder. Federal law dictates that NO LAW may be written which prevents the US Attorney General from action.

Other lawyers could lawfully address it, BUT they would be taking the risk that the disciplinary actions would occur before they were able to present the unconstitutionality, the criminality and the mandatory corruption enabled by Rule 1.6.

Resurrect Justice.

Plaintiff Responds to Defendant's Preliminary Objections and Defendant's Memorandum of Law

( PDF )
IN THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NORRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA

Terance Healy	:
	: #2013-29976
v.	:
	:
David R. Miller	:
Jennifer K. Miller	:

PLAINTIFF RESPONDS TO DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
And
DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF LAW

1. Defendants, David R. Miller and Jennifer K. Miller, represented by Philip A. Magen and Scott E. Goldstein, have failed to produce a valid deed or title demonstrating to this Honorable Court a valid claim to the property and residence.

2. Defendants allege the existence of a power of attorney, but have failed to produce a valid power of attorney instrument.

3. Defendants have introduced, as Exhibit 2, a defective and void divorce decree suggesting the Court ignore where (1) the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue any such order; (2) ignore the defectiveness of the order; (3) ignore the lack of the order being a power of attorney in any legal form; (4) ignore the law which makes any power of attorney a nullity within a divorce decree; (5) ignore that every agent acting in the transaction was aware of the inadequacy of the document as authorization.

NO POWER OF ATTORNEY

4. Terance Healy has never granted a Power of Attorney at any person at any time.

5. There is no record of any such Power of Attorney relating to Terance Healy being recorded with the Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds.

6. There is no record of any such Power of Attorney relating to Terance Healy being recorded in the Montgomery County Court Docket.

7. There is no record of any such Power of Attorney being produced or provided to the parties involved in the fraudulent conveyance.

8. On August 8, 2011, Jodi Marlow of Genuine Title indicated to Christina Grucella, Keller Williams Real Estate; Patricia Tagliolini, Coldwell Banker Real Estate; and Alex Mikhelson of Genuine Title that the contract "is not signed properly by the sellers", and that "we need Mr Healy to sign the sales contract or we need a copy of the Power of Attorney." [ Exhibit A ]

9. On August 9, 2011, Jodi Marlow of Genuine Title has attempted "to explain to the realtor that even though it states the wife can be a POA to sell the property that we will still need an original POA signed by the husband and notarized." [ Exhibit B ]

10. On August 9, 2011, BJ Bratzel, an underwriter at Fidelity National Agency Solutions writes "if the husband will cooperate, getting a POA out of him would certainly make it cleaner and easier.” [ Exhibit B ] Terance Healy was not aware of the activity, nor was he a party to the fraudulent conveyance of his home.

11. BJ Bratzel indicates the necessity to ‘Record a certified copy of it’. There is no recorded copy of any additional document with the deed. [ Exhibit B ]

12. In an email on September 7, 2011, Cheryl Hertsch of Genuine Title indicates to Ann Markley of SOS that she has ‘the original document that is to be recorded appointing her [Sonya Healy] to sign on behalf of Terance’. [ Exhibit C ] There is no such document recorded.

13. There is no Power of Attorney instrument filed as a part of any documents with the Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds.

POWER OF ATTORNEY

14. Pennsylvania Law Chapter 56 Sections 5601 through 5611 inclusive govern all powers of attorney.

15. The defective and void divorce order does not follow the General Provisions 56012 with regard to execution, notice and acknowledgement.

16. The defective and void divorce order does not follow the Form of power of attorney 5602 with regard to specification of powers, appointment and filing of the instrument.

17. The defective and void divorce order was not properly implemented with regard to 5603 Implementation of power of attorney.

18. The defective and void divorce order was not handled in accordance with 5604 Durable powers of attorney as it was improperly misrepresented and used to deny Plaintiff from any and all information regarding the property conveyance transaction.

19. The defective and void divorce order could not have been used as a power of attorney as 5605(c) indicates power of attorney is revoked after either principal files an action in divorce.

20. As such, pursuant to Pennsylvania Law the defective and void divorce order presented by Defendants in support of their claim could not be a valid power of attorney instrument.

DEFECTIVE AND VOID DIVORCE DECREE

21. A defective and void defective Divorce Decree was entered in the divorce matter on May 11, 2011. It is a nullity.

22. An Order for Equitable Distribution may only be entered with a valid Divorce Decree, as such the Order of May 9, 2011 is void in its entirety. It is a nullity.

PENDING APPEAL

23. A Notice of Appeal was filed timely on August 15, 2011 and acknowledged by Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio in her Order of August 22, 2013. [ Exhibit D ]

24. A Concise Statement of Errors Complained of On Appeal was filed on September 15, 2011.

EFFORTS TO AVOID THE FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE

25. All information regarding the sale and fraudulent conveyance of the home was prevented from the Plaintiff.

26. The filing of the Notice of Appeal in the matter lawfully served as a superceadas to the execution of any actions by either party.

27. A Title Search Document from TitlePrep (Global Data Source) Title Processing Services on July 25, 2011 accurately indicates NO FINAL DECREE ENTERED AS OF THIS COVER DATE. [ Exhibit E ]

28. Multiple phone calls to Christine Grucella and the Keller Williams office were not returned. I was forwarded by their receptionist to their attorney who inexplicably refused to provide information.

29. Plaintiff met with Christine Grucella in person at the residence where she indicated she had no information regarding the sale of the home. Christine Grucella lives a few doors away from the property.

30. Letters to Christine Grucella and the management at Keller Williams on August 29, 2011 informed them of the Appeal in process and the acknowledgement of the Appeal by the Court. [ Exhibit F ]

31. A Petition requesting the documents executed by Sonya Healy relating to the Sale was filed with the Court on September 1, 2011.

32. On September 1, 2011, an Injunction Blocking the Sale of the Home was filed with the Court.

33. On September 6, 2011, upon request by Valerie Angst of Angst & Angst, all hearings previously scheduled for Septemeber 20, 2011 were immediately continued to Friday September 23, 2011 by Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio.

34. The fraudulent conveyance of the property took place on September 20, 2011.

35. On September 23, 2011, in Court at the commencement of the proceeding Plaintiff Terance Healy was informed of the fraudulent conveyance of his home and property on September 20, 2011.

36. On September 23, 2011, Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio threatened Terance Healy with contempt and jail if he did not immediately endorse over to Sonya Healy all of the checks from the closing.

37. Pursuant to a verbal Order by Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio all of the Plaintiffs personal possessions – everything of his that was in his house - were disposed of on the closing date which the he had been prevented from learning.
- Prevented by Sonya Healy
- Prevented by Valerie Angst of Angst & Angst
- Prevented by Robert Angst of Angst & Angst
- Prevented by Christine Grucella of Keller Williams
- Prevented by Jason Drissel at Keller Williams
- Prevented by Bruce Neumann, attorney for Keller Williams
- Prevented by Court Administration
- Prevented by Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio

OBSTRUCTION

38. After receiving the Concise Statement of Issue Complained of on Appeal, the Appeal filed on August 15, 2011 was obstructed and prevented from being transmitted to the Superior Court by the Montgomery County Prothonotary at the direction of Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio.

DENIAL OF RIGHTS

It has been the Plaintiff’s divorce experience which has caused him to find himself in the unique position to act lawfully with proper standing while having a valid cause for relief in the proper forum to Challenge the Constitutionality of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on August 8, 2013 – Civil Action 13-4614.

Filed by the Plaintiff on behalf of the entire country to address the loss of constitutionally protected civil rights and liberties; restore the integrity of the judiciary and the legal profession; and deliver to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their office.

In the response to the challenge, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane indicated that the Law being challenged was improperly enacted, not written by the legislature, nor signed by a Governor. The same law has been unlawfully enacted in every State.

The author of the Law is the American Bar Association.

During 2011, Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio was the President of the Montgomery County Bar Association.

FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE OWNERSHIP

39. The deed mentioned in the Defendants objections is incomplete and improperly filed with the Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds.

40. The suggested Decree and Order dated May 9, 2011 is defective, void and a nullity.

41. The suggested Decree and Order dated May 9, 2011 is not a Power of Attorney instrument.

42. The suggested Decree and Order dated May 9, 2011 cannot grant power of attorney to a divorcing spouse. A divorce decree invalidates a power of attorney one spouse may have for the other.


FRAUD AND FORGERY

43. The closing documents demonstrate the fraud alleged in the Plaintiff’s complaint.

44. Sonya Healy misrepresented several pages of a defective and void divorce decree and equitable distribution order as or some sort of power of attorney.

BAD POWER OF ATTORNEY

45. Sonya Healy did not have any authorization, power of attorney or valid court order to sign any documents for the Plaintiff.

MISREPRESENTATION OF MARITAL STATUS

46. Sonya Healy signed a Continuous Marriage Affidavit document at the closing indicating that she was legally married. [ Exhibit G ]

47. Sonya Healy used a defective and void divorce order to misrepresent her having a power of attorney.

48. Sonya Healy is correct that she is legally married. In swearing to that statement she acknowledges the defective and void divorce decree. Further evidence that she did NOT AT ANY TIME have a power of attorney or authorization which would have allowed her to sign for the Plaintiff.

49. The Court may excuse a party for actions tasken unknowingly when a divorce decree is questioned as long as their actions indicate a consistent belief of either being divorced or married.

50. Sonya Healy swears she is married during the transaction where she purports to have a power of attorney based on a dicvoce decree. Her actioons are inexcusable and deliberate and made with the intent to commit fraud.

SUBPEONAS FOR INFORMATION

51. Plaintiff has served participants in the fraudulent conveyance with subpoenas for documents. Those documents will be organized, prepared and filed with this court.

52. Documents received from Genuine Title indicate "speak to our corp counsel" and "don;t give any info unless supeana". [ Exhibit H ]

53. Jay Zuckerberg, President of Genuine Title responded to requests for information by emailing "Sir, you will need to go through the courts as we went off the courts instructions as well." There were NO COURT INSTRUICTIONS in thwe documents provided after Genuine Title was served with a subpeona.

MEMORANDUM FORMAT.

54. Where the represented parties in this case have submitted identical documents to this Honorable Court, one numbered and titled as “Preliminary Objections” and the other unnumbered and titled as a “Memorandum of Law”, the pro se Plaintiff respectfully begs the Courts direction if this is an expectation or a necessary requirement to duplicate pleadings before this Court.


WHEREAS, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court restore the Plaintiff’s property to the true and rightful owner by issuing an Order for Ejectment to the Defendants to immediately vacate the property and residence.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy

---

CASE DOCUMENTS
Civil Complaint – Action in Ejectment ( PDF )

Emergency Praecipe for Immediate Eviction / Order of Possession( PDF )

Emergency Praecipe for Immediate Eviction/Order of Possession (Addendum)( PDF )

Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and Defendant’s Memorandum of Law ( PDF )

Plaintiff Responds to Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and Defendant’s Memorandum of Law
( PDF )

Sheriff Eileen Behr

Sheriff Eileen Behr
Montgomery County
Norristown, PA 19404

Sheriff Behr,

Please accept and review the attached letter to Gary Kline about an experience at the Domestic Relations Office on November 7, 2013. County Deputies continue to act on false information from Court personnel.

This issue in the DRO was addressed with Corporal Kohl yesterday. This circumstance was pointed out to he and Corporal Haas years ago. your deputies have recognized that it is the County Personnel who are acting to deny access to the court, to harass, deter and prevent information from being available. The County Personnel are misinforming and using your staff to hinder, undermine and threaten my efforts and my freedom.

I take my freedom and my liberty seriously. The survival of my experience since 2007 in the Courthouse has documented and exposed the criminal sedition of the Pennsylvania Government by judges and lawyers who are unable to address or correct their damage. I have raised the matter in the Federal Courts for myself and on behalf of those who have not survived, baited into jail, forced into homelessness, drugs, isolation and suicide.

The criminal fraudulent conveyance of my home has been documented and proven, yet there has been no action. i remain homeless. Denied access to the District Court by Court Administration. prevented from hearings by Court Administration. Why am I still homeless while the crime is ignored and my home is occupied by people without a valid title to the property. if someone stole a car or a wallet, THAT would have been returned and the crime addressed.

The criminal fraud provided to domestic Relations Office is being ignored. In the past they have denied my rights falsely indicating paperwork was not properly provided to them and served. Their own records demonstrate the files have been deleted. My file is marked CONFIDENTIAL and not available for review.

I remain homeless and destitute and continue to be terrorized and threatened by the harassment and intrusions into my life. I again request your intervention and support. Thank you as always for the professionalism of your deputies.

Sincerely

Terance Healy

Montgomery Township Supervisors

Joseph P. Walsh
Jeffrey W. McDonnell
Robert J. Birch
Candyce Fleuhr Chimera
Michael J. Fox

My home at 110 Banbury Avenue was fraudulently conveyed on September 20, 2013. Usingf an invalid, defective and void court order, along with misinformation and false testimony the transaction took place without my being informed.

Police have refused to take a complaint ion the matter.

Judge Andrea Duffy was prevented from hearing the complaint by her court administrator.

Judge Patricia Coonahan has the matter in her court, however court administration has failed to schedule any hearing.

The fraudulent conveyance is clear. Based on fraud, forgery, bad power of attorney, misrepresentation of marital status, undue influence, mistakes in recording legal documents, falsified title records, and representations on legal documenta which are invalid or incorrect.

The fraud has been confirmed by Nancy Becker, Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds.

The fraud has been reported to Montgomery Township Police.

The fraud has been reported to Montgomery County Sheriff Eileen Behr.

I have been homeless since these malicious actions regarding my home commenced in June 2011.

Montgomery township police have threatened ME with arrest based on a false report after current occupants were served with the Civil Action in Ejectment. This is inexplicable. If someone stole a car it would be returned to the owner. This is my home which has been stolen.

What I have discovered is that I lost my civil rights when an act of judicial misconduct occurred in 2007. There is no lawful way to address the judicial misconduct, as any lawyer, district attorney or attorney general must follow Rule 1.6 of the rules of Professional Conduct which prohibit lawyers from taking actions which might implicate a member of the judiciary in a crime.

This is why Cash for Kids in Luzerne County went on for years. As over 5000 children and families were affected by the criminal corruption of a judge. No one copuld stop him. No one could explain their inaction to the requests of the victims.

This is why the foreclosure crisis has resulted in millions of people being removed from their homes because a fraudulent deed presented in court was the misconduct necessary to effectively result in the loss of civil rights and liberties - as the misconduct could not be addressed in court or publicly.

I have filed in the Federal Court to address the denial of my rights and liberties protected by the United States Constitution and restope the rights not only for myself but for all Americans. A copy of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of information of the Rules of Professional Conduct is attached for your review.

Rule 1.6 was not written by the legislature, nor signed by a Governor. it immediately became impossible to address as it was enacted by an act of judicial misconduct. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court illegally and unlawfully enacted the law on October 16, 1987, effective April 1, 1988. Injustice became impossible to address within the state of Pennsylvania.

The same law, same number, same name has been enacted in EVERY state. This is no coincidence. The author of the law is the same in every state.

I would appreciate your help and support regarding the restoration of the constitutional rights of the people of Montgomery Township.

I would appreciate your help and support in the efforts to obtain my home, and to restore the rights of the people in the township, the state and nationwide.

Sincerely,

Terance Healy

Heritage Foundation

John Malcolm
Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Ave, NE
Washington, DC 20002

Dear Mr Malcolm,

You were contacted my Michael Labate and after an introductory discussion it was suggested that we forward the following documents to you for review.

We have discovered that Rule1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct can result in the denial of constitutionally protected rights and liberties. Once this occurs there is no assistance or escape.

I lost my civil rights when an act of judicial misconduct occurred in 2007. It was kept secret for 3 years while undermining court hearings. Once discovered in 2010, the injustice grew. There was no lawful way to address the judicial misconduct, as any lawyer, district attorney or attorney general must follow Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct which prohibits lawyers from taking any action which might implicate a member of the judiciary in a crime.

The Cash for Kids scandal in Luzerne County PA went on for almost a decade until Federal agents intervened. Over 5000 children and families were affected by the criminal corruption of a judge. Putting children in jail for his own gain. No one could stop him. No one could explain their inaction. No one coudl respond to the requests of the victims for help.

This is also why the foreclosure crisis has resulted in millions of people being removed from their homes. A fraudulent deed presented in court was the misconduct necessary to effectively result in the loss of civivl rights and liberties - the misconduct could not be addressed in the court or publicly.

Rule 1.6 was not written by the legislature, nor signed by the Governor. It immediately became impossible to address as it was enacted by an act of judicial miscondduct. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court illegaly and unl;awfully enacted the law on October 16, 1987, efffective April 1, 1988. Injustice became impossible to address within the state of Pennsylvania.

The same law, same number, same name has been encacted in EVERY state. This is no coincidence. The author of the law is the same in every state.

We have filed in Federal Court. Civil Action 13-4614. The matter is currently proceeding for reconsideration by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and a concurrent Appeal to the Third Circuit is being prepared.

Any support of assistance that you can provide would be appreciated.

Thank You

Terance Healy
Todd Krautheim

Gary Kline - Domestic Relations Office

Gary Kline
Domestic Relations Division
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas
P.O. Box 311
Norristown, PA 19404

Dear Mr. Kline

I attempted before noon today to deliver the attached letter to the Domestic Relations Office (DRO). The treatment I received at the direction of an obese clerk with blond hair and a pink blouse was inexcusable.

When I arrived I proceeded to the check-in folks and asked them to accept a letter and time stamp copies for distribution to the parties. They asked if I had a case number. It was on the letter.

When they looked into their computers, they indicated the file was CONFIDENTIAL. There has never been an explanation ffor my file being confidential. I have been denied access to the file for years without explanation.

The counter person took the letter (and copies) to the back and about 10 minutes later the woman who refused to identify herself indicated I needed to open up a new file. She refused to accept the letter or to time stamp the copies. The counter person then explained to her that I had a PACSES number already. She ignored her. I instructed her this was about delivering a letter to the DRO about an existing case, not initiating a new case.

I asked her to identify herself or contact her supervisor. She ignored me and called the deputies. She falsely indicated she had already given her name. if she had, why would I not have it? or written it? Why would I still be asking for it? Why was she calling the deputies? Why were they saying she had given me her name when they were not there? Why was the delivery of a letter causing such drama? Why was she refusing to provide her name. Even a first name would have been useful. This woman was determined, for no apparent reason, to prevent me from simply delivering a letter and having it time-stamped for distribution to the parties.

In the past no presenting a time-stamped copy of the documents filed with the Domestic Relations Office has been reason for inaction and failure to collect arrears.

As such, I would appreciate your confirmation of the receipt of the attached letter dated November 7, 2013.

I would appreciate the opportunity to review the matter with you and additionally understand why the information in my file is being prevented from me. The DRO activity was initiated on my behalf by my attorney in July 2007.

I would appreciate an opportunity to meet with you to discuss the DRO, discuss my experience, and review and obtain the file contents.

Sincerely

Terance Healy

Annulment - Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Metropolitan Tribunal
Archdiocese Of Philadelphia
222 N. 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-1299

Re: Pursel-Healy 381-13


Dear Rev. Msgr Di Girolamo,

Currently, the parties in this matter are not divorced in the State of Pennsylvania.

A defective, invalid and void divorce decree was issued on May 9, 2011. It is currently under an Appeal filed on August 15, 2011, and again on April 29, 2013 raising the matter to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Sonya Healy has additionally testified under oath on September 20, 2011 that she believes herself to be married. (Copy Attached)

Mrs. Healy signed a document swearing to her marriage, however, she was doing so to perpetrate a larger fraud. She was illegally conveying the marital residence and disposing of a lifetime of possessions of her husband. Illegally and in violation of all court orders. The family to whom she illegally sold the home is now in litigation because of the damage she brought upon them.

Mrs. Healy has engaged in conduct that can only be referred to as destructive and terroristic. She has denied her children access to their father. She has lied in court. Her malicious litigation and fraud are well documented in the courts. Sonya Healy is acting out of extreme malice.

Her actions have been so corrupt within the court that it has been before 18 judges of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. The Divorce is also in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania as her fraudulent testimony has threatened to incarcerate me. The matter is additionally before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as a Federal Issue was discovered. The Federal issue is before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 13-4614.

I have been a Catholic my entire life. Growing up my family was a founding family at St Robert Bellarmine in Warrington. I went to St. Joseph’s Elementary, Warrington and Archbishop Wood High School, Warminster. My own family was a founding family at Mary, Mother of the Redeemer Parish in North Wales from its inception.

Sonya Healy is a Methodist from Bethany United Methodist Church in Milton, PA. Though she converted after our children were born she was never a practicing Catholic.

She is seeking this annulment in an attempt to inflict further damage to myself, my parents and my children by attacking through my religion. We have been married for over 25 years. I would greatly appreciate copies of any documents which Sonya Healy has provided to the Tribunal.

Sincerely,

Terance Healy
871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976

Cc:
Rev. Msgr. Robert J. Powell, DMA
Rev. Msgr. Paul A. Di Girolamo, JCD
Rev Eduardo Montero, JCL
Rev. Sean Bransfield, JCL

Copy attached:
Sworn Statement from Sonya Healy that she is married on September 20, 2011

Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct – This case is based on the extreme malicious injustice brought about through Sonya Healy’s terroristic divorce actions.


Cross Reference:
Court Docket #2007-12477 Healy v Healy
Court Docket #2013-29976 Healy v Miller
Superior Court Docket #1330 EDA 2013
Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania #155 MM 2013
US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania #13-4614

History repeating... POWER CORRUPTS... it's definitely repeating.

How did the American Bar Association overthrow EVERY state government and get away with it. They followed what Nazi's did in Germany and perfected their state government overthrow while distracting the people... and leading everyone to believe that the victims were non-existent. A very nazi-esque way of thinking.

They created a LAW. Illegally enacted it. The LAW prevented lawyers from lawfully addressing their overthrow. In exchange the law excused judicial corruption. The judges could excuse the lawyers crimes when presented in court. The victims were denied justice and denied their rights. Victims are left with no where to turn but a court which cannot address their injustice. The LAW prevents it.

The rhetoric scripted through the American Bar Association convinced law abiding people to abandon their ethics and morals. MANDATING judges to sacrifice their integrity to protect the corruption and crimes of other judges. Destroying individuals and families everywhere... terrorizing them to the point of suicide or to where they were ostracized because of constant attacks. They lacked any constitutional rights and no one could explain it.

I lived it. I experienced it. I found their crime. Rule 1.6. It terrorizes people everyday.

Even with my exposing their crime to the Federal Court, a lone lawyer Randall Henzes acted to prevent Constitutional Rights from being restored. He acted without presenting proper authority. He usurped the authority of Attorney General Kathleen Kane of Pennsylvania.

ONCE HE ACTED, the act of misconduct in a court of law by an officer of the court, no one could touch him or expose him because Rule 1.6 prevented him from being lawfully prosecuted for his crime. Kathleen Kane's authority was stripped from her because of a unconstitutional law which she must follow because it is in the Rules of Professional Conduct. Attorney General kathleen Kane got Rule 1.6'd.

Eric Holder, US ATTORNEY GENERAL. Are you watching the power of this Rule 1.6 as it destroys the country. You, Eric, are the only LAWYER in the country who may lawfully take action against Rule 1.6.

No law may be written which prevents the US Attorney General from acting to address it. The US Attorney General. ALONE.

Eric, baby... Restore the Constitution. Shut down the largest and most corrupt and seditious and treasonous organization in the country. A monopoly of corruption with mandatory membership organized in every county with District Attorneys and Attorneys General among their membership. An organized crime syndicate known as The American Bar Association. The largest RICO organization in the country. Sedition and treason in every state would justify their prosecution.

The only other lawful way to address Rule 1.6 is through Pro Se litigants. Terance Healy and Todd Krautheim on behalf of the United States of America.

The team of lawyers assisting an 85 year old Senior Judge in the Eastern District Court obstructed justice by drafting for his signature an order which fails to address the constitutional issue presented. They could not lawfully do so under Rule 1.6.

You can try to convince me that an 85 year old crafted the dismissal of the Constitutional Challenge, but understand the first question in the appeal will relate to the authors and editors of the order failing to identify their conflict of interest. WHERE THE AUTHOR COULD NOT LAWFULLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE PRESENTED, THAT AUTHOR SHOULD HAVE CONFESSED TO THE CONFLICT TO THE JUDGE. The judge would have immediately recognized the basic constitutional matter before him.

Let's not embarrass Judge Thomas O'Neill after his lifetime of service.
A Motion for Reconsideration is being prepared concurrent with appeal documents.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

The Eastern District Decision

Onward to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals... As was expected the Challenge was dismissed to proceed to a court where the decision of Constitutionality can be addressed.

The following are their 'silly' reasons... in silly format. We will post the Decision within the next few days.

---

 - 

---

---

The Constitutional rights of people all across the country were prevented from being restored because on KATHLEEN KANE of PENNSYLVANIA. She single-handedly usurped the matter preventing any other state from responding to the matter, hearing about the ongoing litigation.

37 states defaulted and would have restored the constitutional rights of their citizens. Kathleen Kane prevented that from happening.

State Representative Darryl Metcalfe says Kane has created a constitutional crisis. Metcalfe has called for the Impeachment of Kathleen Kane.

Kathleen has responded in typical Rule 1.6 style... the typical accusation. You aint no lawyer. You don't know the law. Victims who have lost their rights have been told this often. Ain't nobody got time for that, Kathleen.

Kathleen Kane NEVER FORGETS her obligation to follow Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. She always invokes the US Constitution, the laws of Pennsylvania, and the Rules of Professional Conduct. She know Rule 1.6 TRUMPS everything. She needs to recognize that it cannot lawfully continue to 'trump' the US Constitution. And the Constitutional Challenge would have lawfully allowed her to do so.