Filed in Superior Court - PDF versionIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA| Sonya Healy | : |
(Appellee) | : # 1330 EDA 2013 |
| : |
v. | : |
| : |
Terance Healy | : |
(Appellant) | : |
|
NOTICE/COMPLAINT OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONSWhen this Honorable Superior Court and Attorney General Kathleen Kane were notified pursuant to Rule 521 that the Constitutionality of a State law was being called into question in this matter, it was not made with the intention, or expectation, that the unconstitutional actions would occur within this court.
Where each action, decision, and opinion cannot be directly attributed to any judge of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania,
Where evidence of involvement of the judiciary has been requested and not provided,
Where there is no allowance within the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure (Title 210) or within Internal Operating Procedures of the Superior Court (Chapter 65) which permits actions by the Central Legal staff to the exclusion of the judiciary,
Where there is no allowance for Per Curiam orders within the Rules of Appellate Procedure (Title 210) or the Internal Operating Procedures of the Superior Court (Chapter 65) where a motion seeks action relating to issues directly related to the Appeal,
Where each decision on a motion returned by the court has been unsigned,
Where each decision on a motion returned by the court has been unsubstantiated by law,
Where each decision on a motion returned by the court has been unexplained,
Where every action seeking an appearance before the court has been prevented,
Where all exhibits from the lower court proceeding were not provided,
Where the Court failed to take any action to compel production of the full record by the lower court,
Where the Appellant was not sent the notification of a Briefing Schedule and the Appeal had been improperly dismissed for failure to file a brief, and then reopened,
Where the Argument Letter was not sent, and not acknowledged, denying the Appellant any appearance before the court,
Where these actions can be directly attributed to the Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania,
Where these actions obstruct justice,
Where these actions interfere with the administration of the courts,
Where these actions deny constitutional rights,
Where these actions demonstrate participation in a conspiracy to deny, prevent and obstruct justice,
Where these actions are fraudulent,
Where these actions are not permitted by Pennsylvania law,
Where the Central Legal Staff is positioned between the litigant and the judiciary where there is the opportunity to intercept, misdirect, and 'play judge',
These actions demonstrate the denial and prevention of the Rule of Law and rights and liberties secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States.
The Appeal in this matter was filed in good faith. Every document and motion was filed in good faith, and not with the expectation or intent to create more evidence of systemic injustice and fraud ignored pursuant to Rule 1.6.
CALLING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW INTO QUESTION
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information has a broad affect on victims of an injustice denying, preventing and obstructing justice. FOREVER.
There is no escaping the injustice, there can be no restoration of protection of the law. There can be no restoration of the constitutional rights which have been denied. NONE. EVER.
A victim loses all protection of the law and all constitutional rights because of a simple injustice, even while and where that injustice is being concealed.
The efforts to conceal the injustice can, and likely will, become far more egregious than the initial injustice.
The mandate for the participation of all legal professionals to conceal the fraud affects the integrity and the independence of the judiciary.
The systemic obstruction of justice, denial of the rule of law, and disregard of constitutional rights undermines the judicial branch of government at state and federal levels.
RULE 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information is referred to by lawyers as Attorney Client privilege, but the affect of Rule 1.6 is far broader than a lawyer keeping a secret for his client.
Rule 1.6 affects every legal professional, lawyer and law enforcement, and MANDATES their silence, non-exposure and participation in every effort which prevents disclosure or exposure of the injustice.
EVOLUTION OF RULE 1.6
With deliberate intent, and lacking any consideration for the rights of a victim, the American Bar Association rejected the 'fraud provisions' of the Kutak Commission.
- which would have permitted disclosure of a fraud, or acts in the furtherance of a fraud.
- which would permit disclosure to rectify the fraud.
By removing the 'fraud provisions', the ABA deliberately prevented disclosure by every member of the legal profession (lawyers, judges, District Attorneys, Attorneys General) and effectively denied, prevented and ignored the rights of the victim of the crime.
Where fraud is undeniably a crime, the American Bar Association made fraud not only legal, but has required the mandatory participation to conceal that fraud for all legal professionals while preventing any disclosure which would rectify the fraud.
Where continued fraud and prevention of any resolution is wrong and unethical, the American Bar Association mandated participation in unethical activities for all legal professionals within their mislabeled “Ethics Rules”.
The ABA presented their Model Rules of Professional Conduct as an ethical standard for the profession of law. Fraud is not legal. Preventing fraud from being addressed, stopped or resolved is not ethical.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania enacted the Rules of Professional Conduct into law on October 16, 1987 to be effective April 1, 1988.
Where Rule 1.6, directly and by cross-reference throughout the rules, affects the substantive rights of a litigant, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was without the authority under the Pennsylvania Constitution to enact the law.
ARTICLE V SECTION 10(c)
… if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality Of Information involves four aspects
1. Confidentiality
2. Non-Disclosure
3. Fraud, and continued fraud to conceal fraud
4. No action which rectifies the fraud is allowed.
Evidence of any aspect of the fraud and injustice when presented within the court is ignored, neglected and not addressed by any counter argument from an attorney. The court will ignore, neglect and not address the issue in any decision, memorandum or opinion.
It is this broad and absolute avoidance (non-disclosure) which indicates Rule 1.6 has been triggered in a matter.
An evaluation of the case will clearly indicate the point where the victim lost any protection under the law and any ability to assert their constitutional rights as an act of judicial misconduct/fraud and injustice is what causes Rule 1.6 Injustice to be triggered.
AFFECT ON JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
In order to assure the independence of the judiciary to make decisions, judges are granted immunity from prosecution for judicial errors no matter how malicious or grievous their 'error' or actions.
Rule 1.6 requires that the “initial injustice’ not be addressed at anytime.
Rule 1.6 permits and ignores any and every action which prevents exposure. This is most often accomplished by the judge IGNORING the issue, even when it is the only issue which the judge is considering.
Where the court must ignore, neglect and not address an issue in any decision, memorandum or opinion, the court does not have the independence to make an impartial unbiased decision based on the merits and the evidence, exhibits and testimony presented during proceedings.
Where Rule 1.6 MANDATES continued injustice to the victim who cannot succeed where the injustice may be revealed, the judge is not permitted to render an independent decision based on the facts. The lack of an ability to render an independent decision affects the immunity accorded to the judge.
The intervention by the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF is not permitted by law, even where seeking to protect the Superior Court Judiciary from a decision which compromises immunity and lacks judicial independence and any ability to render an impartial decision based on the facts.
While not permitted under the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure or the Internal Operating Procedures of the Superior Court. The actions by the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF are knowingly ignored and excused by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality which requires fraudulent efforts to conceal a prior fraud and does not allow for the fraud to ever be rectified.
These unlawful actions of the Central Legal Staff, while concealed by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality, adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary while denying constitutionally protected rights of a litigant.
Where the constitutionally protected rights, or substantive rights of a litigant, have been negated and ignored albeit secretly and with deception pursuant to Rule 1.6, the Supreme Court was without the authority under the Pennsylvania Constitution to enact the rule into law. Rule 1.6 is no law. It is unconstitutional. A nullity.
RULE 1.6 SELF DEFENSE MECHANISMS
Pursuant to Rule 1.6, where Confidentiality is required where an action will adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania may not lawfully remove the rule which they have improperly enacted into law, even where they have acted in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Constitution of the United States..
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
As the Local Rules adopted by the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania incorporate the Rules of Professional Conduct which are in effect where the court is located, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information as enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affects litigation within the District Court.
A Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 was filed on August 8, 2013 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and served upon every state Attorney General.
Every state Attorney General defaulted by failing to file any answer to the summons.
An improperly filed late response purporting to act on behalf of all attorneys general, though indicting it was without any authority to act on the part of other states, seeking to dismiss the matter as a 1983 case while failing to recognize that the challenge was a pre-emptory challenge to the constitutionality of a law became the act of fraud which prevented and obstructed justice in the matter.
The unsigned orders and opinions of the court, which contained misinformation unrelated to the case did not support any doctrine for dismissal, were fraudulently used to dismiss the matter.
Similarly to this matter within the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, there is no indication or evidence whatsoever which indicated that the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 had ever been before any member of the District Court judiciary.
On Appeal to the Third Circuit, the Local Rules again incorporated the Rules of Professional Conduct in effect where the court was located.
The unsigned orders and opinions of the court, which contained misinformation unrelated to the appeal and failed to recognize the facts within the District Court documents did not support any doctrine for dismissal, were fraudulently used to affirm dismissal the matter.
Similarly to this matter within the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, there is no indication or evidence whatsoever which indicated that the Appeal to the Third Circuit had ever been before any member of the Court of Appeals judiciary.
The federal Challenge to the Constitutionality of Rule 1.6, had been undermined by the fraud committed, permitted and ignored pursuant to Rule 1.6.
Where legal professionals were permitted to commit fraud and their actions in the furtherance of that fraud were concealed and kept confidential, there could be no resolution to the injustice under Rule 1.6 within the Courts.
The Default by the state Attorneys General was the legal, moral and ethical action necessary to remove this unconstitutional law.
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFENSES
Criminal prosecution of the fraud and constitutional violations does not occur where the District Attorney/state Attorney General are mandated by Rule 1.6. The crime, and any acts in the furtherance of the crime, is ignored.
Federal criminal prosecution of the fraud and constitutional violations does not occur where the Department of Justice/US Attorneys and all government lawyers are mandated by Rule 1.6 under the McDade-Murtha Amendment – the local version of Rule 1.6. The crime, and any acts in the furtherance of the crime, is ignored.
Civil lawsuit within Pennsylvania cannot be successful where the Court is mandated by Rule 1.6. The lawsuit will be avoided by the courts based on disinformation, an excused act in the furtherance of fraud.
Federal lawsuit brought in Federal district court cannot not be successful as the District Court has indicated within their ‘LOCAL RULES’ that the local Rules of Professional Conduct apply. The lawsuit will be avoided by the courts based on disinformation, an excused act in the furtherance of fraud.
The Sheriff, as Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the County, has the authority which pre-dates the constitution to enforce the every law.
While uniquely not obligated under Rule 1.6, the County Sheriffs have been improperly convinced of a diminished authority by the judiciary and their legal counsel which prevents them from taking action to address the fraud and constitutional violations.
While the evident and proven lack of judicial independence causes the loss of judicial immunity, the judge could be subjected to criminal prosecution, civil lawsuits, or disciplinary actions. Rule 1.6 prevents any of those actions from occurring or being successful. Rule 1.6 prevents justice forever.
PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE
The Pennsylvania Constitution Article I Section 12 places exclusive authority to suspend laws within the Pennsylvania Legislature.
“No power of suspending laws shall be exercised unless by the Legislature or by its authority.”
State Senator Charles McIlhinney, a non-lawyer, after several meetings where he recognized and understood the issue, on the advice of his counsel has stalled and failed to inform the Pennsylvania Legislature of the unconstitutional affect of Rule 1.6 .
State Representative Kathy Watson after recognizing and understanding the problem and indicating her interest in resolving the problem was contacted by a state senator who relayed a threat. The threat had been falsely attributed to me. The representative contacted Warrington Township Police who took no action to investigate the unsubstantiated information.
Upon hearing the absolute fear and peril in a voicemail from Rep. Watson, I went to Warrington Township Police to assure them I had made no threat. The Police indicated there was no investigation regarding the threat report, and they were taking no action.
It would defy any logic to threaten the only government official with an ability and a iondicated interest in raising and addressing the unconstitutionality of Rule 1.6 within the state legislature.
Representative Kathy Watson has refused to meet, discuss or take any further action.
Rule 1.6 allows for the fraudulent act of a lawyer (even a state senator) to prevent disclosure.
WHAT TRIGGERED RULE 1.6 INJUSTICE IN HEALY v HEALY
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania may be under the impression that the procedurally defective divorce decree issued without jurisdiction on May 9, 2011 by Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio, while President of the Montgomery County Bar Association, which they have completely neglected and ignored though the central issue in the appeal before the court is the event which triggered the injustice in this matter.
Rule 1.6 has affected this matter since August 27, 2007 when a 'secret' order signed by Judge Rhonda Daniele without any hearing, was not docketed, was not distributed, was being concealed within a separate file at the Prothonotary.
Upon discovery on August 10, 2010, the clearly undocketed and undistributed order was immediately presented to the clerk for entry into the docket.
There has been no explanation, or apology, offered by any judge who participated in the efforts to conceal the document or their inexplicable injustice to further conceal the document.
The Court record contains the evidence of the active participation and avoidance of justice which undermined the judicial independence of twenty members of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas while undermining and preventing any justice.
These actions can only be described as an egregious abuse of power under color of law often with the intent to cause emotional distress. The Montgomery County judiciary have behaved as terrorists with a single deliberate intent to deny any justice, prevent any liberty, to harass a man while they destroyed his life and his family through improper, unjust and illegal actions using every available county resource in the process.
Their cruelty is incomprehensible and has been a constant torment since 2007.TRIGGERS FOR RULE 1.6 INJUSTICE
Rule 1.6 Injustice can be triggered by any act of fraud which involves the court.
A secret court order signed by a judge.
A fraudulent, robo-signed deed presented in a foreclosure.
An improper incarceration of a juvenile in Luzerne County.
Rule 1.6 injustice results in the loss of any protection of the law and denial of a person's constitutional rights without recourse or redress while permitted acts in the furtherance of fraud which seek to prevent any effort to rectify the situation.
Rule 1.6 is a cancer which undermines the entire Judicial Branch of state and federal government.
Whereas, the actions by the Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
in violation of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
which violate rights and privileges secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States, and
which violate the inherent rights, and the general great and essential principles of liberty provided in the Constitution of Pennsylvania,
AND WHERE any law which seeks to remove, abridge, modify, negate or ignore a violation of those protected and secured rights is repugnant to the U. S. Constitution, and NO LAW. A Nullity;
AND WHERE any law which abridges, enlarges or modifies the substantive rights of any litigant may not be enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania pursuant to Article V, Section 10 (c),
AND AS SUCH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW, specifically Rule 1.6 Confidentiality among others generally and by cross-reference, included within the Rules of Professional Conduct having been enacted unconstitutionally, improperly and unlawfully,
HAVING UNCONSTITUTIONALLY permitted, endorsed, mandated, ignored and excused the participation of legal professionals in actions of fraud in violation of established procedure, the rule of law, and the rights and liberties secured and protected by Constitution of the United States,
AND WHERE SUCH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW has undermined the judicial independence and authority of the judicial branch at every level of the state and federal judiciary,
AND WHERE SUCH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW was presented to the state supreme courts of the United States by the American Bar Association as their MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT as a professional ethical standard while lacking in ethics, morality or legality where DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY preventing disclosure of fraud, acts in the furtherance of fraud, and actions to rectify fraud,
AND IN SO DOING the American Bar Association had caused the judicial branch of government to become undone, by undermining judicial independence which affected judicial immunity.
AND WHERE the American Bar Association, and affiliated organizations, positioned their organization and their membership in positions which could interfere with and obstruct justice and the administration of the courts, and violate the law and the rights of the people to conceal their sedition and damage they had caused to the judiciary,
AND WHERE the judiciary have been held hostage, their authority usurped and leveraged, the judges have been held hostage without judicial immunity where they had lost their judicial independence,
AND WHERE the integrity of the Judicial Branch has been compromised and undermined by those actions.
I DEMAND AND ASSERT MY RIGHTS WHICH ARE SECURED AND PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND MY RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW,
AND DEMAND IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, INVESTIGATION, AND PROSECUTION OF THE CRIMINAL ACTS TO WHICH I HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED, PROMPT RESOLUTION WITH SANCTIONS AND RESTITUTION,
WITH ACTIVE EFFORTS INVOLVING THE FOLLOWING:
THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
THE PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE,
THE GOVERNOR/GOVERNOR-ELECT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA,
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO STRIKE THIS REPUGNANT ABOMINATION FROM CAUSING ANY FURTHER TERROR TO THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA.
RESPECTFULLY,
Terance Healy
Filed on November 7, 2014 at the Superior Couert of Pennsylvania
With Separate Service to Philip Yoon, Central Legal Staff and the Superior Court Judiciary by the Prothonotary
Prevented from personal delivery to President Judge Gantmann, where her office staff refused to accept the document or open the door. Assembling 5 members of the staff to decide to call security instead of accepting a document which informed of systemic problems within the superior Court. A level of discourtesy and disrespect which was perplexing. Experience indicates EVERYTHING prevents informing a judge of an issue.
Hand Delivered by Joan Healy to State Representative Kathy Watson
Yes... it is very unconstitutional. It prevents JUSTICE.
In this interview with CNN, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane can ONLY be not-talking about Rule 1.6.
I am not falling for your bullshit, all of the deceptions have been tried and have failed.