Superior Court of Pennsylvania - Unnecessarily Discourteous and Disrespectful

Today, I received an envelope from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Office of the Prothonotary.

Inside a letter with a PDF signature of Charles E. O'Connor, Jr., Deputy Prothonotary.

AND

A Per Curiam Order relating to the MOTION FOR THE APPLICABLE RULE OF LAW filed on November 14, 2014.

The Per Curiam Order is NOT signed by any judge.

The Per Curiam Order includes a journal number.

The Per Curiam Order is captioned differently than any prior documents.

The Per Curiam Order is Titled 'ORDER OF COURT' instead of "ORDER".

The Per Curiam Order is dated 21st November 2014.

The Motion had been filed on 14th November 2014.

The Motion for the Rule of Law was DENIED.

The decision did not permit 14 days for an answer from Appellee.

Even though the Appellant's Motion was DENIED, the document elaborates
- by chastizing the Appellant with accusations of filing a frivolous motion
- by speculating about the Appellant's dissatisfaction
- by indicating that there is no rule which limits the number of copies which can be time-stamped
- by fabricating a false motive for the Appellant filing the motion
- by fabricating a false ultimate motive for the Appellant filing the motion
- by accusing the Appellant of filing frivolous appeals and motions
- by threatening to financially sanction the Appellant

Appellant's Motion was filed with the court to address a false statement by the Prothonotary clerk, and a refusal to act which could best be described as arbitrary, unnecessarily discourteous and disrespectful.

When the clerk refused the request to time stamp additional copies on November 7, 2014, there was no further discussion or question from Appellant.

An Appellant is without recourse to address spontaneous misinformation by a clerk at the Prothonotary even where it affects paperwork filed in the course of the litigation/appeal.

The filed response, attributed to the Court and unsigned, demonstrates a level of disdain and contempt for litigants, while intimidating and threatening adverse future decisions.

* THESE VIOLATIONS OF THE JUDICIAL CANONS ARE CLEARLY NOT THE ACTIONS OF A JUDGE *

The Motion did not speculate on any real or imagined motivation for the clerk's discourtesy, disrespect and false statement.

The Motion did not seek to diminish, attack, threaten or intimidate the clerk.

---

So who is writing these documents? ... pretending to be a judge? ... committing fraud? ... threatening a litigant?

Could it be the same PEOPLE who failed to send notices about the scheduling of the Panel?

Could it be the same PEOPLE who have neglected and avoided every opportunity to address the defective and void order EVEN THOUGH THE PROCEDURAL ERROR (AKA DEFECTIVE AND VOID) IS DOCUMENTED IN EVERY FILING BY THE APPELLANT and has been presented in every hearing with exhibits and documentation all supported by the court record.

The lawyers at Angst & Angst never presented any evidence at the hearing in support of jurisdiction.

Judge Carluccio failed to provide any information in support of jurisdiction in her opinion.

Judge Page failed to provide any information in support of jurisdiction in his opinion..

The lawyers at Zarwin, Baum, Devito, Kaplan, Schaer & Toddy, P.C. never presented any evidence at the hearing in support of jurisdiction.

Judge Weilheimer failed to provide any information in support of jurisdiction in her opinion.

Motion for the Applicable Rule of Law

Filed in Superior Court - PDF version

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Sonya Healy	:
(Appellee)	: # 1330 EDA 2013
	:
v.	:
	:
Terance Healy	:
(Appellant)	:

MOTION FOR THE APPLICABLE RULE OF LAW

When the Appellant presented one unstapled original and a copy of a NOTICE / COMPLAINT of UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS to the Prothonotary of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on November 7, 2014, with the request that ten (10) original copies presented at the same time be time stamped by the clerk for distribution in this matter.

THE REQUEST WAS DENIED.

The clerk for at the Prothonotary window indicated that only 4 copies could be stamped.

Appellant respectfully requests, the Rule of Law, the Pennsylvania Statute, the Rule of Appellate Procedure or the procedure within the Internal Operating Procedures of the Superior Court which prevents the clerk from the 10 second task of time-stamping original copies for distribution in this matter.

Where the document (NOTICE/COMPLAINT) being filed that day was indicating the fraud in the furtherance of a fraud being committed in violation of the Constitutional rights of the Appellant, Appellant appends this additional action to the list of intentional and deliberate actions by the Prothonotary and Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.


Respectfully,
Terance Healy

Per Curiam - Ignore, Threaten & Terrorize

The irresponsibility of the Per Curiam Order is used when the courts seek to prevent the exposure of their corruption.

It requires more paperwork. Which they will further Per Curiam as there is no judge around who wished to sign an obviously corrupt order without any review of the matter.

It requires more paperwork. Ask about the Rule of Law, expect it to be DENIED PER CURIAM.

It requires more paperwork. Ask about the fact that the Motion was UNCONTESTED, expect it to be DENIED PER CURIAM.

It requires more paperwork. Their review was not discretionary, but mandatory. It was in the petition, but they likely never read it.

It requires more paperwork. Ask about an interlocutory appeal of that decision, expect it to be DENIED PER CURIAM.

AND it is almost an exact duplicate of a Motion to Strike in another case... where there can be no contest as no contrary information was presented during the hearing.

All the while, you provide reams of paper, a destitute person, homeless, below poverty level for years, begging from people for support and help, and the COURT WILL IGNORE PER CURIAM.

YOU WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO SURVIVE THIS LONG.
YOU WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO PERSEVERE.
YOU WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO FIND THE SOURCE OF THEIR CORRUPTION.
YOU WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO MEET THEIR DEADLINES.
You WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW THE LAW, RULES,etc WHICH ONLY APPLY TO YOUR DETRIMENT.
YOU LEFT THEM NOTHING BY WHICH YOU CAN BE FURTHER DENIED YOUR RIGHTS...
...SO THEY HAVE DENIED YOUR RIGHTS BASED ON NOTHING.

There is a reason they require you to exhaust any effort for resolution within the state before you may file in federal court. Exhaustion is another method - their coercion towards your suicide.

And the Court is too ashamed to even sign it, or date it, or explain what they can't...
... because Rule 1.6 Confidentiality mandates they say nothing as they ignore the Constitution, the law, the procedures, your civil rights, and your human rights without mercy.

And the one Rule that the Courts all follow... Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.
(BTW, it was not filed even on the date indicated. I was there. The 'mistakes' are endless.)

Every decision since the Constitutional Challenge was filed in August 2013 has been a Per Curiam order, unsigned and undated. No signatures. No dated. Per Curiam. Indecisions. Terror.

Corruption and Confidentiality for the purpose of denying Life, Liberty, and Justice.

Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio, Judge & President of the Bar Association & former US Attorneys Office employee, was NOT acting within any law which permitted her to issue the order. If she was lawful, they would indicate the law and be done. They don't.

Instead, since May 2011, I am terrorized by a deliberate and intentionally defective and void order which cannot be addressed in any court because the malice it has caused attackes opn a daily basis and has tainted every county agency, every level of law enforcement, while the world watches every level of the courts corrupted and demonstrating their silence mandated by Rule 1.6... while the terror continues.

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

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	)

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT


1. Plaintiffs request that Attorney General Kane’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) be DENIED with prejudice.

2. In the interest of continuing with the stated goal of a “just, speedy and inexpensive determination“ of this action, Plaintiffs request that the Motion to Dismiss be DENIED with prejudice so that the court will not be inundated with 55 further motions for dismissal raising these same standard procedural defenses by the Attorneys General, however DENIED without prejudice to raise the issue in their responsive pleadings to the challenge.

3. In support of this request, Plaintiffs present the attached Memorandum of Law.

NOT LAWFULLY ENACTED

4. Attorney General Kane has additionally indicated in her filings with the Court on this matter that the law being challenged was enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and not enacted through the legislature, nor signed by a governor.

5. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania through Rule 1.6 has given itself power over lawyers - which include the Governor, the Attorney General and a majority of the legislature - without due process.

6. All power to lawfully address the improperly enacted law has been removed from those responsible for lawmaking, the legislature and the Governor, and usurped by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. This is a clear violation of separation of powers.

7. Attorney General Kane has indicated a lack of jurisdiction, and having no ability to enforce the law being challenged. The power of enforcement unlawfully rests exclusively with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

8. Rule 1.6 is authored, updated, edited, promoted, maintained, managed, directed and scripted by the American Bar Association. It is reasonable to question if the American Bar Association has effectively usurped the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and each state where Rule 1.6 has been enacted.

9. Rule 1.6 denies litigants of the constitutionally protected right to petition the government for redress of grievances, denies a litigant of life, liberty and/or property without due process of law, and usurps the power of the government to address the issue by placing all power in one branch of government – the judiciary.

10. Rule 1.6 is unlawful and unconstitutional in every location where it has been enacted. Lawful action to challenge the law can only be done by those who are not required to follow it:
“Pro Se litigants with proper standing and a cause for relief - the restoration of rights and liberties protected by the U.S. Constitution.”

On behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiffs affirm their proper lawful standing to challenge the constitutionality of this improperly enacted law in every State, the District of Columbia and the US Virgin Islands.

Where Rule 1.6 has not been enacted into law, Attorneys General are on notice of this Constitutional Challenge and the impact the Rule can have on the civil rights and liberties of the People.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy	Todd M. Krautheim
c/o 871 Mustang Road	207 Woodspring Circle
Warrington, PA 18976	Doylestown, PA 18901