Messages from the hostages to Kathleen Kane

I have reported the judiciary held hostage situation within the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to all proper law enforcement authorities to investigate and prosecute.

US Attorney Zane Memeger, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams,
Bucks County District Attorney David Heckler,
PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane,
The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and
the USPS Postal Inspectors, Philadelphia (Mail Fraud).

They have done NOTHING. They are compromised and leveraged to conceal their participation in the conspiracy to undermine the Judicial Branch of each state Government and the Federal Judiciary. They are members of the organization profiting from the corruption and INJUSTICE.

The hostages have repeated contacted with only one person. One may still have principles - fewer, if any, skeletons in her professional closet - nothing to leverage.

“something that’s been on my mind. But I’m very confident that
the truth will come out and that justice will prevail.”

- Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane

SECRET ORDER

A judge has issued an order to the Attorney General of Pennsylvania which prevents identification of the court, the case and the issue.

The 'unidentified' have ordered the attorney general to conduct no investigation and neglect the responsibilities of the Office of the Attorney General.

These 'unlawful and corrupt' actions impose a personal liability upon the individual for that compromise of principles and law and the Constitution of the United States.

Bear in mind, THAT PERSONAL LIABILITY will be decided by another court - another judiciary held hostage where the failure to compromise could result in the personal loss of EVERYTHING.
(Secure your personal assets. Consider filing for Divorce?)

The judiciary held hostage was coerced to issue an improper and invalid order. A demonstration that 'judicial independence' is compromised.

ANOTHER SECRET ORDER

Another unidentified judge has issued a SECOND ORDER to the Attorney General of Pennsylvania which prevents identification of the court, the case and the issue.

The demands are the same - conduct no investigation and neglect the responsibilities of the Office of the Attorney General while RISKING EVERYTHING KATHLEEN KANE OWNS PERSONALLY.

The hostage judges have issued another improper and invalid example that the Judiciary is undone - no law, no constitution, no ethics, no procedure. No explanation of what has necessitated their pre-emptive efforts. Preventing the unidentified issue before it is presented to the courts. Constitutional separation of powers does not allow for this broad overreach into the authority of the Executive branch.

The judiciary held hostage calling attention to the situation.

GRAND JURY THREAT

A Grand Jury has accused the individual, Kathleen Kane, of compromising grand jury secrecy even where she had not taken any part in the investigation, had not been called to answer questions by that grand jury, and was under no requirement to maintain grand jury secrecy.

The threat of incarceration for actions which violate no law. There are no facts available.

The information available has been 'leaked' by a second grand jury investigating the breach within the earlier one.

A grand jury is widely known as the 'tool of the prosecutor' where a ham sandwich could be indicted upon the simple request of the prosecutor. Indictment is not conviction.

The grand jury has not been assembled lawfully. Yet, 'leaked' portions of a secret presentment attack Kathleen Kane calling for an indictment - BUT pass that responsibility to the District Attorney who indicates the issue will take months to review.

The threat of incarceration - against the freedom of the attorney general is clear. Everything else could not be further obfuscated from public view, applicable law and fact. All delayed to permit speculation which undermines the attorney general who cannot say or do anything while those secret orders are appealed.

THREAT OF IMPEACHMENT

One state legislator persists in the effort seeking to remove the attorney general from her elected office. He has failed to accept that an unconstitutional law is NO LAW, a nullity. He has failed to accept that multiple Federal Courts have indicated the law was unconstitutional. He has failed to accept that the Attorney General is not required by law to compromise her principles to defend a state law which is unconstitutional.

The threat of impeachment is improper. It is misinformation and manipulation of the public based on bigotry and hate. It neglects to indicate that the Attorney General was correct when indicating the law was unconstitutional.

A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE

A constitutional challenge was filed in August 2013 and served upon Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane and the attorneys general of each state to address the unconstitutional collateral affect where a law causes the loss of any protection of the law and the loss of rights secured and protected by the Constitution of the united States.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct had been improperly enacted into law by the state supreme court where their authority to enact law existed only where their law did not affect the substantive rights of a litigant.

Enacted in 1987 in Pennsylvania, Rule 1.6 Confidentiality has prevented and denied litigants of their rights and the protection of the law while mandating non-disclosure and confidentiality by lawyers and all legal professionals. Every state had enacted the Rules of Professional Conduct into law from 1984 (New Jersey) to 2009 (Maine).

Americans noticed the lapse of the US Constitution, however lawyers and legal professionals were mandated to confidentiality and non-disclosure of the source for unconstitutional acts and INJUSTICE.

A TERRORISTIC DIVORCE

In Montgomery County Pennsylvania, HEALY v HEALY and HEALY v MILLER had appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania for relief from invalid orders which fail to apply the rule of law, and from defective and void orders issued in clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction which have been repeatedly enforced.

The terror inflicted by twenty judges upon the unrepresented non-lawyer defendant was unexplained and without any basis in law. The judiciary annihilated every aspect of his life. Every action had one unifying aspect - the silence.

From 2007 through 2013, every proceeding, every ruling, every action, every failure to follow procedure, law and constitution; every action to conceal information, every false report; every false allegation; every failed investigation by state and federal agencies; EVERYTHING pointed to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality preventing disclosure and permitting acts in the furtherance of fraud which prevented any resolution ever.

The 'fraud provisions' had been removed from the Rules of Professional Conduct - the code of ethical conduct - lacked ethics, lacked morality, endorsed fraud, prevented any recourse, while demanding non-disclosure and confidentiality (Rule 1.6).

Challenge to the Constitutionality of a State Law

Where the appeals to the Superior Court would present the challenge to the constitutionality of a state law, the Attorney General was notified and prevented from action by a 'secret order... and another secret order. The docket indicates superior court activity which has not been provided - kept 'secret'.

The Attorney General neglected the responsibility for involvement in the matter.

Where an earlier grand jury may have caused information to be removed from the public view, many documents were missing from the court record sent to the Superior Court from the Montgomery County. Requests for the production of the missing items were ignored, and remain unexplained.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane recognizing the unconstitutional affect of Rule 1.6, with no necessity to abide by an unconstitutional law for confidentiality and non-disclosure, was SILENCED by an improper secret court order.

And SILENCED further by another secret court order.

And SILENCED further by the threat where anything she said could be alleged to be part of a grand jury investigation.

And SILENCED further by the presentment of 'leaked speculation' and the pending threat of undisclosed documents.

The Proper Authorities

The fraud and forgery of the Central Legal Staff - obstructed violations of procedure, Pennsylvania Law and the US Constitution demonstrated the unconstitutionality of Rule 1.6 within the Superior Court - reported to US Attorney Zane Memeger, Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams, Bucks County District Attorney David Heckler, PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane, The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and the USPS Postal Inspectors (Mail Fraud).

NOTHING... Without obligatory silence per an unconstitutional law? Where only ONE been contacted and ordered to neglect and ignore the responsibilities of their office? Why are ALL neglecting their duty and responsibilities?

The carefully worded statements of Kathleen Kane indicate her awareness of the broader scope of the matter.

"I am shocked at the level of public corruption.”
“I am shocked at how deep it goes.
I am shocked at how powerful it is.
I have never seen anything like this. It’s breathtaking.
It has been described by the people familiar with what is happening as shameful.”

“But, if this can be done to me as Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of the 5th largest state in the country, I am sickened to think what can and may be done to regular, good people who don’t have the resources that I have to challenge it.”

WHO COULD POSSIBLY DO THIS?

The American Bar Association, and affiliates, who have intervened and intercepted to deny and prevent exposure of their sedition and the resulting INJUSTICE within the state and federal courts..

They are the authors of Rule 1.6 who promoted it to every state and the US Congress and have affiliates in every level and jurisdiction of the state and federal courts.

The membership who profited from INJUSTICE and controlled by members which include the district attorneys and the US attorneys who ignore the complaints of criminal and unconstitutional corruption within the courts - their actions pursuant to unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Non-Disclosure and Confidentiality.

An organization who perverted and twisted the judicial branch of every state government by the requirement of SILENCE while leveraging the shame and humiliation of an egregious violation of the Public Trust to undermine JUSTICE in the United States.

An organization whose members undermined a Constitutional Challenge in the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania where improper actions had resulted in an unsubstantiated dismissal with no evidence of ANY judicial review resulting in the continuation of unconstitutional actions and INJUSTICE in every state - NATIONWIDE - while solely attributed to the purported actions of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

SET UP ACCOUNTABILITY and THREAT OF LIABILITY

Kathleen Kane, the individual, has been set up and is responsible for concealing and preventing resolution of a national conspiracy to deny the constitutional rights of EVERY American without availability of any immunity.

By its terms, Section 1983 imposes liability without defense on state and local officials who, acting under color of law in their individual capacity, deprive plaintiffs of rights created by the Constitution and federal law.

“Career lawmen think strategically. They don’t go for the immediate gratification of a personal attack, instead preferring to set the board up just right and striking at the precise moment where the object of the attack cannot recover.” - Bruce Castor, Montgomery County Commissioner and former District Attorney in a New Years Eve Manifesto against Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

Kathleen Kane filed for divorce in December 2014, securing her family's assets during an aggressive attack against her principles while indicating “something that’s been on my mind. But I’m very confident that the truth will come out and that justice will prevail.”

I BELIEVE.

I believe that no one involved in this corruption has arrived there of their own will, BUT, once they involved they have no available way of removing themselves from the situation. They are obligated by an unconstitutional law which the are mandated to conceal by law. They also have no standing to challenge the law which did not directly affect their rights.

Don't hate the lawyer. DO HATE the unethical unconstitutioal law by which they must abide and are required to conceal... Where they are permitted to commit fraud to prevent disclosure, there are some who seem mandated to do so. This is a corrupt and unjust law.

Don't hate the judiciary. The undermined judges lost their judicial independence. They were required to sacrifice their integrity. The judges have been humiliated by their corruption and injustice and unconstitutional acts. The independence to make the decision was imaginary where required to conceal prior injustice and corruption.

Judges Lack Jurisdiction/Authority

The lack of judicial independence causes their every decision to have been made without proper jurisdiction. Without lawful authority or power to act, every decision was an act of treason. Plea agreements were preferable to acts of treason which deprived people of their freedom. Plea Agreements - having people put themselves in jail was better than ACTING WITHOUT AUTHORITY. If the people ever found out, there would be ...

The state supreme courts - they blew it. Violating the public trust, they overreached their constitutional authority and enacted unconstitutional and unethical laws into existence. A corrupt law among them prevented them from correcting, acknowledging or resolving their grievous error. Where there was no authority to enact the laws, there was now a mandate to conceal their violation. Those supreme court justices responsible have likely retired and died leaving the judiciary undone, the US Constitution ignored, and the government in jeopardy.

FULL CONTROL OF JUDICIAL BRANCH

The American Bar Association, and affiliate organizations, provided their members with training to intervene, intercept and conceal the corruption and injustice of the undermined judicial branch. The ABA had complete control of the judicial branch. Every lawyer and legal professional under their control with discipline at their sole discretion - well, the sole discretion of THEIR state supreme courts. The lawyers in the legislature, and the judiciary committees, kept the legislators out of the 'business of the courts'.

UNDERMINING THE SHERIFFS

Where not removed entirely from existence, the sheriffs were convinced of diminished responsibilities by lawyers and judges. The Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the county was relegated to taxiing prisoners and providing security of the judges/courtroom. The injustice and corruption of the judges would require they be protected. The sheriffs provided support for the illusion of judicial independence. District Attorneys usurped authority under a title Chief Law Enforcement Professional.

PREVENTING FEDERAL INTERVENTION

The US Congress made a similar error in trust called the McDade-Murtha Amendment. Testimony to Congress was affected by Rule 1.6, those testifying to congress were not permitted by law to provide full information. Indicating the disastrous result while neglecting to reveal that requiring all government attorneys to follow the state 'Rules of Professional Conduct' was blindly ignoring that the ethics laws enacted in the states were not ethical, moral, legal or just. This Amendment prevent the federal government from intervening where the loss of constitutional rights was required to be concealed by Rule 1.6 Confidentiality.

PRO SE LOOPHOLE

The ABA never imagined a Pro Se defendant annihilated by their corruption and injustice would survive to identify, document and expose their sedition to very lawyers and judges compromised and participating in systemic corruption and injustice without reaon or explanation.

Neither did I. BUT, where I was left with no choice but to persevere, I DID.

"Wait until they realize what you have discovered."

I brought the Constitutional Challenge of rule 1.6, the corruption and the loss of integrity to the Judiciary who failed to recognize themselves. The minions intercepted and intervened... a new realization and awareness of their actions which had been previously unexposed. Believing they disposed of the pro se cases because the people were non-lawyers, the staff were obstructing and preventing the only party who could lawfully expose the unconstitutional corruption and injustice AND restore the integrity of the judiciary.

The Court Clerks/Staff provided the persistence of the CONTROLLED corruption and injustice. It was NOT systemic.

CEASE AND DESIST

I notified the American Bar Association, and all affiliates, to cease and desist all operations in September 2014. There has been no response.

I persevere.

JUSTICE IS COMING. EVERY. PERSON. MATTERS.

The Terror of a Constant Threat

The recipient of Rule 1.6 injustice has no protection of the law. Their constitutional rights are ignored by the courts and law enforcement. All legal professionals are prevented from helping or doing anything to resolve ANY situation. Triggered by an act of judicial misconduct, Rule 1.6 secretly and silently undermines a litigant while attempting to conceal the injustice of a judge and protect the integrity of the judiciary.

There is no opportunity to succeed in a court. Without the rule of law and while constitutional rights are being ignored, survival is the best possible outcome - - BUT the victim does not know that and arrives in court... Prepared. Researched. Documented. Properly executed. Procedures followed. Yet, the victim leaves court battered and further threatened and terrified by the experience of the inexplicable actions of a corrupted court. The court provides no explanations for their injustice. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality applies.

The ONLY person in the courtroom who believes in 'the justice system' is the unwitting target who trusts it. Everyone else knows that there will be no justice. The lawyers, the judges, the court staff, the deputies observe the corruption and injustice. They witness justice. Intimidated by corruption, THEY RECOGNIZE WHEN A PROCEEDING IS A FARCE.

A FARCE. Every proceeding. For years.

In hindsight, it is clear and undeniable. Procedures are not followed. Protocol is abandoned. The law is ignored. Rights protected by the US Constitution are unavailable. Court Orders are not enforced. Only their victim is swiftly held to a stringent adherence to every procedure, protocol, law, and order. The victim must respond to and address and disprove each and every false allegation against them to survive it.

Robert Angst and Valerie Angst, the lawyers with education and a staff are excused from every failure. Their failures are deliberate. They serve to create an undercurrent of deliberate chaos. An ever increasing volume of issues to be presented. A cacophony of injustice which will 'annoy the living shit' out of the judge who knows that the entire thing is a complete farce. Angst & Angst made certain that they were protected from any backlash by a judge who ignored their every failure.

In the end, it is the document filed by Robert Angst to prevent any divorce decree from being issued 'pre-maturely' which exacerbates the procedural defect and a law deliberately constructed and enacted to assure litigants had the opportunity to be heard. Where neither party requested the entry of the divorce decree the court lacks authority and jurisdiction to enter an order. Robert Angst had filed a document indicating that a divorce decree should NOT be entered. Where neither party requested the entry of the Divorce Decree, and the Plaintiff through her lawyers indicated they did NOT want the entry of a divorce decree, Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio acted in the clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction.

The calculated actions of Angst & Angst neglected due process, procedure and law with intent. Those actions would appear to create a form of leverage whereby the judge might be lenient on their next failure. While every proceeding was pre-determined to deny any success to the hopeful victim, they were daring the judge to follow procedure and law. Sociopaths throwing the judge under the bus. By creating a 'clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction' for the judiciary, Angst & Angst were able to leverage judicial immunity for further injustice.

Absolute Judicial Immunity is provided to the judiciary even where the judicial actions of the judge…
… exceed their jurisdiction,
… are done maliciously or corruptly, or
… are flawed by grave procedural error.

THERE IS A SINGLE EXCEPTION. In order to lose immunity, there must be a clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction.

Where any judge strikes the defective and void order, they would be expose the liability of their benchmates. Angst & Angst again leverage the corruption of the judiciary and attempt to enforce a defective and void order. The Court complies with their extortion by COMPLETELY IGNORING THAT THE ORDER IS VOID AND COMPLETELY NEGLECTING THE CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION. The terror of an 'unappealable order' which defies the attention of the court and threatens the life and liberty of the victim.

Why would there be twenty (20) judges involved in the matter of Healy v Healy? Imagine the shame and self-loathing which would occur when you are participating in a deliberate injustice, violating the trust of a litigant, a rouse to harass and terrify. Angst & Angst were doing everything possible to ensure that the judge excused and ignored enough of their wrong-doing to be identified as an active and involved participant. Those actions were being subsequently documented on the court record and were building a considerable volume of evidence.

Evidence of the procedural failures and the breach of protocol and violation of law are being presented in proceedings to enforce compliance with court orders - yet, the judge dismisses every matter without explanation. The judge can't tell the litigant that THE ENTIRE THING IS JUST A SHAM TO TERRORIZE A MAN. The judge is disgusted and just wants out. The judge's integrity is being sacrificed while Rule 1.6 prevents explanation or resolution or escape.

Where every judicial proceeding and action has been a complete sham. A performance whereby the victim is attacked again and again... because the victim survives, there will be further actions. NO ONE WILL STOP THEIR DESTRUCTIVE FARCE... Rule 1.6 allows fraud in the furtherance of fraud. Rule 1.6 does not permit disclosure to rectify the fraud. Rule 1.6 prevents every legal professional from helping.

Their 'FARCE' has denied life and liberty. Destroyed Financially. Isolated and divided family. Prevented custody and visitation. Left you unemployed, homeless and threatened with jail. Attached supporters bank accounts. Infiltrated all technology - your friends tech also. False friendships by Investigators and Informants. Required additional litigation, additional parties. Undermined an entire judiciary. Nine (9) years of my life. Prevented and denied any future relief or escape. THIS IS A DIVORCE. This is not a criminal case.

Only in the family courts can someone who has committed no crime lose everything.

WTF? I asked that in a letter to the Montgomery County Judiciary two months before I realized Rule 1.6 was the problem. There was no response.

The available resources, actions and efforts to terrorize their victim to being 1) homeless/destitute 2) incarcerated or 3) suicide are not as arbitrary as you might think. A review of documents which relate to good mental health practices when going through a stressful period demonstrates a disturbing strategy. Their litigation has been designed to undermine the target psychologically by removing or obstructing support and coping methods while isolating the victim. They are undermining emotional and mental health by directly inhibiting efforts which provide resilience.

Acting above the law without any sense of moral responsibility or social conscience they wrote a law which permitted every act against the target and prevented any escape. As long as the target is not going to be murdered, Rule 1.6 confidentiality mandates non-disclosure. Driving a target to suicide is an acceptable 'loophole'. Only a sociopath would design a system by which criminals were not permitted to kill, but permitted to bring about a suicide. Kutek would be horrified.

Lawyers rejected the 'fraud provisions' of Rule 1.6 against the prolonged debate and strong lobbying efforts of Robert Kutek while writing the code of ethical conduct for lawyers. Weeks after Kutek's sudden death in 1983, the fraud provisions were removed from Rule 1.6 and promoted by the American Bar Association to each state as an ethical standard while it's lack of ethics was inconsequential. In a clear contradiction to his legacy, the ABA refers to the committee responsible for the Rules of Professional Conduct as The Kutek Commission.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality undermines the judiciary and every proceeding. The injustice grows while Rule 1.6 prevents resolution or escape from further actions. I would hope that my case is an extreme. My case demonstrates the broad affect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality which prevents any remedy. It is the volume of information and experiences which lead to the discovery of the needle in the haystack of injustice. Where no explanation was offered... and no question answered... EVER. Rule 1.6 could be applied to 'justify' the silence.

Rule 1.6 non-disclosure is permitted to conceal Rule 1.6 non-disclosure. They won't say anything and won't tell you why... Rule 1.6 is permitted to be invoked without invoking it. Rule 1.6 makes it possible to break the law, commit acts in the furtherance of that fraud, undermine the integrity and independence of the judiciary, prevent exposure through further fraud AND NOT EVER INDICATE THAT RULE 1.6 is involved. Ex parte communications, letters and meetings which arrange the injustice and corruption are also Rule 1.6 Confidential.

Prevented from information and denied rights and the protection of the law, my experience may be extreme but it is not isolated or unique... Rule 1.6 is law in every state. A violation of the public trust by the Judicial branch. The judiciary are accorded respect and honor BY LAW because it is necessary for the People to trust in JUSTICE.

The American Bar Association's Rule 1.6 has leveraged the public trust to undermine the judiciary. The only folks who profit from injustice are the members of the ABA and its affiliated organizations.

THE SCANDAL OF RULE 1.6 IS BIG. VERY BIG. HUGE.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

My Grown-up Christmas List

My kids remember me.
They sat upon my knee.
I am their Dad.
They can't take that from me

They have grown up now.
But Alienated ...and HOW?
Divorce, Custody
Family Court Brutality

Here's my life long wish
Most Sincere Christmas List
For parents and children
and broken family

No more lives torn apart
That wars would never start
And time would heal all hearts
And everyone would have a friend
And right would always win
And love would never end

This is my grown up Christmas list.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

"There is love in this room. Can you feel it?
Love is in this room. Can you feel it?
Love for a father. Love for a mother.
Love for a brother too.
Absolutely. Not Maybe.
There will always be love in this room."

This was what Christmas at Home looked like before the corrupt careless judge threw our family through the shredder and our memories went in the trash. Why do good people trust the judicial system? Because they have no idea of the injustice and corruption which feeds on divorce and custody.

... and they have no idea how a LAW in every state causes every corrupt lawless and criminal act to be concealed, non-disclosed and confidential.

Email + Carluccio ÷ Tornetta x 1.6 = COVERUP

When Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio wanted to secretly cancel hearings she did so via email.

The Courthouse was stunned to learn that I had the praecipe numbers which indicated that multiple hearings had been cancelled by email. No one would take responsibility or explain.
Court Administration had cancelled the hearings without notice or entry... and without Court Order.

When Judge Carluccio was asked about the cancellations SHE LIED indicating it was an error. At the end of that session, she forgot so I reminded her to reschedule. She did.

THEN, she cancelled those rescheduled hearings by email - without notice AGAIN. So, much for the 'error' excuse.

Well, all but one was cancelled. A 15 minute window. If I did not appear for that hearing she could use THAT as the excuse to ignore and dismiss ALL the petitions. BUT, I showed up prepared to address all 15 matters. There was no hearings. Cancelled Without Notice... AGAIN.

Where was the opposing party? Their setup was exposed. They had written indicating they were aware of the hearing, BUT THEY DID NOT SHOW UP. I got their letter 2 days later. BOY, THEIR SETUP WAS EXPOSED. EPIC FAIL:

The judge had indicated to Court Administration on the day before that she would neither confirm or deny the hearing was scheduled. WTF? Cheryl Leslie in Court Admin knew that the corruption was overwhelming in this matter. She could not explain the irrational lack of explanation. She knew, but could not explain. I knew too. They went to great lengths to fool a litigant and failed.

WHERE NO ONE EVER ASKED FOR THE DIVORCE DECREE, WHY WOULD JUDGE CARLUCCIO ISSUE ONE?

Carluccio issued a defective and void Divorce Decree in violation of PA Law and without any jurisdiction. The court was notified of the error. The deliberately defective and void order is being used to continue to ruin my life where everyone is ignoring the volume of information indicating it is void. Pretending the divorce decree is valid prevents any filing to address all those cancelled petitions on financial issues. It keeps the litigation going... an additional 4 years now in the Superior Court.

Fraud to conceal fraud and prevent any resolution of the fraud is what Rule 1.6 does to litigants in all kinds of injustice cases. Foreclosures, false imprisonment, false prosecution,...

Judges issue void orders deliberately because they know how other judges won't act where the error is exposed... or corrected. The subsequent judges commit fraud and act to further the error.

BUT, RULE 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.... and those acts of fraud cannot be excused by an unconstitutional law.

Considering the effort of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania towards silencing the availability of emails - they updated Rule 1.6 about 7-8 times in the last 2 years... the Supreme Court knows there is something in emails that will demonstrate the abuse of power within the courts. Why are they updating an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law?

Rule 1.6 is unconstitutional, it causes a denial of constitutionally protected rights, it permits fraud to conceal fraud, it permits EVERY effort to conceal the fraud, it made fraud 'legal' for legal professionals... and MANDATORY, AND THEY CALLED IT ETHICAL.

When the American Bar Association had the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania enact Rule 1.6 into law where they DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY to enact ANY law which affects substantive rights of a litigant which are guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Rule 1.6 is about concealing corruption and fraud within the judicial branch.
Rule 1.6 is an aggressively enforced MANDATE of Confidentiality.
Rule 1.6 is NOT ethical, yet is referenced throughout the 'ethical standard for legal professionals'
Rule 1.6 has permitted the American Bar Association to undermine the judiciary.
Rule 1.6 has concealed the ABA infiltration between the people and the courts, where the ABA staff intercepts and interferes with the administration of justice and prevents access to the courts.
Rule 1.6 is not helping the judiciary. The ABA is concealing that they have caused the judiciary to be UNDONE.
Rule 1.6 is holding the judiciary hostage with the threat of exposing that the judicial branch has been usurped and undermined by the American Bar Association.
BUT, Rule 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. A NULLITY. NO LAW. NEVER REALLY WAS A LAW. NEVER EXISTED.

So when concealing how Rule 1.6 has caused a systemic problem within the judiciary, who better to approach the topic than a Special Prosecutor named CARLUCCIO.

Special Prosecutor Carluccio should know and understand the issues related to emails, Rule 1.6, concealing corruption, excusing fraud, denying constitutional rights as his wife, Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio WAS DOING ALL OF THOSE THINGS IN HER COURTROOM.

In Healy v Healy when Judge Carluccio's corruption was exposed she improperly issued a defective and void order calling it a divorce decree and using it to destroy a litigant who survived. That order lacked jurisdiction. It will NEVER have jurisdiction. So every subsequent judge involved IGNORES THE FAILURE and continues to attack her victim.

The Central Legal Staff of the Superior Court assumed the mantle of Rule 1.6 fraud, BUT WITHOUT THE PROTECTION of RULE 1.6 because their crimes PROVE the unconstitutional effect. RULE 1.6 is PROVEN to be unconstitutional within the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

NO DECISION OR ORDER HAS BEEN SIGNED BY ANY JUDGE. Rule 1.6 fraud concealing fraud.... but clearly without benefit of the hostage judge's participation. A VIOLATION OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW, the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the US Constitution, and Federal Crimes.

When Judge Carluccio used emails and void orders to conceal her corruption and injustice, she was also concealing that the American Bar Association had undermined the judiciary at state and federal levels.

At the time, Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio was also the President of the Montgomery County Bar Association.

Special Prosecutor Carluccio knows exactly what he is trying to conceal and his effort to permit continuing corruption is very clearly motivated.

He also knows his wife is dumb as a rock. She didn't think this up all by herself. She had no concept of her conflict of interest in real estate dealings. She made up laws from the bench with the belief that litigants are fools. She prevented the Barnes Foundation from remaining in Montgomery County by concealing available funds. She worked for the US Attorney for a while so she avoids federal investigation unless they bring someone in from outside the area.

Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio is a judicial terrorist.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL Rule 1.6 is not going to hide her abuse of power under color of law with intent to cause harm and irreparable damage.... and neither will her husband.

SO WHY SPEND SO MUCH TIME TRYING TO CONCEAL ACTIONS BEHIND AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW? It's been concealed since 1988 while the injustice destroyed people and families who could not turn to any legal professionals for resolution.

It's never going to be constitutional, lawful, ethical or good to commit, enable or conceal judicial corruption.

So much effort to enable corruption to continue.

CARLUCCIO's don't seem to have any grasp of CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

All this effort to mandate Kathleen Kane to be quiet about Rule 1.6 injustice and corruption - the thing she cannot reveal... while it destroys lives, and leads to suicide.

In the meantime, I am available to inform the Grand Jury, and the public, of what it is they won't allow the Attorney General to discuss.

I AM NOT RESTRICTED BY RULE 1.6 UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONFIDENTIALITY.

He just can't accept the Divorce.

This is the biggest most frustrating lie which for some reason people generally accept without question. People generally believe a lie over the truth. This lie is preposterous.

Sonya Healy and I were married for 20 years. There was no joy in the marriage. There was no violence.

During that 20 year period, we had sex ONLY 12 times. Two times it resulted in pregnancy.

With the arrival of the children, the marriage became an illusion. The family was the focus.

Sonya spent many years sleeping at the foot of our children's cribs/beds until they were in school.

Sonya did not like to be touched... ANYTIME. The volume of DO NOT TOUCH areas were from head to toe.

Sonya snored LOUDLY. ALOT. Even with the introduction of a CPAP machine, she snored... and took on a look which resembled a b-movie sci-fi villain.

Sonya had chronic bad breath. Doctors unsuccessful efforts to address the odor failed to consider her food and alcohol issues.

Sonya had no self-respect or willpower. The volume of programs through which she unsuccessfully attempted to control her weight included everything - from the offerings of infomercials to the advice of doctors.

Sonya hated everyone. Everyone had mean-spirited nicknames which she used to refer to people.

Oddly, many people whom she has utilized in her efforts appear to think they are her friends. That is sad. She placed their careers and professional licenses on the line. In doing so, she obligated them to continued efforts.

There has NEVER been a moment since the day she abandoned our home in May 2007 that I imagined or entertained a reunion with her. She had secretly conspired with many people since she began planning her divorce in January 2007. This included our children who suffered emotionally, and inexplicably, from the knowledge of what she was doing.

Whenever I explained to anyone that IT IS NOT ABOUT DIVORCE, THIS IS ABOUT DESTRUCTION. I was completely dismissed. I was looking forward to a life after her.

In typical actions, she would tell people that it was me in denial and unable to accept the divorce. I still hear this ridiculous suggestion from people today.

She's got the lawyer. This should have been over in 2009. But their goal was NOT divorce, it was SUICIDE. Her lawyers actions to prevent the issuance of a divorce decree in 2009 demonstrate this unwillingness to end the marriage. The document which was filed with the court, specifically indicates that no divorce decree should be entered until there has been resolution of all financial matters.

Her actions caused a situation where nothing could be resolved.

It has been her efforts on the advice of her lawyer to conduct illegal surveillance of phones and computers which had crippled my business, and financially affected my clients, which has prevented any resolution.

When caught, the software company lied. My efforts to survive and expose their surveillance provided the software company with research and development which was then used to upgrade their programs.

When caught, a private investigator was hired.

When caught, a false report to a County Drug Task Force was filed.

When caught, a false report to the US DEA was filed.

When caught, her attorney arranged for the Secret Order of Judge Rhonda Daniele with the knowledge and forethought that it would undermine any justice in the courts. FOREVER.

Every order by every judge in the matter has lacked judicial independence since August 2007. The lack of judicial independence, affects jurisdiction, and affects any assertion of judicial immunity for the 20 judges of the Montgomery County Bench. Every proceeding was a farce which was not going to EVER permit me to be successful. The corrupt and unjust actions of the entire Montgomery County Judiciary are unconscionable. Void of any justice, their actions can only be considered 'abuse of power under color of law with clear intent to cause distress'. EVIL. Just pure EVIL.

Her attorney then proceeded to execute a constant barrage of vexatious and frivolous litigation to harass in a forum where their success was guaranteed... UNLESS, I could prove their allegations false.

Where I survived their fraud, the court ignored their misconduct.

The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ignored the misconduct of the attorneys.

The Judicial Conduct Board ignored the misconduct of every judge who had been involved in the case.

This has been the case since 2007. I survived under the constant threat of litigation in a forum where I had no opportunity for success. The best I could expect was to survive.

If Sonya wanted her divorce, her attorney could make it legal by providing the court with the jurisdiction necessary to issue a divorce decree. They don't.

The aggressive zeal for injustice demonstrated by Carolyn Carluccio to clear all petitions and quickly issue a divorce decree would disallow any resolution of the financial issues filed with the court. BUT, CARLUCCIO TOTALLY BLEW IT.

Pennsylvania Law does not allow for the issuance of a decree by surprise. It is the documented intent of the law that no one be surprised without the opportunity to petition the court before entry of a divorce decree. The law requires the notice and request. Where the procedure is not followed the court does not have jurisdiction to issue a divorce decree. This is established law with precedental published opinions and decisions.

The expedited, defective and void divorce decree is invalid.

REMEMBER WHERE ANGST AND ANGST FILED TO PREVENT ENTRY OF A DIVORCE DECREE IN 2009. YET, THE COURT ISSUED THE DIVORCE DECREE IN SPITE OF THEIR OBJECTION. So neither party asked for the divorce, the divorce clerk did not provide the paperwork necessary to indicate the court had jurisdiction, why would the judge issue a decree anyway?

If I was wrong, it could be proven by the facts and the proper application of the law, yet they neglect to take that approach. They ignore the issue and suggest that I just do not want to be divorced.

How sad and pathetic for him. How completely wrong for anyone to suggest an end to that marriage was not welcomed.

If not addressed, the loss of any protection of the law and my constitutional rights can never be resolved... can never be restored.

Where the injustice may be leveraged by anyone at anytime, and the only future is to be a victim for the remainder of my days, I'll persevere.

I'll file with the courts. The evidence will mount. The judicial corruption will be more and more undeniable and VISIBLE.

I can accept a divorce from a sexless marriage, BUT I will not accept the loss of any protection of the law where every constitutional right is ignored, prevented and obstructed forever and ever and ever...

This is the Short Version of My Current Appeals.

It is the sworn duty of the courts to determine and fix the rights of the parties in each particular case brought before them, if they have the power to do so.

To do this, they must determine what the facts are and the law applicable thereto. The facts must be determined either from the evidence or from the want of evidence. The tribunal may err. The law must be determined from the books.

The validity of the proceeding must be determined. If any jurisdictional question is debatable or colorable, the court must decide jurisdiction; and an erroneous conclusion can only be corrected by some proceeding provided by law for so doing.

Where it can be shown, lawfully, that some matter or thing essential to jurisdiction is wanting, the proceeding is void.

The doctrine of stare decisis does not forbid overruling what has been affected by defects which prevent jurisdiction.


DIRECT ATTACK: A direct attack on a judicial proceeding is an attempt to avoid or correct it in some manner provided by law. The litigant has a responsibility to notify the court to address the defect and the resulting lack of jurisdiction.

- Petition to the Court June 6, 2011, June 9, 2011
- Testify/Evidence/Exhibits July 18, 2011
- Petition the Court Summer 2011
- Appeal of the Order August 15, 2011


COLLATERAL ATTACK: A collateral attack on a judicial proceeding attempts to avoid, defeat, evade or deny its force and effect.

- Asserting ownership of my property - October 3, 2013
- Fraudulent documents are presented - October 22, 2013
- Challenge Jurisdiction - November 12, 2013


Any proceeding provided by law for the purpose of avoiding or correcting a judgment, is a direct attack which will be successful upon showing the error; while an attempt to do the same thing in any other proceeding is a collateral attack, which will be successful only upon showing a want of power.


WHEN YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
WHEN YOU HAVE NO PROTECTION OF THE LAW
WHEN YOU HAVE PRETENDERS PLAYING COURT
PREVENTING YOU FROM THE JUDICIARY.


The following is the volume of litigation currently active because Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio issued ONE PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE DIVORCE DECREE without proper jurisdiction. Notified promptly of the defect Carluccio, and other judges, have refused to address/correct/resolve choosing instead to issue further DEFECTIVE and VOID orders causing further irreparable harm and damage and to harass the litigant.

Given the chance to fix it, EVERY JUDGE MAKES IT WORSE. Since 2007, this matter has been before twenty judges of the Montgomery County Pennsylvania Judiciary. It now advances to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania with two concurrent appeals of Superior Court decisions which IGNORED AND NEGLECTED to address the lack of jurisdiction for the Court. While another Appeal awaits action by the Superior Court.

If they could prove jurisdiction, that would have occurred by now. This is abuse of power under color of law with the intentional infliction of emotional distress.... being done by persons pretending to be the judiciary.

You just cannot argue with stupidity like this.

I must persevere through their relentless corruption and re-documentation.
I WANT MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS...

---

The Order of May 9, 2011 is being directly attacked in Healy v Healy by the Appeal filed on August 15, 2011.

As necessary, the Direct Attack has been coordinated with the requests for the courts to conduct hearings on petitions which have been neglected, unheard, ignored and improperly.

The petitions should have been heard prior to any Request for Entry of A DIVORCE DECREE.

No Request for Entry of a Divorce Decree was ever filed, served, or advanced as REQUIRED BY PENNSYLVANIA LAW.

Where a Request for Entry of A Divorce Decree has not been filed, the Court DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION to enter a Divorce Decree.

An Order in Equitable Distribution may only be issued contemporaneous with or subsequent to a Divorce Decree.

The Equitable Distribution Order is consequently procedurally defective and void for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court in the Opinion dated October 18, 2011 neglected to include a statement of jurisdiction for the Order of May 9, 2011. THE COURT IGNORES AND NEGLECTS THE PROBLEM.

The Appeal is prevented from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. THE COURT IGNORES AND NEGLECTS THE PROBLEM.

There is nothing I can do to get the Montgomery County Court of Common Please to do their job function.
THE DIRECT ATTACK is pending. I must wait for the Appeal to move forward.

---

The Order of May 9, 2011 has been improperly presented to the Montgomery County Sheriff's Department and the Montgomery Township Police who assisted Sonya Healy in her return to the property on June 10, 2011.

---

The Order of May 9, 2011 has been improperly presented to the Domestic Relation Office as a valid Order by Angst & Angst which has stopped their enforcement of court orders in this matter.
- The Domestic Relations Office (DRO) has refused to schedule any hearing, or conference.
- Letters filed with the DRO and Prothonotary have been ingored.
THE COURT IGNORES AND NEGLECTS THE PROBLEM.

---

The Order of May 9, 2011 is being challenged collaterally in Healy v Healy by the Appeal filed on April 29, 2013 EVEN WHILE the earlier Appeal remains inexplicably stalled.

The defective and void order has been presented to the Court for enforcement by ANGST & ANGST.
THERE IS A PENDING APPEAL, the court lacks jurisdiction.
Angst & Angst haven't filed their petition properly.
Angst & Angst haven't served their petition.
Angst & Angst have been secretly writing to Court Admin to have Judge Haaz removed.
Angst & Angst have been secretly writing to Judge Carluccio asking her to take the case back.
Angst & Angst certainly seem surprised when I appear at the short list conference anyway.
AND HAVE A RESPONSE FILED.
Judge Haaz was clearly not pleased. He doesn't schedule the hearing.

10 Months later, Judge Page schedules their hearing, ignoring the pending Appeal, which I call to his attention frequently.

All evidence demonstrating the pending Appeal is presented and ignored.
THE COURT IGNORES AND NEGLECTS THE PROBLEM.

The defect and the lack of jurisdiction has been demonstrated on the court record, evidenced in hearing statements, presented during testimony.
THE COURT IGNORES AND NEGLECTS THE PROBLEM.

Angst & Angst have deliberately neglected to present any evidence within petitions, testimony or exhibits which address the defect. THEY IGNORE AND NEGLECT THE PROBLEM.

It is the responsibility of Angst & Angst to provide the information regarding jurisdiction for the court. THEY IGNORE AND NEGLECT THE PROBLEM WHICH SERVES TO EMBARRASS THE COURT.

The Court neglects in it's Order to explain or address how the defect does not void jurisdiction for the Order of May 9, 2011. THE COURT IGNORES AND NEGLECTS THE PROBLEM.

ON APPEAL: The information presented within Briefs to the Superior Court demonstrated the defect and the lack of jurisdiction.

AGAIN, Angst & Angst have deliberately neglected to present any evidence within petitions, testimony or exhibits which address the defect. There is NO INFORMATION provided to support the challenge of jurisdiction. THEY IGNORE AND NEGLECT THE PROBLEM.

---

September 6, 2011 - Immediately upon notice by facsimile from Angst & Angst, the Court continued and rescheduled petitions filed by Defendant which had been scheduled for September 20, 2011. Continuing to September 23, 2011. Courtesy would require that the person who filed the petition agree to the continuance. There was no courtesy extended.

When Angst & Angst had a hearing rescheduled to a date when my mother was having emergency open heart surgery, they refused to permit a continuance. Judge DelRicci proceeded with the hearing. As my primary witness was in surgery, I would be hindered. Their information was completely fabricated falsehoods which had been filed to delay custody proceedings. I had waited 2 years for the custody hearing and was forced to request a continuance on what mattered most to me. Angst & Angst refused to continue their counter petition and permit me and my brother to go to the hospital where the rest of the family had gathered. After Judge Del Ricci asked Angst & Angst to reconsider several times, he became disgusted by the malice of their refusal and ordered a continuance.

The petitions to be heard on September 20, 2011 related the closing date of the home. All parties involved in the sale were preventing and denying all information from me. This was NOT required or indicated within any order. They were conspiring voluntarily. On July 18, 2011, the Court had issued a verbal order for all of my belongings to be disposed of if not removed by the closing date. All parties were informed about the conditions for removal of my personal possessions and conspired voluntarily to remain silent. The attorney for the Keller Williams Real Estate additionally would not provide the information. Copies of Letters and Petitions were filed on the Court Record.

From May 2007 when Sonya Healy abandoned the home, I had held the place together, accomplished all payments, and maintenance, and prevented the destruction of every item in the home. They had swept in with a VOID order and were destroying everything... and they prevented me from resolution.

---

The Order of May 9, 2011 has been fraudulently presented by Sonya Healy in the commission of a fraudulent conveyance of the marital residence.

All real estate personnel, title companies agents and managers, and transaction preparers and coordinators associated with the closing were aware that they were presenting a defective and void instrument within the transaction. They all emailed each other about it.

Sonya Healy swears that she is both married and divorced during the closing meeting.

The defective and void order of May 9, 2011 was referenced within statements on the documents BUT missing from the papers filed with the Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds.

---

On September 23, 2011, upon arriving in court, I was informed of the closing on the sale of my home. September 20, 2011. I was additionally presented with a newly filed petition which Judge Carluccio acted upon immediately to the exclusion of the petitions which had been scheduled and continued and prepared for hearing.

Judge Carluccio issued her Order of September 23, 2011 addressing everything in the freshly filed petition, and conducted further housekeeping where I was ordered under duress and penalty of contempt to endorse checks presented by Angst & Angst.

According to a verbal order issued on July 18, 2011, all of my belongings not removed prior to the closing date had been placed in the trash. Judge Carluccio was a direct party to the destruction of my personal property by continuing the hearing date.

The Court's verbal order of July 18, 2011 is ALSO VOID as it is based on enforcement of the defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

On September 28, 2011, Angst & Angst withdrew their petition (1) to conceal their failure to follow any procedure in the matter, (2) to conceal the corruption demonstrated by the court and (2) to prevent any response or hearing on the matter.

---

During the proceeding on July 18, 2011, the Court had neglected and ignored the petitions and evidence, repeatedly interrupting testimony/responses regarding the procedural errors which had caused the Order to be defective and void.

EMERGENCY Petitions/Motions had been filed on June 6, 2011 and June 9, 2011 and IGNORED.


I WAS GIVING THE COURT EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE RIGHT THING. CLEARLY, THE COURT HAD A MORE MALICIOUS INTENT.

---

The void order (September 23, 2011), based on a void order (July 18, 2011), based on a defective and void Divorce Decree (May 9, 2011).

Jurisdiction cannot be obtained retroactively.

The Court had been notified of the procedural defect immediately on June 6, 2011 and June 9, 2011.

Involving County personnel in the enforcement of defective and void orders place them at risk for their improper actions. They do not have the immunity offered the judiciary.

The Sheriff's Department and the Police Department were enforcing the defective and void order of May 9, 2011 which ordered me to vacate my home. The Sheriff Department has not been able to produce a report of why they were there or who had requested their assistance.

Where immunity may excuse error and permit a judge to be malicious and cruel, Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio was not acting as a judge.

She lacked integrity and honor, but above all else Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio lacked JURISDICTION - courtesy of Angst & Angst. Every attempt resolve any matter within the court was continued, denied, neglected and ignored by Judge Carluccio.

---

The Order of May 9, 2011 is being challenged collaterally in Healy v Miller by the Appeal filed on March 6, 2014.
- When the Order of May 9, 2011 was asserted by Zarwin, Baum, DeVito, Kaplan, Schaer, Toddy, attorneys Scott Goldstein and Philip Magen representing the Miller's deliberately neglected to present any evidence within petitions, testimony or exhibits which address the defect in jurisdiction.

The Court neglected in it's Order to explain or address in any way how the defect does not affect jurisdiction for the Order of May 9, 2011.

The Court improperly IGNORED the MOTION TO STRIKE THE DEFECTIVE AND VOID ORDER.

ON APPEAL: The information presented within Briefs to the Superior Court demonstrated the defect and the lack of jurisdiction.

AGAIN, Zarwin, Baum, DeVito, Kaplan, Schaer, Toddy, attorneys Scott Goldstein and Philip Magen have deliberately neglected to present any evidence within petitions, testimony or exhibits which address the defect.

---

I HATE THE EXPRESSION - THE GAME. THIS IS MY LIFE THEY HAVE TERRORIZED. WHY?
Pretending to have jurisdiction IS NOT JURISDICTION.
Ignoring the lack of jurisdiction IS NOT JURISDICTION.
... Yes, Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio acted with malice forethought to cause irreparable harm and damage and to continue causing irreparable harm and damage instead of admitting her error.


Remember, this IS the short version.... the vexatious and overwhelming litigation, false allegations, obstruction of justice, denial of civil rights, while without any protection of the law have been happening since I lost my constitutional rights.

Any single act of misconduct, or injustice, within a court (Civil, Criminal or Family) can cause a litigant to lose all constitution rights, lose all civil rights and be left without any protection of the law without explanation of what has occurred and with no available recourse or resolution from any level of state or federal government or law enforcement.

Enacted into law in 1987 (without the protections of those 'fraud provisions') by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, a collateral effect of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct MANDATES CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON_DISCLOSURE by everyone who must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. All lawyers, all state and federal law enforcement (District Attorneys, Prosecutors, Attorneys General, etc...), all state and federal courts are mandated BY LAW to follow Rule 1.6 Confidentiality. This is accomplished through the LOCAL RULES of each Federal Court, and the McDade-Murtha Amendment affecting all Department of Justice and other federal attorneys.

The Lawyers Code had not been LAW before. Concealing and Permitting further frauds against an innocent victim is not ethical behavior, NOR IS IT LAWFUL.

In 1983, the American Bar Association stripped the 'fraud provisions' from their "NEWLY DEVELOPED" Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The ABA misrepresented their illegal, unethical and immoral "Code of Ethical Conduct" to each state supreme court for the purpose of being enacted into LAW.
- without ANY Construction as would have been performed by a state legislature,
- without the signature of ANY Governor, and
- without any Constitutional Review
An Aggressively enforced MANDATE OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON-DISCLOSURE was enacted nationawide into law from 1984 (New Jersey) through 2009 (Maine).

The foreclosure crisis where fraudulent and robo-signed documents submitted to the court caused people to lose their homes with complete disregard for any law.

Kids For Cash, in Luzerne County, and entire legal community and county and state judiciary permitted the trafficking of children to prisons while judges received payments.

The pseudo INJUSTICE business being conducted within the clerks offices of every state and federal judiciary. The illusion of a judiciary incapable of facts, relevance, law, or logical thought or reason is being perpetrated upon the American litigant. Concealing the systemic corruption of the judiciary which has undermined judicial independence, usurped the authority of the judicial branch, and caused the Rule of Law and the US Constitution to be ignored.

Healy v. Healy - all that ignoring the facts at every level by every one.... A VIOLATION OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS caused by Rule 1.6

RULE 1.6 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

In the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 filed on August 8, 2013, the intercept teams at the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals FAILED. THEY HAD NOTHING. THEY MADE THINGS UP. The documents which they attributed to the Federal Judiciary were a shameful desperate abomination.

Rule 1.6 IS STILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The documents were filed with the Court BECAUSE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN DENIED, PREVENTED AND OBSTRUCTED.

Angst & Angst had leveraged complete impunity to ignore EVERY court order when they secured A Secret Order from Judge Rhonda Daniele in August 2007. In May 2008, The Secret Order was flashed to Judge DelRicci by Robert Angst during the short list after the Easter Break-In and Burglary (which was in violation of three Court Orders). Judge DelRicci reviewed the document and DENIED ME A COPY or any review. Law and Procedure (or courtesy) were never applicable. The Secret Order was used to slander me to every policeman I asked to check on my kids. The Secret Order was available only to Angst & Angst and to the Court Staff. It was not distributed to me. It was not docketed. There had been no hearing. Judge Rhonda Daniele, head of the Family Court Division, had NEVER been assigned the matter. The Secret Order was leveraged to prevent the court from enforcing ANY AND ALL COURT ORDERS against Angst & Angst's client. During Discovery, the existence of the document was denied and mocked by Valerie Angst. It was not provided. The Secret Order was used to induce a sense of paranoia. The Secret Order was used to undermine credibility. The Secret Order was kept concealed within a separate file at the Prothonotary. Until in August 2010, it was handed to me. Signed by Judge Daniele. No notations for distribution. No sticker indicating it had been docketed. Immediately, I had the order docketed and filed petitions requesting an Explanation from the Court. Judge Bertin recused without explanation.

So when it all comes down.....
One Question - Jurisdiction or NOT - PROVE IT. BUT, They GOT NOTHING.

INSTEAD I AM HOMELESS/DESTITUTE AND FORCED TO RESPOND TO THEIR DOPEY DOCUMENTS.

I AM SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THE DOCUMENTS ARE BEING WRITTEN BY JUDGES.

It is very clear that the idiots I am dealing with are the central legal staff following Bar Association scripts.

The lawyers are members of the various 'intercepting' bar associations which are positioned within every level of the state and federal judiciary.

READY AND AVAILABLE to intercept all documents and 'play court' by responding to litigation without signatures, logic, law or any sense.

Lawyers are permitted to continue the effort to conceal the fraud of their clients. Rule 1.6 - and the various flavors enacted in every state has them thinking they are legal, while STILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

PA Courts, Superior Court, Supreme Court. District Court, Circuit Court of Appeals.
Their fake 'judicial' documents and maintaining the extra dockets. Yes, I see things which I am not supposed to be seeing - like the extra dockets. Philly got caught ding that before. Old habits die hard.

It's how they have undermined and usurped the judiciary.

It's how they have affected judicial independence.

It's how the US Constitution is going ignored.

It's how the Constitutional Rights of Millions of American have been ignored.


The deliberate actions of the American Bar Association, undermining the US GOVERNMENT since 1983 when they made lawyer/client fraud ethical, permitted the continued crimes against the innocent victim, called it a Code of Ethics, and sold it to EVERY state supreme court which enacted it into LAW.

Right now, the only people to report it to is the lawyers.... and they will commit fraud and cover it up.... or just IGNORE.

You are supposed to think the judges are ignoring you.... but with unsigned paperwork how do you know if it even got past the CENTRAL LEGAL STAFF.

Ask any Central Legal Staff or Prothy Clerk a question.
For Example: May I get a copy of the judges order WITH a signature...

I asked two prothy folks the other day,
The first response was that they would charge me $1 per page.
The second response was that they would charge me 50 cents per page.
Then they asked why I wanted it?
Then they asked if I had gotten a copy in the mail.
I explained that the Judge had not signed the document.
I was told that judges NEVER sign documents.
And had two ladies looking at me like I was crazy for expecting a judge to sign his own decisions.
I had to sign my paperwork, and the verification and the cert of service.
If they had scheduled the argument I would have had to sign the acknowledgement.
I would have to sign the guest log upon arrival at Superior Court.

Yea ladies, the judges spew the chaotic and insulting paragraphs at Seletyn and head to the shore.

I DIDN'T GO HOME EMPTY HANDED, though I filed a notice with the court that a signed copy of the order was denied...
Then, it was off to the Department of Justice to file an obstruction of justice complaint.

If you are going to whine in your 'documents' that the briefs are difficult to follow, perhaps your triple nested void orders after 5 years of constant litigation where IF AN ISSUE IS NOT LISTED IT IS WAIVED RULE needs to be revised.

How About this: Please only give list one basic simple issue per document.
Finding irrelevant citations, references and misstatements of fact to format into Memorandums without losing all sense of form results in accidental inclusion of valid statements which become confusing for everyone.

The CLS Cut n Paste works though - that's why documents have been captioned wrong in the judge's documents several times also. Too lazy to even get their fraud done cleanly. Geesh!


JUSTICE IS COMING.

Senator Stewart Greenleaf - Judiciary Committee

It is illegal for the lawyers and judiciary to expose that the judiciary has been undermined, lost their independence and sacrificed their integrity.



Senator Stewart Greenleaf and the Judiciary Committee
They won’t meet on this. (It is illegal for them to do so.)

The lawyers on the Judiciary Committee have caused covered up and perpetuated this national disgrace.

WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

THE PEOPLE WANT THEIR RIGHTS RESTORED.

The lawyers cannot restore what they destroyed.

The United States government existed for over 200 years WITHOUT Rule 1.6 corruption and injustice. It has no necessity and no justification in law, ethics, morality, humanity or justice. Enacted to conceal the corruption of those believed to be uncorruptable because the integrity of the judiciary is beyond reproach. Those without integrity have twisted the judicary and denied the US constitution.

---

Senator Greenleaf's Profile on his web site indicates he has been in the Pennsylvania government since before Rule 1.6 promulgation into law. For over 30 years, Greenleaf has stood by and watched as people's families and lives were destroyed.

He ignored me. For years. I begged and pleaded and cried. HE DID NOTHING. No wonder his Chief of Staff, Pat, is too ashamed to even face me.

I found the problem. HE WON'T MEET. ??? Stewart Greenleaf IS the problem. He is a coward who cannot even face the victims of his corruption.

Contact Senator Greenleaf

On Facebook Senator Stewart J. Greenleaf

Harrisburg Office Senate Box 203012 Harrisburg, PA 17120-3012 (717) 787-6599 800-848-5013 (717) 783-7328 Fax TTY: 800-364-1581	District Office 711 North York Road Suite 1 Willow Grove, PA 19090 (215) 657-7700 800-924-3300 (215) 657-1885 Fax

His listed awards are all self-serving awards from lawyers under duress and compelled to pay homage to the man who perverted the judicial branch and the legislature of the commonwealth for over 30 years.

Recognition of "his efforts and resolve in protecting the rights of Pennsylvanians under civil law" - Something only lawyers could recognize apparently. WHAT A TWISTED BIOGRAPHY OF EGO AND MISDIRECTION.

State Senator Stewart J. Greenleaf (R-Montgomery / Bucks) has represented Pennsylvania’s 12th Senate District since 1978. He was a member of the House of Representatives from 1977 to 1978, serving on the House Labor Relations and Judiciary Committees as well as the Subcommittee on Crime and Corrections. He also served as an Upper Moreland Township Commissioner, as an Assistant District Attorney, Chief of the Appeals Division for the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office, and as an Assistant Public Defender in Bucks County. He is a member of the Bar Associations of Pennsylvania and Montgomery County. A native of Montgomery County, Senator Greenleaf is a lifelong resident of Upper Moreland Township. He is married to Cecelia “Kelly” Greenleaf. Having graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, he received his law degree from the University of Toledo School of Law. He is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and is currently a member of the Senate committees on Appropriations, Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure, Education, and Finance. He is also Vice Chair of the Intergovernmental Operations Committee. He is a Senate appointed board member of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. He has served on the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, the Task Force on Death Penalty Litigation in Pennsylvania, and the Statewide Steering Committee on Court Automation. He currently serves as chairman of the Joint State Government Commission’s Task Forces on Real Property Law; Decedents’ Estates Laws; Domestic Relations Law. As a member of the Commission on Judicial Reform, he participated in the development of recommendations to improve the process of judicial selection and was prime sponsor of constitutional amendment legislation to revise the state’s system of judicial discipline. He serves on the State/Federal Assembly of the Law and Justice Committee of the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Criminal Justice Task Force of the American Legislative Exchange Council. He is a board member of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. He was chairman of the Senate Impeachment Committee during the 1994 impeachment trial of former Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Rolf Larsen. He is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Commission for Justice Initiatives and Task Force on Student Loan Forgiveness and Repayment Assistance. The senator is the author of the Clean Indoor Air Act of 2008, Pennsylvania’s Megan’s Law, the Grandparent Custody Law, the Rails to Trails Act, the School Pesticide Law, the Health Club Consumer Protection Act, the Puppy Lemon Law, the “No Means No” Rape Law, the Amusement Ride Inspection Act, the Missing Children Act, the Divorce Code Reform Act and the Divorce and Custody Mediation Act. He was also prime sponsor of a law that extends the period of legal recourse for abused children, the constitutional amendment allowing for the option of electronic testimony for child victims and witnesses, the law requiring tougher penalties for cruelty to domestic animals, and the law allowing extended sentences when baseball bats are used in violent criminal acts. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the senator conducted hearings on the corrections system in Pennsylvania and achieved passage of legislation to reduce overcrowding in state prisons and county jails through intermediate punishment programs. He is also sponsor of state sentencing reform legislation and of a law that provides for addiction treatment for eligible offenders. In 2010, the Senator passed his Criminal Justice Reform Act. He also conducted hearings on the state’s system of probation and parole, resulting in the enactment of public safety reforms in the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole and in the Interstate Compact, which deals with interstate parole arrangements. In addition to his interest in criminal justice and judicial issues, Greenleaf has sponsored numerous consumer protection initiatives relating to telemarketing controls, octane level testing, the travel industry and the expansion of the Lemon Law to leased vehicles. The recipient of a number of honors, Greenleaf has been presented the 2005 Leadership Award of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape; the 2002 Montgomery County Bar Foundation Milton O. Moss Award; the 2002 Clean Water Fund Leadership Award; the Pennsylvania Legal Services Ambassador for Justice Award, the Pennsylvania Credit Union League Keystone Award, the Montgomery County Bar Association Outstanding Service Award; the Vince Fitzpatrick Humanitarian Award, the Pennsylvania Legal Services Outstanding Leadership Award; the Fraternal Order of Police Award; the Matty Muir Award from the Victim Services Center of Montgomery County; the Montgomery County Association for Retarded Citizens President’s Award; the Conservation Legislator of the Year Award by the Pennsylvania Wildlife Federation; the National Federation of Independent Business Guardian of Small Business Award and the Humane Society of the United States Mid-Atlantic Region Humanitarian Award. He was selected Man of The Year by the Willow Grove Chamber of Commerce and the Ukrainian Educational and Cultural Center. He was chosen for the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association 1992 Annual Award in recognition of his “efforts and resolve in protecting the rights of Pennsylvanians under civil law.” He has also received the B’nai B’rith Humanitarian Award, the North Penn Korean Association Community Award, the Boy Scouts of America Community Service Award, the Caroline Earle White Award of the Women’s SPCA, the Korean Senior Citizens Service Award, the Deputy Sheriffs Association Distinguished Public Service Award, and the Pennsylvania Legislative Animal Network’s Humane Legislator of the Year Award. Senator Greenleaf has most recently been presented with the William E. Zeiter Award from the Statutory Law Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Institute for his efforts to update and consolidate Pennsylvania’s statutory law. Also, in 2008, the Senator was awarded a proclamation from the Pennsylvania Veterinary Medical Association and the University of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary Medicine for the advancement of animal welfare issues, the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) Guardian of Small Business award, and the Distinguished Alumnus of the Year Award from the University of Toledo College of Law, in recognition of his lifetime of legislative accomplishments.

Reports of Another Family Court Suicide

Will the Family Courts ever stop their destruction of lives and families?

Robin Williams, post-divorce, back in rehab in Minnesota - posted in High Asset Divorce on Friday, July 11, 2014. Robin Williams was divorced in 2009, after he and his wife filed for divorce the year before, and he has said that he believes it was because of his drinking problems. He did note that he could tell his wife that he was sorry, but he said that that just was not always enough to get rid of the issues. The official reason for the divorce has been listed as irreconcilable differences. The actor did give up both drugs and alcohol at some point in the 1980s. However, he has not been been completely off them since then. Most notably, he began to drink again back in 2003. He was in Alaska, doing a movie, and he started drinking because he felt lonely. He then went to a rehab center in Oregon in 2006. The actor's long battle appears to be continuing, as recent reports indicate that he is at the Hazeldon Addiction Treatment Center, which is close to Lindstrom, Minnesota. However, the program that he is doing seems to be one that is aimed at helping people refocus before they relapse, so he may not have started using alcohol again. A photo recently surfaced of the actor at a Dairy Queen near the treatment center, which was taken with a female employee of the shop.

Statement by President Obama on the Passing of Robin Williams Robin Williams was an airman, a doctor, a genie, a nanny, a president, a professor, a bangarang Peter Pan, and everything in between. But he was one of a kind. He arrived in our lives as an alien – but he ended up touching every element of the human spirit. He made us laugh. He made us cry. He gave his immeasurable talent freely and generously to those who needed it most – from our troops stationed abroad to the marginalized on our own streets. The Obama family offers our condolences to Robin’s family, his friends, and everyone who found their voice and their verse thanks to Robin Williams.

Filed in The Superior Court of Pennsylvania

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Terance Healy	: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
(Appellant/Defendant)	: #1330 EDA 2013
	:
v.	:
	:
Sonya Healy	:
(Appellee/Plaintiff)	:

APPELLANT BRIEF

TABLE OF CONTENTS
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LACKED JURISDICTION	3
THE PENDING APPEAL FILED AUGUST 15, 2011	3
PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS – IGNORED	3
THE APPEAL FILED AUGUST 15, 2011 IS PENDING	4
PETITION FILED MAY 18, 2012	4
REASSIGNMENT TO JUDGE PAGE	5
THE ORDER OF APRIL 3, 2013	6
SEPTEMBER 23, 2011	7
A NESTED LACK OF JURISDICTION	8
PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE AND VOID ORDER OF May 9, 2011	9
NO EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTS JURISDICTION	9
EVIDENCE IN THE COURT RECORD	10
FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE	10
THE OPINION FILED IN THE AUGUST 15, 2011 APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT	12
TREASON	19
JUDICIAL IMMUNITY	20
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE	21
FEDERALLY	21
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE	21
OPINION DATED JUNE 28, 2013	22
SIGNATURE	23

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LACKED JURISDICTION

1. The Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter while an appeal was pending.


THE PENDING APPEAL FILED AUGUST 15, 2011

2. A NOTICE OF APPEAL had been filed in this matter on August 15, 2011 as is evidenced on the Court Docket at Sequence #326

3. The Notice of Appeal, Request for Transcripts and Certificate of Service were filed concurrently with a Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Court Docket at Sequence #326 through 330

4. On August 25, 2011, The Appeal was acknowledged by Judge Carolyn Carluccio by ordering a Concise Statement Of Errors Complained of On Appeal per PA Rules of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). Court Docket at Sequence #333

5. On September 15, 2011, Appellant filed a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of On Appeal and served it upon the parties and Judge Carolyn Carluccio. Court Docket at Sequence #345


PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - IGNORED

6. Failing to act in accordance with Rules of Appellate Procedure 210 Rule 552(e) the Court of Common Pleas neglected to consider or take any action on the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

7. The Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was IGNORED – neither approved nor denied. The court did not indicate any reason.

8. Appellant petitioned the Court to schedule the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on August 19, 2011. Court Docket at Sequence #332

9. Appellant petitioned the Court to schedule the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on September 1, 2011. Court Docket at Sequence #341

10. Appellant refiled a duplicate Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on September 19, 2011. Court Docket at Sequence #350

11. Failing to act in accordance with Rules of Appellate Procedure 210 Rule 554(b), the Montgomery County clerk neglected to transmit a copy of the application under Rule 552; NOR did the clerk transmit notice to the appellate prothonotary of the pendancy thereof for the purposes of this rule.

12. In Accordance with Rules of Appellate Procedure 210 Rule 553, on September 20, 2011, Appellant notified the Superior Court of the Appeal and the failure of the lower court to consider a hearing on the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Superior Court Docket 104 EDM 2011

13. Where the lower court failed to transmit any notice of the appeal to the Superior Court, on October 14, 2011, The Superior Court denied the petition indicating a lack of jurisdiction to act where no appeal was pending. Superior Court Docket 104 EDM 2011


THE APPEAL FILED AUGUST 15, 2011 IS PENDING

14. On October 19, 2011, Judge Carolyn Carluccio filed an Opinion relating to the Appeal. Court Docket at Sequence #355

15. As the Notice of Appeal has been filed and the Superior Court had been notified of the Appeal by the direct filing in Superior Court (# 104 EDM 2011), the Appellant/Defendant had met all of the requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure for filing an Appeal.

16. Pursuant to 210 Rule 1701(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
“Except as otherwise prescribed by these rules, after a appeal is taken or review of a quasijudicial order is sought, the trial court or other government unit may no longer proceed further in the matter.”

17. Jurisdiction for the matter was transferred to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania pending their review and instructions.


PETITION FILED May 18, 2012

18. Appellee/Plaintiff, represented by Angst & Angst, filed a Petition on May 18, 2012. Court Docket at Sequence #356

19. Appellee/Plaintiff, represented by Angst & Angst, failed to serve the Petition to Appellant/Defendant. The court docket confirms this as no certificate of service is filed relating to the petition until after the Short List Conference on July 10, 2012. Court Docket at Sequence 363

20. Appellant Defendant filed an eleven (11) sentence response to the petition on July 10, 2011 and served it upon Angst & Angst. Court Docket at Seq #360, 361

21. During a Short List Conference on July 10, 2012, Judge Richard Haaz corrected the Appellee/Plaintiff's procedural error and had the petition served upon the Appellant/ Defendant.

22. During the Short List Conference, Judge Richard Haaz addressed the actions of Angst & Angst who had written to Court Administration requesting to have him removed from the matter.

23. During the Short List Conference, Judge Richard Haaz addressed the actions of Angst & Angst who had written to Judge Carolyn Carluccio requesting to have him removed from the matter.

24. During the Short List Conference, Judge Richard Haaz upon learning of the pending appeal recognized his lack of jurisdiction to conduct any proceeding in the matter and deferred to court administration regarding the scheduling of a hearing. Court Docket at Sequence #362

25. The hearing was never scheduled before Judge Haaz.

26. The Pending Appeal was never transmitted to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

27. Appellant/Defendant contacted by phone and wrote to Court Administration questioning the failure to transmit the appeal and the failure to schedule a hearing.

28. Court Administration did not respond..


REASSIGNMENT TO JUDGE PAGE

29. December 13, 2012, the matter was reassigned to Judge Garrett Page and a hearing date scheduled. Court Docket at Sequence 364

30. Appellant/Defendant filed Objections to the Reassignment of the Matter on December 28, 2012. Court Docket at Seq #365

31. Appellant/Defendant filed Objections to the Reassignment of the Matter on January 2, 2013. Court Docket at Seq #366

32. The hearing was scheduled on January 3, 2013. Court Docket at Sequence #368

33. The hearing was rescheduled on January 18, 2013. Court Docket at Sequence #369

32. The hearing was rescheduled on January 17, 2013. Court Docket at Sequence #370

33. The hearing was rescheduled on January 18, 2013. Court Docket at Sequence #371

34. The hearing was rescheduled on January 24, 2013. Court Docket at Sequence #372

35. The hearing was rescheduled on January 29, 2013. Court Docket at Sequence #373

36. The hearing was rescheduled on January 30, 2013. Court Docket at Sequence #374

37. The hearing was rescheduled on February 1, 2013. Court Docket at Sequence #375

38. During a hearing held on February 11, 2013 Judge Page failed to address the lack of jurisdiction to proceed during the pending appeal. The half day scheduled did not allow enough time for the Defendant to present and the matter was continued.

"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist."
Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

"There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction."
Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.

"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.

When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory.
Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, (Colo. 1994).

38. The continued hearing was rescheduled on February 12, 2013. Court Docket at Sequence #376

39. The continued hearing was rescheduled on February 13, 2013. Court Docket at Sequence #377

40. The continued hearing was rescheduled on February 19, 2013. Court Docket at Sequence #378

41. During a hearing held on February 20, 2013, Judge Page failed to address the challenge to jurisdiction to proceed during the pending appeal.


THE ORDER OF APRIL 3, 2013

42. On April 3, 2013, Judge Page issued an order which neglects to indicate any elements of proper jurisdiction during the pending appeal.

"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist."
Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

"There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction."
Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.

"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.

When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory.
Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, (Colo. 1994).

43. The Order of April 3, 2013, seeks to assign a penalty to the Appellant/Defendant for a contempt which did not occur. Appellant/Defendant followed the Order of September 23, 2013 and the verbal order of the court and left the possessions in the exact location on the dates specified.

44. Appellant/Defendant has a history of following every order issued by the court and promptly documenting with the court any issues or exceptions.

45. Appellee/Plaintiff has NOT followed ANY order of this court at any time, with the exception of scheduling orders. EVERY petition to the court to enforce compliance by the Appellee/Plaintiff was dismissed.

46. The penalty in excess of $300,000 represents an amount which the Appellant/Defendant would have no capability to pay. Appellent/Defendant has been unemployed since March 2007.

47. The penalty is a contempt penalty. A contempt penalty could result in incarceration for non-payment.

48. The penalty multiplied by a daily count fails to address the courts not scheduling a timely hearing.

49. The penalty is based on an Order of September 23, 2013, for a petition filed on September 22, 2013, never served upon the Appellant/Defendant; and then withdrawn on September 28, 2013.

50. On September 23, 2013, the petitions scheduled to be heard which were filed by the Appellant/Defendant were intended to prevent irreparable harm and damage to marital assets and individual property.

51. The parties were in court on September 23, 2013 as multiple petitions had been scheduled, continued and rescheduled before Judge Carluccio. The Appellant/Defendants scheduled petitions were all summarily dismissed and the new matter filed September 22, 2013 was heard... ORDERED... And then withdrawn. Court Docket at Sequence 351, 352, 353


SEPTEMBER 23, 2011

On September 23, 2011, in the court of Judge Carolyn Carluccio, who had deliberately and intentionally issued a defective and void order with the knowledge that everyone would follow the order without regard for proper jurisdiction, I was surrounded by 5 deputies in the courtroom.

I was informed that my home had been illegally sold and all of my possessions had been thrown away. I had persevered through 5 years of constant litigation, threats, harassment and false allegations and terror. I had represented myself through a divorce which had been before 15 judges of the Montgomery County Judiciary. The defective and void divorce decree had left me homeless and destitute. It was clear that Carolyn Carluccio wanted my suicide.

The July 18, 2011 order authorized the destruction of my property if not removed from the residence by the closing date of the sale. I had been prevented from learning the closing date and had filed numerous documents with the court to learn the information

Judge Carluccio then ordered me under penalty of contempt to endorse multiple insurance checks for claims I had not made.

Judge Carluccio then ordered me under penalty of contempt to endorse the checks exchanged during the closing on the home.

Closing had occurred on September 20, 2011. Proceedings originally scheduled for September 20, 2011 had been rescheduled to September 23, 2011 included petitions to address the failure of the Appellee/Plaintiff to provide any information on the sale of the home.


A NESTED LACK OF JURISDICTION

52. The courts jurisdiction was challenged on September 23, 2011 and not addressed by the Court. Jurisdiction was not only procedurally defective, but the Court was basing its orders on a previous order which lacked proper jurisdiction issued on July 18, 2011.

"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist."
Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

"There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction."
Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.

"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.

When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory.
Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, (Colo. 1994).

53. The Order of July 18, 2011 was based on new matters filed on July 14, 2011 and not served upon the Appellant/Defendant. Jurisdiction was not only procedurally defective, but the Court was basing it's order on a previous order which lacked proper jurisdiction issued on May 9, 2011.

54. Jurisdiction was challenged on July 18, 2011 and not addressed by the Court. The procedural failure to follow due process and procedure was presented and ignored by the Court. Transcript at Sequence #323

"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist."
Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

"There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction."
Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.

"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.

When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory.
Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, (Colo. 1994).

55. The Court neglected to address the procedurally defective and void order EVERY time it was presented. Each challenge of proper jurisdiction was ignored. Testimony and evidence was presented at every opportunity, yet the issue was never addressed in any order or opinions.


PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE AND VOID ORDER OF May 9, 2011

56. The Opinion filed by Judge Carluccio neglects to indicate address the challenge of proper jurisdiction to issue the Order of May 9, 2011.

57. The Court has been notified that the order was procedurally defective and the court lacked jurisdiction on June 6, 2011. Court Docket at Sequence #305

58. The Court has been notified that the order was procedurally defective and the court lacked jurisdiction on June 9, 2011. Court Docket at Sequence #311

59. The Court has been notified that the order was procedurally defective and the court lacked jurisdiction on July 18, 2011. Court Docket at Sequence #323

60. The Court neglected to take any action to address or correct the defect in the order.

61. The Appellee/Plaintiff, represented by Angst & Angst, neglected to take any action to address of correct the defect in the order.


NO EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTS JURISDICTION

62. It is undisputed that the requirements of procedural due process have not been met and that the court was without jurisdiction to issue the order of May 9, 2011.

63. There has been no evidence presented or testimony provided which addresses the challenge to the court's jurisdiction to issue the order of May 9, 2011.

“The burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it.”
Bindell v City of Harvey, 212 Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist 1991)

64. The court has failed to demonstrate the court's jurisdiction and ignored the question of jurisdiction to issue the order of May 9, 2011..

“Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.”
Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 Fsupp. 150

“The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.”
Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416


“...However late this objection [to jurisdiction] has been made, or may be made in any cause, in an inferior or appellate court of the United States, it must be considered and decided, BEFORE any court can move ONE FURTHER STEP IN THE CAUSE; as any movement is necessarily the exercise of jurisdiction.”
Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 657, 718, 9 L.Ed. 1233 (1838).


EVIDENCE IN THE COURT RECORD

65. The evidence of the procedural defect of the order of May 9, 2011 is part of the court record and is clearly visible on the court docket.

“If the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.”
Norman v. Zieber, 3 Or at 202-03


FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

66. The Order of May 9, 2011 is docketed at sequence number #2007-12477-304.

Rule 1920.42(a)
(a) If a complaint has been filed requesting a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and
(1) both parties have filed an affidavit under 3301(c) of the Divorce Code substantially in the form prescribed by Rule 1920.72(b), or
(2) either party has filed a 3301(d) affidavit under 3301(d) of the Divorce Code substantially in the form prescribed by Rule 1920.72(d) the averments of which the other party has admitted or failed to deny,
the prothonotary on praecipe in the form prescribed by Rule 1920.73(b) shall transmit the record to the court, which shall review the record and enter an appropriate decree. No Master shall be appointed.

67. Neither party filed any affidavit under 3301(c) of the Divorce Code substantially in the form prescribed by Rule 1920.72(b).

68. Neither party filed any affidavit under 3301(d) of the Divorce Code substantially in the form prescribed by Rule 1920.72(d).

Rule 1920.42(b)
(b) The affidavit required by 3301(c) of the Divorce Code must have been executed
(1) ninety days or more after both filing and service of the complaint.
(2) within thirty days of the date the affidavit was filed.

69. Rule 1920.42(b) clearly indicates the REQUIREMENT of the affidavit.

70. Neither party filed any affidavit under 3301(c) at any time in the matter.

Rule 1920.42(c)
(c) An affidavit of consent may be withdrawn only with leave of court.

71. Neither party filed any affidavit of consent at any time in the matter.

72. Neither party requested leave of court to withdraw any affidavit of consent at any time in the matter.

Rule 1920.42(d)
(d)(1) Except as provided in (e), no decree shall be entered by the court under 3301(c) or 3301(d)(1)(i) of the Divorce Code unless a notice of intention to request entry of divorce decree, substantially in the form prescribed by Rule 1920.73(a) was mailed or delivered to the attorney of record of the party against whom the decree is to be entered or, if there is no attorney of record, to the party, at least twenty days prior to the date of the filing of the praecipe to transmit the record. The praecipe which shall state the date and manner of service of the notice, a copy of which shall be attached.

(d)(2) If the party against whom the decree is to be entered has no attorney of record, the notice required by subdivision (d)(1) shall be accompanied by a form counter-affidavit substantially in the form prescribed by Rule 1920.72(e).

73. A Notice of Intention to Request Entry of Divorce Decree in the matter was not mailed, delivered, filed or served at least twenty days prior to the date of the filing of the praecipe to transmit the record.

74. A Notice of Intention to Request Entry of Divorce Decree in the matter was not mailed, delivered, filed or served at any time prior to the date of the issuance of the order of May 9, 2011.

75. A Praecipe to Transmit the Record in the matter was not written, mailed, delivered, filed or served.

Rule 1920.42(e)
(e) Notice of intention to request entry of divorce decree shall not be required prior to entry of a divorce decree
(1) where the parties have executed and filed with the prothonotary a waiver of notice substantially in the form set forth in rule 1920.72(c); or
(2) under 3301(d) where the court finds that no appearance has been entered on defendant's behalf and that the defendant cannot be located after diligent search.

76. No Waiver or Affidavit of Consent pursuant to Rule 1920.42(e) was filed by any party at any time during the course of the matter.


THE OPINION FILED IN THE AUGUST 15, 2011 APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT

77. The Opinion filed on October 19, 2011 by Judge Carolyn Carluccio after receiving the Concise Statement of Errors Complained of On Appeal neglects to address any of the issues presented in the concise statement.

78. The Opinion filed on October 19, 2011 by Judge Carolyn Carluccio presents a single argument misrepresenting that the appeal is untimely.

79. The Opinion filed on October 19, 2011 by Judge Carolyn Carluccio fails to recognize that the Rules of Civil Procedure have not been followed; the order is procedurally defective and void ab initio.

80. The Court is only authorized by statute to enter a divorce decree after one of the parties requests the entry of a divorce decree. Neither party requested the entry of the divorce decree pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure – The Divorce Code.

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. Thus, if a court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void. The lack of statutory authority to make particular order or a judgment is akin to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and is subject to collateral attack.
46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments § 25, pp. 388-89.

81. The Order of May 9, 2011 was issued without proper authorization by statute and is therefore procedurally defective and void.

Void judgments are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction, either of the subject matter or the parties.
Wahl v. Round Valley Bank 38 Ariz. 411, 300 P. 955 (1931); Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146 P. 203 (1914); and Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 2d 278 (1940).

Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.
Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Klugh v. U.S., 20 F.Supp. 892(D.S.C. 1985).

Void judgment is one where court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or entry of order violated due process.
U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).

A void judgment has no effect whatsoever and is incapable of confirmation or ratification, Lucas v. Estate of Stavos, 609 N. E. 2d 1114, rehearing denied, and transfer denied (Ind. App. 1 dist. 1993).

Void judgment is one that from its inception is a complete nullity and without legal effect Stidham V. Whelchel, 698 N.E.2d 1152 (Ind. 1998).

Void judgment may be defined as one in which rendering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, lacked personal jurisdiction or acted in manner inconsistent with due process of law.
Eckel v. MacNeal, 628 N.E. 2d 741 (Ill. App. Dist. 1993).

Relief form void judgment is available when trial court lacked either personal or subject matter jurisdiction, Dusenberry v. Dusenberry, 625 N.E. 2d 458 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1993).

Void judgment is one rendered by court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in manner inconsistent with due process, U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5, 14 Matter of Marriage of Hampshire, 869 P.2d 58 ( Kan. 1997).

Judgment is void if court that rendered it lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction; void judgment is nullity and may be vacated at any time,.
Matter of Marriage of Welliver, 869 P.2d 653 (Kan. 1994).

A void judgment is one rendered by a court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.
In re Estate of Wells, 983 P.2d 279, (Kan. App. 1999).

Void judgment is one rendered in absence of jurisdiction over subject matter or parties.
310 N.W. 2d 502, (Minn. 1981).

A void judgment is one rendered in absence of jurisdiction over subject matter or parties.
Lange v. Johnson, 204 N.W.2d 205 (Minn. 1973).

A void judgment is one which has a mere semblance, but is lacking in some of the essential elements which would authorize the court to proceed to judgment.
Henderson v. Henderson, 59 S.E. 2d 227, (N.C. 1950).

Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction to enter such judgment.
State v. Blankenship 675 N.E. 2d 1303, (Ohio App. 9 Dist. 1996).

A void judgment is one which shows upon face of record a want of jurisdiction in court assuming to render the judgment.
Underwood v. Brown, 244 S.W. 2d 168 (Tenn. 1951).

A Void judgment is one which shows upon face of record want of jurisdiction in court assuming to render judgment, and want of jurisdiction may be either of person, subject matter generally, particular question to be decided or relief assumed to be given.
State ex rel. Dawson v. Bomar, 354 S.W. 2d 763, certiorari denied, (Tenn. 1962).

A void judgment is one in which the judgment is facially invalid because the court lacked jurisdiction or authority to render the judgment.
State v. Richie, 20 S.W.3d 624 (Tenn. 2000).

A void judgment is one which shows on face of record the want of jurisdiction in court assuming to render judgment, which want of jurisdiction may be either of the person, or of the subject matter generally, or of the particular question attempted to decided or relief assumed to be given.
Richardson v. Mitchell, 237 S.W. 2d 577, (Tenn.Ct. App. 1950).

Void judgment is one which has no legal force or effect whatever, it is an absolute nullity, its invalidity may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place and it need not be attacked directly but may be attacked collaterally whenever and wherever it is interposed.
City of Lufkin v. McVicker, 510 S.W. 2d 141 (Tex. Civ. App. – Beaumont 1973).

A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties.
Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987)

A void judgment is a judgment, decree, or order entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter, or which lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved.
State ex rel. Turner v. Briggs, 971 P.2d 581 (Wash. App. Div. 1999).

Void judgments generally fall into two classifications, that is, judgments where there is want of jurisdiction of person or subject matter, and judgments procured through fraud, and such judgments may be attacked directly or collaterally.
Irving v. Rodriquez, 169 N.E.2d 145, (Ill.app. 2 Dist. 1960).

Invalidity need to appear on face of judgment alone that judgment or order may be said to be intrinsically void or void on its face, if lack of jurisdiction appears from the record.
Crockett Oil Co. v. Effie, 374 S.W.2d 154 ( Mo.App. 1964).

In order for a judgment to be void, there must be some jurisdictional defect in the court's authority to enter the judgment, either because the court lacks personal jurisdiction or because it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.
Puphal v. Puphal, 105 Idaho 302, 306, 669 P.2d 191, 195 (1983); Dragotoiu, 133 Idaho at 647, 991 P.2d at 379.

Decision is void on the face of the judgment roll when from four corners of that roll, it may be determined that at least one of three elements of jurisdiction was absent: (1) jurisdiction over parties, (2) jurisdiction over subject matter, or (3) jurisdictional power to pronounce particular judgment hat was rendered.
B & C Investments, Inc. v. F & M Nat. Bank & Trust, 903 P.2d 339 (Okla. App. Div. 3, 1995).

Void order may be attacked, either directly or collaterally, at any time, In re Estate of Steinfield, 630 N.E.2d 801, certiorari denied, See also Steinfeld v. Hoddick, 513 U.S. 809, (Ill. 1994).

A void judgment or order is one that is entered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacking the inherent power to enter the particular order or judgment, or where the order was procured by fraud, In re Adoption of E.L., 733 N.E.2d 846, (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 2000).

Void judgments are those rendered by court which lacked jurisdiction, either of subject matter or parties.
Cockerham v. Zikratch, 619 P.2d 739 (Ariz. 1980).

“If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't the authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void.”
Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.

“The judgments were based on orders which were void because the court exceeded its jurisdiction in entering them. Where a court, after acquiring jurisdiction of a subject matter, as here, transcends the limits of the jurisdiction conferred, its judgment is void.”
Flake v. Pretzel, 381 Ill. 498, 46 N.E.2d 375 (1943)

Void order which is one entered by court which lacks jurisdiction over parties or subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter judgment, or order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that party is properly before court.
People ex rel. Brzica v. Village of Lake Barrington, 644 N.E.2d 66 (Ill.App. 2 Dist. 1994).

While voidable orders are readily appealable and must be attacked directly, void order may be circumvented by collateral attack or remedied by mandamus.
Sanchez v. Hester, 911 S.W.2d 173, (Tex.App. – Corpus Christi 1995).

Arizona courts give great weight to federal courts’ interpretations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governing motion for relief from judgment in interpreting identical text of Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure.
Estate of Page v. Litzenburg, 852 P.2d 128, review denied (Ariz.App. Div. 1, 1998).

A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.]
Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).

"A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property."
Norwood Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio."
In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.

"Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term."
Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.

82. The Order of May 9, 2011 is void, it is no judgment at all and can have no effect.

A void judgment is one which from the beginning was complete nullity and without any legal effect.
Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 485 F.Supp. 456 (M.D. Fla. 1980).

Void judgment is one that, from its inception, is complete nullity and without legal effect, Holstein v. City of Chicago, 803 F.Supp. 205, reconsideration denied 149 F.R.D. 147, affirmed 29 F.3d 1145 (N.D. Ill 1992).

A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was, was a complete nullity and without legal effect.
Rubin v. Johns, 109 F.R.D. 174 (D. Virgin Islands 1985).

A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect,
Lubben v. Selevtive Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 298 (C.A. 1 Mass. 1972).

A void judgment is a simulated judgment devoid of any potency because of jurisdictional defects only, in the court rendering it and defect of jurisdiction may relate to a party or parties, the subject matter, the cause of action, the question to be determined, or relief to be granted, Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 330 P.2d 1116, certiorari denied 79 S.Ct. 609, 359 U.S. 926, 3 L.Ed. 2d 629 (Colo. 1958).

A void judgment is one which, from its inception, is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind the parties or to support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of enforcement in any manner or to any degree.
Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So. 2d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).

A void judgment is one which has merely semblance, without some essential element, as when court purporting to render is has no jurisdiction.
Mills v. Richardson, 81 S.E. 2d 409, (N.C. 1954).

Res judicata consequences will not be applied to a void judgment which is one which, from its inception, is a complete nullity and without legal effect.
Allcock v. Allcock 437 N.E. 2d 392 (Ill. App. 3 Dist. 1982).

“A void judgment is no judgment at all and is without legal effect.”
Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir. 1974)

A void judgment, insofar as it purports to be pronouncement of court, is an absolute nullity, Thompson v. Thompson, 238 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App. – Waco 1951).

Void judgment is one which, from its inception is complete nullity and without legal effect In re Marriage of Parks, 630 N.E. 2d 509 (Ill.App. 5 Dist. 1994).

Void judgment is one entered by court that lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, and it may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally; such a judgment would be a nullity.
People v. Rolland 581 N.E.2d 907, (Ill.App. 4 Dist. 1991).

83. There is no time limit when a judgment is void. The Judgment may be challenged at any time.

A “void” judgment as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack (thus here, by ).

Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction of parties or subject matter or that lacks inherent power to make or enter particular order involved and such a judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally,
People v. Wade, 506 N.W.2d 954 (Ill. 1987).

Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction of parties or subject matter or that lacks inherent power to make or enter particular order involved; such judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally
People v. Sales, 551 N.E.2d 1359 (Ill.App. 2 Dist. 1990).

No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen the old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been. 10/13/58 FRITTS v. KRUGH. SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97.


"A judgment is void if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. A void judgment is a nullity and may be vacated at any time."
261 Kan. at 862.

A motion to set aside a judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction is not subject to the time limitations of Rule 60(b).
Garcia v. Garcia, 712 P.2d 288 (Utah 1986).

Party can attack subject matter jurisdiction at anytime in the proceeding, even raising jurisdiction for the first time on appeal.
State v. Begay, 734 P.2d 278.

There is no time limit when a judgment is void:
Precision Eng. V. LPG, C.A. 1st (1992) 953 F.2d 21 at page 22, Meadows v. Dominican Republic CA 9th (1987) 817 F.2d at page 521, In re: Center Wholesale, Inc. C.A. 10th (1985) 759 F.2d 1440 at page 1448, Misco Leasing v. Vaughn CA 10th (1971) 450 F.2d 257, Taft v. Donellen C.A. 7th (1969) 407 F.2d 807, and Bookout v. Beck CA 9th (1965) 354 F.2d 823. See also, Hawkeye Security Ins. V. Porter, D.C. Ind. 1982, 95 F.R.D. 417, at page 419, Saggers v. Yellow Freight D.C. Ga. (1975) 68 F.R.D. 686 at page 690, J.S. v. Melichar D.C. Wis. (1972) 56 F.R.D. 49, Ruddies v. Auburn Spark Plug. 261 F. Supp. 648, Garcia v. Garcia, Utah 1986 712 P.2d 288 at page 290, and Calasa v. Greenwell, (1981) 633 P.2d 555 at page 585, 2 Hawaii 395. “Judgment was vacated as void after 30 years in entry,” Crosby. V. Bradstreet, CA 2nd (1963) 312 F.2d 483 cert. denied 83 S.Ct. 1300, 373 US 911, 10 L. Ed. 2.d 412. “Delay of 22 years did not bar relief,” U.S. v. Williams, D.C. Ark. (1952) 109 F.Supp. 456.

Although Rule 60(b)(4) is ostensibly subject to the "reasonable" time limit of Rule 60(b), at least one court has held that no time limit applies to a motion under the Rule 60(b)(4) because a void judgment can never acquire validity through laches. See Crosby v. Bradstreet Co., 312 F.2d 483 (2nd Cir.) cert. denied, 373 U.S. 911, 83 S.Ct. 1300, 10 L.Ed.2d 412 (1963) where the court vacated a judgment as void 30 years after entry.
Marquette Corp. v. Priester, 234 F.Supp. 799 (E.D.S.C.1964) where the court expressly held that clause Rule 60(b)(4) carries no real time limit.

84. Each attempt to have the Court address current and prior jurisdiction was ignored.

"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist."
Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

"There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction."
Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.

"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.

When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory.
Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, (Colo. 1994).

85. Once brought to the attention of the court., the court must vacate the judgment entered in excess of it's jurisdiction.

“A court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction.”
Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972)

Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside.
Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994. 158 F.R.D. 278.

86. A void judgment is devoid of any potency or authority.

A judgment shown by evidence to be invalid for want of jurisdiction is a void judgment or at all events has all attributes of a void judgment.
City of Los Angeles v. Morgan, 234 P.2d 319 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1951).

Void judgment which is subject to collateral attack, is simulated judgment devoid of any potency because of jurisdictional defects.
Ward v. Terriere, 386 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1963).

87. A judgment made without proper jurisdiction can never be a valid judgment.

"A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court".
OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).


TREASON

88. “... When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act of treason”.
Cohens v Virginia 19 U.S. 264, 404, 5 L.Ed. 257, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821)


JUDICIAL IMMUNITY

89. Whereas, officials and even judges have no immunity (See, Owen vs. City of Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398; Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502; and Hafer vs. Melo, 502 U.S. 21; officials and judges are deemed to know the law and sworn to uphold the law; officials and judges cannot claim to act in good faith in willful deprivation of law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law, even the Citizen cannot plead ignorance of the law, the courts have ruled there is no such thing as ignorance of the law, it is ludicrous for learned officials ansd judges to plead ignorance of the law therefore there is no immunity, judicial or otherwise, in matters of rights secured by the Constitution for the United States of America. See: Title 42 U.S.C Sec 1983.

90. “Personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights is prerequisite to award of damages, but defendant may be personally involved in constitutional deprivation by direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause violation.”
Gallegos v. Haggerty, N.D. of New York, 689 F. Supp. 93 (1988)

91. “A prejudiced, biased judge who tries a case deprives a party adversely affected of due process.” See Nelson v. Cox, 66 N.M. 397.

92. The right to a tribunal free from bias and prejudice is based on the Due Process Clause. Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his/her property, then the judge has engaged in the crime of interference with interstate commerce; the judge has acted in his/her personal capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. See U.S. v. Scinto, 521 F.2d 842 at page 845, 7th circuit, 1996.

93. In Edwards v. Wiley, 374 P.2d 284, the court ruled and determined that, “Judicial officers are not liable for erroneous exercise of judicial powers vested in them, but they are not immune from liability when they act wholly in excess of jurisdiction.” See also, Vickery v. Dunnivan, 279 P.2d 853, (1955).

94. In Beall v. Reidy, 457 P.2d 376, the court ruled and determined, “Except by consent of all parties a judge is disqualified to sit in trial of a case if he comes within any of the grounds of disqualification named in the Constitution. In Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189, 7th Cir. (1989), the circuit ruled, “Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify, even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification.” Also, when a lower court has no jurisdiction to enter judgment, the question of jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal. See DeBaca v. Wilcox, 68 P. 922.

95. In Sparks v. Duval County Ranch, 604 F.2d 976 (1979), the court ruled and determined that, “No immunity exists for co-conspirators of judge. There is no derivative immunity for extra-judicial actions of fraud, deceit and collusion.”

96. "A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.

97. "Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris." Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.


CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

98. Appellant respectfully informs this court of a related Constitutional Challenge currently in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (#13-4591) in the Federal Court challenging the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct as a situation can occur in the court which results in the denial of rights and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution and prevents any lawful ability to address or resolve the subsequent injustice.

“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, (1803)

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966)

99. Pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure 210 Rules 521, Appellant has notified Attorney General Kathleen Kane of the unaddressable denial of rights in this matter which is attributable to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

100. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is currently before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. A Motion for Rehearing En Banc with a request for Certiori to the US Supreme Court if the Third Cicruit Court is prohibited by law from addressing the constitutionality of Rule 1.6.


FEDERALLY

101. Where Rule 60(b)(4) is properly invoked on the basis that the underlying judgment is void, "'relief is not a discretionary matter; it is mandatory.'"
Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, 1310 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting V.T.A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc., 597 F.2d 220, 224 n.8 (10th Cir. 1979)).

102. A judgment is void, and therefore subject to relief under Rule 60(b)(4), only if the court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction or in circumstances in which the court's action amounts to a plain usurpation of power constituting a violation of due process.
United States v. Boch Oldsmobile, Inc., 909 F.2d 657, 661 (1st Cir. 1990)

103. Void judgment under federal law is one in which rendering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over dispute or jurisdiction over parties, or acted in manner inconsistent with due process of law or otherwise acted unconstitutionally in entering judgment, U.S.C.A. Const. Amed. 5, Hays v. Louisiana Dock Co., 452 n.e.2D 1383 (Ill. App. 5 Dist. 1983).


OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

104. The actions of Judge Carolyn Carluccio to prevent the Appeal from being transmitted represents a conspiracy to obstruct justice in this matter.

105. Upon receiving the Concise Statement of Errors Complained of On Appeal for the Order of April 3, 2013, Judge Garrett Page rescinded the Order to Proceed In Forma Pauperis without holding any proceeding or offering any explanation.

106. Upon recieving the Concise Statement of Errors Complained of On Appeal for the Order of April 3, 2013, Judge Garrett Page contacted the Court Reporters who had been served with a REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPTS and instructed them not to provide the transcripts of hearings as he was rescinding his In Forma Pauperis Order.

107. A Petition for the Production of Evidence regarding the revocation of the In Forma Pauperis Status was filed on May 28, 2013. This petition was ignored. Court Docket at Sequence #400

108. A Petition to Schedule a Hearing on the Ex Parte Order of May 21, 2013 was filed on May 28, 2013. This petition was ignored. Court Docket at Sequence #401

109. A Petition Requesting an Explanation and Reason for the Prothonotary's Failure To Act on the Appeal Filed August 15, 2011 was filed on May 28, 2013. This Petition was ignored. Court Docket at Sequence# 402

110. When attempting to file a Notice Of Appeal regarding the Order of May 21, 2013, the Prothonotary refused to accept the appeal. Court Docket at Sequence #406

111. The Prothonotary indicated I would need In Forma Pauperis Status to file an appeal of the order which rescinded In Forma Pauperis status. This represents undo hardship and denial of access to the courts.

112. When the Court Record was transmitted to the Superior Court, the exhibits for the hearing in this specific matter were not included.

113. Appellant filed a Motion to Compel Production of the Complete Record with the Superior Court. The Motion was denied.

114. All Petitions filed with the Montgomery County Court were being ignored.

115. The Failure of the Court Report to provide the Exhibits in this case to the Superior Court prevents the proper review of the case by the Superior Court.


OPINION DATED JUNE 28, 2013

116. The Opinion filed by Judge Page relevant to this appeal is based on the refusal to address the lack of jurisdiction caused by the Appeal of the defective and void Order of May 9, 2011.

117. Judge Page's Opinion deliberately neglects and failure to include any reference to the evidence and testimony regarding the defective and void orders in this matter. A review of this matter for the number of times the courrt has been asked to address these jurisdictional failures demonstrates a conspiracy to deny justice, to obstruct and prevent constitutionally protected rights and to involve county agencies and personnel in the actions.

118. The defective and void Order of May 9, 2011 causes a continuing loss of rights as the void and defective document can be presented to undermine any judicial proceedings and adversely affect the integrity of a judge who acts to conceal the injustice.

119. The District Attorney has failed to act to address this corruption within the Montgomery County Judiciary, and the collateral crimes which are enabled by the judges misdeeds.

120. The Attorney General of Pennsylvania has failed to act to address this corruption within the Montgomery County Judiciary, and the collateral crimes which are enabled by the judges misdeeds.

121. Local, state and federal law enforcement refused to act to address the injustice and corruption caused and concealed by the Montgomery County Judiciary.

122. It is the overall failure of the judiciary, law enforcement and legal professionals to address the injustice caused in cases like this that lead to the realization that all were observing Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the result was the denial of rights and privileges protected by the United States Constitution.


Appellant respectfully submits this document in this matter and requests the Superior Court take the following actions on review of the case.

A. STRIKE the defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

B. STRIKE all subsequent orders based on or related to the defective and void Order of May 9, 2011.

C. STRIKE the Order of April 3, 2013 [the subject of this appeal] as this Order places the Appellants freedom in jeopardy.

D. ORDER the production of the transcripts in this matter by the Court Reporters.


RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Terance Healy
Warrington, PA 18976