Superior Court: Expose the Corruption or Join the Conspiracy

Superior Court Memorandum by Donohue (Annotated) PDF Version

J-A25010-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

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

Appeal from the Order entered April 5, 2013,
Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County,
Civil Division at No. 2007-12477

BEFORE: DONOHUE, WECHT and PLATT*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.:
FILED OCTOBER 27, 2014

JURISDICTION for the Defective and Void Order of May 9, 2011 is AGGRESSIVELY IGNORED by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Jurisdiction for the Order of May 9, 2011 has been challenged. The procedural defects which cause a lack of jurisdiction have been presented in every subsequent document, every subsequent proceeding, and every subsequent appeal. - The statement of jurisdiction was NOT PROVIDED by Judge Carluccio. - The statement of jurisdiction was NOT PROVIDED by Judge Page. - The statement of jurisdiction was NOT PROVIDED by Angst & Angst. THE COURT LACKED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE ORDER PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA LAW. WHEN CHALLENGED, JURISDICTION MUST BE PROVEN - NOT IMAGINED... NOT IGNORED. Judge Carluccio, Judge Page, and Angst & Angst have persisted in lawlessness, corruption and unconstitutional actions which have caused the matter before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Collectively, their complete failure to substantiate jurisdiction REQUIRES the Superior Court to expose their corruption OR to join their conspiracy. To assist the Supreme Court Judiciary ... A NOTICE OF THE UNAVAILABILITY OF SIGNED DOCUMENTS was filed on October 30, 2014. A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION was filed on October 30, 2014. A NOTICE OF ANNOTATED VERSION OF THE MEMORANDUM FILED OCTOBER 27, 2014 will be filed this week, A NOTICE OF APPEAL will be filed this week. A MOTION FOR EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION OF THE ORDER OF MAY 9, 2011 will be filed this week and served upon The Superior Court, The Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio, Judge Garrett Page, Judge Richard Haaz, Mark Levy (Prothonotary), and the Prothonotary's Divorce Clerk. - the Motion will demand service of an additional copy to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania A letter will be sent to the Superior Court President Judge Susan Piekes Gantman, Judge Christine L. Donohoe, Judge David N. Wecht, and Judge William H. Platt, Joseph D. Seletyn (Prothonotary), and Philip Yoon; and filed with the Superior Court Prothonotary with copies to PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane, and the US-Department of Justice.

THE FOLLOWING ANNOTATED DOCUMENT DEMONSTRATES THE DELIBERATE, INTENTIONAL, AND AT TIMES AGGRESSIVE AND INSULTING NATURE OF DISINFORMATION IN THE MEMORANDUM BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. THE AUTHOR OF THE UNSIGNED DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTED TO "DONOHOE" HUMILIATES AND EMBARRASSES THE JUDICIARY OF THE SUPERIOR COURT BY DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL NEGLECT, DISREGARD OF THE LOWER COURT RECORD, MISAPPLICATION OF LAW, AND GENERAL DISINFORMATION TACTICS. THE DEMONSTRATED INTENTIONAL DISREGARD AND IRREFUTABLE AVOIDANCE OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE BY THE SUPERIOR COURT IN THIS DOCUMENT IS REPREHENSIBLE. THIS DOCUMENT EXAMINES THE DELIBERATE AND CRIMINAL ABUSE OF POWER UNDER COLOR OF LAW WITH INTENT TO INFLICT EMOTIONAL DISTRESS WHILE CONCEALING AND CONSPIRING TO PROTECT AND PERPETUATE JUDICIAL CORRUPTION BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Appellant, TERANCE HEALY, was NOT NOTIFIED of the scheduling for ARGUMENT in this matter. Appellee was NOTIFIED. ANGST & ANGST acknowledged the scheduling for ARGUMENT in this matter. While the Superior Court staff has acted with purpose to exclude the Appellant, they have provided the Appellee with the opportunity to present information in support of jurisdiction which clearly did not occur. The ex parte ARGUMENT Session permitted the opportunity for the Superior Court Panel to request the evidence of jurisdiction from the Appellee which clearly did not occur. The meeting is an essential element in a criminal conspiracy.

Terance Healy (“Husband”) appeals pro se from the order entered on April 5, 2013 by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, granting Sonya L. Healy’s (“Wife”) May 18, 2012 petition, which requested that the trial court calculate Husband’s penalty for failing to comply with the trial court’s September 27, 2011 order and offset his remaining share of the marital estate with the fines assessed against him.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

This case presents a procedural quagmire complicated by the Montgomery County Clerk of Courts’ failure to conform to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On May 9, 2011, the trial court issued a divorce decree and equitable distribution order which ended Husband and Wife’s marriage and included specific instructions to Husband and Wife for apportioning the marital property.

The MEMORANDUM neglects to address the jurisdiction of the Order of May 9, 2011.

Following this order, Husband filed numerous petitions with the trial court in an effort to, inter alia, vacate the May 9, 2011 divorce decree and equitable distribution order and prevent the sale of the marital residence.

NUMEROUS PETITIONS = 2. #305 MOTION TO VACATE THE ODER OF MAY 9, 2011 FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. #311 EMERGENCY MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER OF MAY 9, 2011 FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION The MEMORANDUM uses the term 'inter alia' to avoid any reference to the 'procedurally defective and void order of May 9, 2011' or the 'lack of jurisdiction'. A disinformation tactic to avoid any reference to the issue.

On July 14, 2011, Wife filed a response to these petitions and a counter-petition seeking sanctions based on Husband’s frivolous filings. On July 19, 2011, the trial court entered an order requiring Husband and Wife to exchange certain items of martial property and dismissing any remaining petitions as moot, except for Wife’s July 14, 2011 counter-petition for sanctions. Husband continued filing petitions with the trial court seeking, inter alia, to prevent the sale of the marital residence and the exchange of marital property.

Wife's response (?) neglected any response. It was a new matter with procedural defects, lack of service, lack of any certificate of service. Judge Carluccio heard it immediately and ordered verbally and without jurisdiction - based on the defective and void order and continuing with abject disregard for jurisdiction in the matter. Lack of jurisdiction to enforce a defective and void order. Lack of jurisdiction for further action after a 'Final' Order. General lawlessness had enveloped every element of the matter. While aware that I was being terrorized, I persevered and petitioned the court to address the lack of jurisdiction. The malice of Judge Carluccio was evident. The Court record documents every attempt to petition the court for resolution and the neglect and disregard by the Court. Documenting the actions and petitioning the court for relief seemed to antagonize Judge Carluccio. There was no alternative method but to file and persevere. It is my belief that Judge Carluccio had self-perceived a sense of UNTOUCHABLE OMNIPOTENCE. Career experience with DOJ / US Attorney prevented any federal investigation. Judicial Immunity. President of the Montgomery Bar Association. Her demonstrated lack of knowledge concerning the law. Conflicts of Interest and Ethics were of no concern to her as reported in the newspapers. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality prevented disclosure of fraud, and prevented disclosure where fraud was concealed or continuing. This matter had already been before 15 judges of the Montgomery County bench. (Current Count is 20.) Judge Carluccio may have wanted to be the LAST JUDGE, but she failed to recognize that Angst & Angst had caused and leveraged the impropriety of every judge in this matter... and they would throw her under the bus whenever they wanted.

On August 15, 2011, Husband filed a notice of appeal from the May 9, 2011 divorce decree and equitable distribution order.

The Notice of Appeal included the timeline of motions and petitions attempting to have the Court address the procedural defect which caused the 'divorce decree and equitable distribution order' to be VOID AB INITIO. A defective and void ab initio order is a nullity. ... even when it is a defective and void divorce decree. A procedurally defective and void order may be challenged for up to five (5) years. ... even when it is a procedurally defective and void divorce decree. The passing of time does not provide the court with jurisdiction where it did not exist.

On August 22, 2011, the trial court ordered Husband to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. On September 15, 2011, Husband filed an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement.

WRONG. Tolling begins on August 25, date of entry by the Prothonotary. Service to the court and parties was accomplished TIMELY on September 15, 2011.

On October 19, 2011, the trial court filed its 1925(a) opinion in which it found Husband’s appeal to be untimely and requested that this Court quash the appeal.

The Court neglected the well-documented issues of the procedurally defective and void order. The Court applied the wrong timeframe to the calculation of time. The Court did not provide any statement of jurisdiction, where the court lacked jurisdiction to issue the procedurally defective and void ab initio order. The Court additionally IGNORED EVERY ISSUE INCLUDED IN THE Concise Statement of Errors. Seriously. ALL OF THEM. Seriously. This may explain why the appeal was not sent to the Superior Court.

For reasons that are unclear, the record reflects that the trial court never transmitted Husband’s August 15, 2011 notice of appeal to our Court.

The Appeals Clerk in Norristown made the reason clear in multiple conversations by telephone and in-person. Judge Carluccio had indicated that she was to take no action.

However, the record does reveal that on September 20, 2011, Husband filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with this Court. On October 14, 2011, our Court denied this motion because we had no record of Husband having an appeal pending before this Court.

The filing of the Motion with the Superior Court accomplishes the requirements of notice to the Superior Court of an Appeal pursuant to PA R.A.P. The filing had included the background and the Notice of Appeal which was being neglected. Escaping the hold of the Montgomery County Court was obstructed and prevented.

On September 27, 2011, the trial court granted Wife’s counter-petition for sanctions and denied several of the petitions that Husband had filed subsequent to the July 19, 2011 order.

Wife's 'counter-petition' had not been filed nor served to Husband. The Court lacked jurisdiction to act on the 'counter-petition'. The Court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the procedurally defective and void order. The Court neglected the scheduled petitions which requested the Court to address the lack of jurisdiction. The Court granted everything requested in the 'counter-petition'. Angst & Angst withdrew their 'counter-petition on September 28, 2011. There had been no hearing on the 'counter-petition'. No hearing was ever scheduled. General lawlessness.

The trial court ordered Husband to pay Wife’s attorneys’ fees totaling $13,750.00, which it deducted from his share of the proceeds from the sale of the marital residence. Additionally, the trial court decreed that it would begin fining Husband $100.00 per day for each day that he did not execute the forms necessary for Wife to transfer the retirement account funds that she owed him pursuant to the May 9, 2011 equitable distribution order. The trial court further decreed that it would begin fining Husband another $500.00 per day ($100.00 per item) for each day he failed to return five enumerated pieces of property to Wife.

The items had been placed where the judged had verbally ordered at the time and date ordered. The Court was enforcing a procedurally defective and void order while ignoring the challenge to jurisdiction in all court documents and in objections and in testimony.

There is no method by which the court can be provided with retroactive jurisdiction. After being terrorized and harassed for every minute of every hour of every day since 2007, being submitted to the wrath of the entire Montgomery County judiciary, facing constant vexatious and false allegations, being harassed and investigated, being denied any access or contact with my children, being evicted from my home and left homeless and destitute on the street, without any personal possessions, compelled under duress and threat of contempt to endorse all checks presented without explanations, the courts lack of jurisdiction which had been directly caused by Angst & Angst can only be described by one word. KARMA. Every malicious, spiteful, disrespectful, threatening and intimidating action which occurred on September 23, 2011 while I was surrounded by six (6) county deputies was intended to annihilate my spirit and bring about my suicide. Every attempt to secure the transcript of that day has been prevented by Judge Carluccio whose behavior that day was disgraceful.

On May 18, 2012, Wife filed a petition seeking the enforcement of the September 27, 2011 order, which included a request for the trial court to calculate Husband’s penalties for failing to comply with that order and to reduce Husband’s share of the marital estate in accordance with those penalties. [Wife filed a duplicate petition on May 23, 2012 petition]

Yet, neither Petition nor Duplicate was served on Husband. This is confirmed as NO Certificate of Service appears on the court record. Angst & Angst had sent a copy of their petition to Judge Carluccio with ex parte letters to have the case reassigned. The duplicate resulted where that document was forwarded to the Prothonotary. Angst & Angst's deceptive filing tactics are documented and demonstrated on the court record.

Following this petition, Husband filed numerous additional petitions, including a response and counter-petition to Wife’s May 18, 2012 that, inter alia, sought to prevent the enforcement of the May 9, 2011, July 19, 2011, and September 27, 2011 orders.

This Honorable Court is using the term 'inter alia' to avoid any direct usage of the words - defective, void, jurisdiction, etc. A Disinformation tactic. Husband had filed one (1) response to their petition. The response included 11 sentences. 1. DEFENDANT DOES NOT WAIVE DUE PROCESS AND PROCEDURE REQUIREMENTS 2. PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO SERVE THIS PETITION UPON DEFENDANT 3. DEFENDANT RESPONDS TO PLAINTIFF’S ‘PETITION’ TO REASSIGN THE MATTER ( No Petition - two (2) letters unknown to Judge Haaz.) 4. DEFENDANT REQUESTS CORRECTION OF THE DOCKET FOR DUPLICATE ENTRY 5. DEFENDANT REQUESTS REMOVAL OF ANGST & ANGST FROM THE MATTER – EX PARTE COMMUNICATION – DELIBERATE AND MANIPULATIVE FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS AND PROCEDURE – FRAUD UPON THE COURT – EXTORTION – FORGERY 6. DEFENDANT RESPONSE TO ISSUES LISTED IN THE DOCUMENT REFERENCED IN THE SCHEDULING ORDER 7. VOID – PETITION TO STRIKE JUDGEMENT / ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 8. VOID – PETITION TO STRIKE JUDGEMENT / ORDER OF JULY 18, 2011 9. VOID – PETITION TO STRIKE JUDGEMENT / ORDER OF MAY 9, 2011 10. DEFENDANT REQUESTS THE COURT SCHEDULE HEARINGS ON OUTSTANDING PETITIONS 11. DEFENDANT REQUESTS THE COURT PREPARE AND DELIVER THE APPEAL FILED AUGUST 15, 2011 TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Husband has raised the challenge to court's jurisdiction which remains DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY IGNORED WHILE THE COURT PERSISTS IN IMPROPER ACTIONS. If the court has proper Jurisdiction, then let it be presented for review. If the Court is lacking in proper jurisdiction, then an explanation of why the judiciary is acting in violation of the law, the state constitution and the Constitution of the United States is long overdue. It is not within my power to correct the perversion of law and corruption which the courts have engaged. I have done everything within my power and ability and the law to permit the resolution of these matters. It is NOT my wish to adversely affect the integrity of so many members of the judiciary. I have watched as every member of the Montgomery County Bench sacrificed their integrity to continue a conspiracy of corruption in spite of the truth and justice. Please remember, it is the disinformation by the court and the stubborn refusal to apply the law which has brought this matter to the place where it is currently. The extra-jurisdictional actions of Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio present the opportunity to challenge judicial immunity, and the immunity of the entire Montgomery County bench. I understand why another judge would throw their integrity on the judicial barbecue to conceal the extreme judicial corruption ion this case. BUT, I have no respect for anyone who would do so.

On April 5, 2013, the trial court issued an order granting Wife’s petition and denying Husband’s petitions. The trial court awarded Wife another $5,016.50 in attorneys’ fees. Based on the September 27, 2011 order, the trial court determined that Husband owed fines under that order of $311,726.50. The trial court offset this amount by $180,710.58, which represented Husband’s remaining share of the proceeds from the sale of the marital residence and his share of Wife’s retirement account. The trial court found Husband’s total remaining penalty to be $131,005.92.

The trial court neglected the procedurally defective and void order upon which the orders it sought to enforce were based. Neglect does not provide jurisdiction. Retroactively or foregoing.

On April 29, 2013, Husband filed a notice appeal from the April 5, 2013 order. On May 2, 2013, the trial court ordered Husband to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b). On May 17, 2013, Husband filed a timely Rule 1925(b) statement.
This appeal is presently before our Court.

We begin by pointing out that Husband’s brief is mostly incomprehensible.

The Superior Court has indicated an inability to read the Appellant Brief. The MEMORANDUM descends into a new level of rhetorical foolishness. (THAT is incomprehensible.) WOW... guess which words the Court cannot comprehend. The Court has no knowledge that it is reviewing a 'procedurally defective and void order issued without jurisdiction'. According to the MEMORANDUM rhetoric, a "procedurally defective and void order issued without jurisdiction' is called an 'inter alia'. If there has been no review of the Appellant Brief, the Court should indicate without use of a indirect rhetoric and/or unsubstantiated unsupported insult. Insults will not provide jurisdiction where jurisdiction has never existed.

INCOMPREHENSIBLE: Impossible to comprehend, Impossible to understand, Not able to be understood. EXAMPLE: A thirteen page MEMORANDUM by Judge Donohoe which neglects to address a well-documented lack of jurisdiction, where no evidence of jurisdiction has been provided by the attorney or judges demonstrates an incomprehensible level of rhetoric and effort to conceal and continue injustice under color of law in the Superio Court. EXAMPLE: The level of judicial corruption was incomprehensible.

This Honorable Court's MEMORANDUM is INTENTIONALLY AND DELIBERATELY NEGLIGENT. I am sincerely embarassed and humiliated for Judge Donohoe who has been credited as author. The words 'defective and void order of May 9, 2011' appear throughout the filed Brief and SOMEHOW Judge Donohoe failed to see that she is writing thirteen pages of pure horseshit while avoiding and neglecting the central issue. I pity her for permitting my continued terror without cause or reason. We have not ever met, I was not notified for 'argument' before the panel.

Had it not been for the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion, it would have been impossible to discern what issues Husband is raising on appeal.

The Opinion filed by Judge Page fails to address the issues included in the Concise Statement provided and served to him. He is likely more embarrassed at his scheduling screw ups, his actions around my father's death, his inability for compassion and failure to see the truth, that embarrassing church contractor fraud fiasco where he cost the county millions and shamed the District Attorney, the disrespect shown by Valerie Angst who indicated that the judge was not supposed to have permitted me to testify. Yet, somehow Judge Page also COMPLETELY IGNORED AND NEGLECTED the challenge to jurisdiction.

Additionally, Husband’s brief fails to comply with several of the briefing requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, including, inter alia, the following violations. Husband’s brief is wholly missing the following required sections in his brief: Statement of Jurisdiction, Pa.R.A.P. 2114; Order or Other Determination in Question, Pa.R.A.P. 2115; Statement of Questions Involved, Pa.R.A.P. 2116; Statement of the Case, Pa.R.A.P. 2117; and Summary of the Argument, Pa.R.A.P. 2118. See Husband’s Brief at 3-23. Likewise, Husband has failed to append to his brief the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion and his Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(b), (d). Furthermore, the argument section of Husband’s brief violates several subsections of Rule 2119. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119, Husband’s Brief at 3-23. For example, the argument section of Husband’s brief violates subsection (a) of Rule 2119 because he did not divide it into as many parts as there are questions argued. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), Husband’s Brief at 3-23. Based on the incomprehensible nature of Husband’s brief and the several briefing infractions that he has committed, we would be well within our authority to quash or dismiss this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101; see also Booher v. Olczak, 797 A.2d 342, 344 (Pa. Super. 2002) (“This Court may quash an appeal pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101 if defects in the brief or reproduced record are substantial.”).

We conclude that based upon the substantial defects in Husband’s brief, effective appellate review is impossible and the bulk of his arguments have not been preserved. However, we find that Husband has preserved one issue for review.

WAIT FOR IT.

From what we are able to discern from Husband’s Brief and Rule 1925(b) statement, he consistently complains that the trial court did not have the authority to act on the instant matter following his August 15, 2011 notice of appeal because that appeal was pending before this Court. See Husband’s Brief at 3-4; 1925(b) Statement at 3. Thus, Husband contends that the trial court did not have the jurisdiction to issue the September 27, 2011 order, in which the trial court granted Wife’s counter-petition for sanctions. See id. Husband likewise asserts that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter the April 5, 2013 order, in which the trial court fined him $311,726.50 and offset that amount with his remaining share of the marital estate. See id.

LOL - Prepare for a full and irrelevant extrapolation of statement being attributed to Appellant though actually representative and documented as part of the irrelevant information provided by Appellee - who neglected any information in support of jurisdiction regarding the procedurally defective and void order of May 9, 2011, (aka "inter alia". A Disinformation tactic. This MEMORANDUM could have been three sentences. THE LOWER COURT, ANGST & ANGST, and WIFE HAVE CLEARLY NEGLECTED THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THE COURT's JURISDICTION IN THIS MATTER. ALL ORDERS ENTERED IN THIS MATTER SUBSEQUENT TO, AND INCLUDING, THE ORDER OF MAY 9, 2011 ARE VOID. Jurisdiction returned to the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. Instead, the MEMORANDUM will 'focus' on an extraneous issue for several pages.

In support of this claim, Husband relies on Rule 1701(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides: “Except as otherwise prescribed by these rules, after an 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.” Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a). However, Rule 1701(b)(2) states that “[a]fter an appeal is taken or review of a quasijudicial order is sought, the trial court or other government unit may ... [e]nforce any order entered in the matter, unless the effect of the order has been superseded as prescribed in this chapter.” Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(2). Moreover, our Court has held that “trial court[s] possess inherent power to enforce their orders and decrees by imposing sanctions for failure to comply with their orders. This power is retained even after an appeal is filed, absent supersedeas.” Tanglwood Lakes Cmty. Ass’n v. Laskowski, 616 A.2d 37, 39 (Pa. Super. 1992) (internal citation and quotations omitted) (quoting Travitzky v. Travitzky, 534 A.2d 1081, 1084 n.3 (Pa. Super. 1987)). In regards to a supersedeas, Rule 1731 provides:

(a) General rule. Except as provided by subdivision (b), an appeal from an order involving solely the payment of money shall, unless otherwise ordered pursuant to this chapter, operate as a supersedeas
upon the filing with the clerk of the lower court of appropriate security in the amount of 120% of the
amount found due by the lower court and remaining unpaid. Where the amount is payable over a period
of time, the amount found due for the purposes of this rule shall be the aggregate amount payable
within 18 months after entry of the order.

(b) Domestic relations matters. An appeal from an order of child support, spousal support, alimony,
alimony pendente lite, equitable distribution or counsel fees and costs shall operate as a
supersedeas only upon application to and order of the trial court and the filing of security as required
by subdivision (a). The amount and terms of security shall be within the discretion of the trial court.
Pa.R.A.P. 1731.

We conclude that the trial court did not err by issuing the September 27, 2011 and the April 5, 2013 orders. Husband’s reliance on Rule 1701(a) is misguided. Even though Husband had filed a notice of appeal from the May 9, 2011 equitable distribution order, Rule 1701(b)(2) permitted the trial court to enforce that order. See Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(2). One of the purposes of the September 27, 2011 order was the trial court’s continued attempt to enforce the May 9, 2011 equitable distribution order by requiring Husband to execute documents necessary for a retirement account rollover pursuant to the May 9, 2011 order.
See Trial Court Order, 9/27/11, at 1. Rule 1701(b)(2) likewise permitted the trial court to issue the April 5, 2013 order because the purpose of that order was the enforcement of both the May 9, 2011 equitable distribution order and the September 27, 2011 order. See Trial Court Order, 4/5/13, at 1-3.

Additionally, the trial court did not grant Husband a supersedeas pursuant to Rule 1731(b), which would have stayed the matter before the trial court. Although Husband filed numerous petitions seeking a stay or injunction in the case, the record does not reflect that Husband ever sought, or that the trial court ever granted, a supersedeas pursuant to Rule 1731(b). Therefore, the trial court properly enforced its orders by imposing financial penalties against Husband for his lack of compliance with those orders.

Although Rule 1701(b)(2) permitted the trial court to enforce its orders, we cannot overlook the Montgomery County Clerk of Courts’ failure to comply with Rule 905(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 905(b) requires a Clerk of Courts to “immediately transmit to the prothonotary of the appellate court named in the notice of appeal a copy of the notice of appeal showing the date of receipt, the related proof of service and a receipt showing collection of any docketing fee in the appellate court required under Subdivision (c).” Pa.R.A.P. 905(b). On August 15, 2011, Husband filed a notice of appeal from the May 9, 2011 divorce decree and equitable distribution order. Pursuant to Rule 905(b), the Clerk of Courts should have immediately transmitted the notice of appeal to this Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(b). As stated above, however, this did not occur. Accordingly, the Montgomery County Clerk of Courts failed to comply with Rule 905(b).

The Montgomery County Clerk of Courts’ failure to comply with Rule 905(b) occurred even in the face of several events that should have put the Clerk on notice that Husband filed a notice of appeal that he or she needed to transmit to the Superior Court. For example, the trial court was clearly aware that Husband had filed a notice of appeal. Following the filing of the August 15, 2011 notice of appeal, the trial court ordered Husband to file a Rule 1925(b) statement and issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion.
The Clerk of Courts also should have known there was an issue with Husband’s appeal when this Court denied Husband’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis because our Court had no record of Husband having an appeal pending before the Court. The Clerk of Courts received the order denying Husband’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis as it is part of the certified record on appeal. 2

[In a related matter, Husband also should have realized at this point that the Montgomery County Clerk of Courts did not transmit his appeal to our Court, or, at the very least, that there was a problem with his appeal.]

ANOTHER INSULT? Yea, Husband should have called them every day, every other day for weeks and asked every time Husband filed at the Courthouse. HUSBAND DID. The Superior Court record indicates the deliberate neglect this matter has received. Husband had definitely realized (Did they really just say "should have realized") that there was a problem. Perhaps the Court needs to accept responsibility instead of casting blame improperly. In this regard, HUSBAND will file with this court the realization of this document. Additionally it will be filed in numerous othjer places and the internet.

Therefore, we must determine whether Husband’s rights were adversely affected by the Montgomery County Clerk of Courts’ failure to comply with Rule 905(b). This Court encountered a somewhat similar scenario in Commonwealth v. Seay, 814 A.2d 1240 (Pa. Super. 2003). Seay involved an appellant’s appeal from the denial of his Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition. Id. at 1240-41. The appellant, following his conviction and sentencing, filed a timely notice of appeal, which the Delaware County Clerk of Courts never transmitted to our Court. Id. at 1240. A panel of this Court quashed the appellant’s appeal from the denial of his PCRA petition holding that it was premature because he already had an appeal pending and the PCRA was not applicable until a judgment of sentence became final. Id. at 1241. Accordingly, the panel remanded the case to the trial court with instructions for the Delaware County Clerk of Courts to transmit the appellant’s original notice of appeal to this Court for resolution of his direct appeal. Id.

Here, however, Husband filed his notice of appeal from the May 9, 2011 divorce decree and equitable distribution order on August 15, 2011. Husband’s notice of appeal was clearly untimely.

Wow, they forget that 5-Year-Rule again. Already.

See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (“[T]he notice of appeal required by Rule 902 (manner of taking appeal) shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken.”).

There is no indication that the Notice Of Appeal was filed pursuant to Rule 902.

Husband contends that the May 9, 2011 divorce decree and equitable distribution order was not a final order, and that the trial court did not affirm it as final until the July 19, 2011 order.

A PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE AND VOID AB INITIO ORDER IS A NULLITY AND CANNOT BE A FINAL ORDER. It was necessary to have the Court indicate that it was a "Final Order". On July 18, 2011, Judge Carolyn Carluccio indicated that the procedurally defective and VOID AB INITIO Order of May 9, 2011 was a final order. TRANSCRIPT: Page 20 THE COURT: My order is a final order. MR HEALY: And m,y request for your reconsideration then confirms that, and we'll move with the appeal from that point, then, your Honor. THE COURT: I think you're a little late for an appeal, Mr Healy. Judge Carluccio had delayed scheduling hearings running out an imaginary clock in her head, COMPLETELY FAILING TO REALIZE THAT THE DEFECT PERMITTED 5 YEARS TO FILE FOR RESOLUTION. That hearing continued for another few hours and 80 pages to address the petition filed by Angst & Angst immediately before the hearing. No Service. No Process. They were piling on their corruption and lawlessness in an effort to intimidate and attack their victim all demonstrated in the transcript of that proceeding.

Husband’s argument is meritless because this Court has held that a divorce decree is a final, appealable order. Wilson v. Wilson, 828 A.2d 376, 378 (Pa. Super. 2003).

The procedurally defective and void ab initio divorce decree is still procedurally defective and void.

Our Court explained:
Unless otherwise permitted by statute or rule, an appeal will lie only from a final order. Pa.R.A.P. 341.

A final order has been defined as one which ends the litigation or disposes of the entire case. Pa.R.A.P.
341. Therefore, a pre-divorce decree distributing marital property is interlocutory. It cannot be reviewed until it has been rendered final by the entry of a decree in divorce.

Id. (internal citation omitted). Thus, the May 9, 2011 divorce decree and equitable distribution order was a final, immediately appealable order from which Husband had 30 days to file a notice of appeal. See id.; Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).

YET, at the same time it is a procedurally defective and void order, a nullity, making it an invalid divorce decree and invalid equitable distribution order.

Although we admonish the Clerk of Courts of Montgomery County for failing to transmit Husband’s August 15, 2011 notice of appeal to our Court, the fact remains that Husband’s August 15, 2011 appeal was clearly untimely, and if we had received that appeal, we would have dismissed it, affording him no relief. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).

The lack of jurisdiction would have been a relevant issue. The order would still be void ab initio. There is no way to provide the procedurally defective and void order with proper jurisdiction. Ignoring a lack of jurisdiction does not provide jurisdiction.

Moreover, our analysis of Rule 1701(b)(2) shows that the trial court did have the jurisdiction to enter the September 27, 2011 and April 5, 2013 orders, which Husband now claims are void because he had filed a notice of appeal with the Montgomery County Clerk of Courts.

Nope. A procedurally defective and void order cannot attain spontaneous retroactive jurisdiction by willful ignorance and failure of the court.

Therefore, the Montgomery County Clerk of Courts’ failure to comply with Rule 905(b) had no effect on Husband’s rights or the outcome of the case. Accordingly, we now quash the August 15, 2011 appeal as untimely.

The Court is being silly at this point.

We emphasize that we do not intend for this decision to serve as a means for a Clerk of Courts to sua sponte dismiss untimely notices of appeal. Rule 905(b) mandates that Clerks, upon the filing of a notice of appeal, “immediately transmit to the prothonotary of the appellate court named in the notice of appeal a copy of the notice of appeal[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 905(b). Moreover, our Supreme Court has stated:

[T]o afford the clerk of courts a broad discretionary power to reject defective notices of appeal or to otherwise enforce the rules of appellate procedure would be inconsistent with the nature of the office of the clerk of courts. As this Court has recognized, the powers wielded by the clerk of courts, like those of the prothonotary, are purely ministerial in nature.

Commonwealth v. Williams, __ A.3d __, 2014 WL 3672870 at *4 (Pa.2014). It is the unique factual scenario present in this case that allows us to overcome the Clerk of Courts’ failure to comply with Rule 905(b).
Accordingly, Husband is not entitled to any relief.

WRONG. Jurisdiction is NOT DISCRETIONARY. Where jurisdiction is challenged, jurisdiction must be proven. Perhaps the Court should have read all of the citations in the MOTION TO STRIKE A DEFECTIVE AND VOID ORDER.... or some of them.

Finally, on August 4, 2014, Husband filed a motion for reconsideration of the order this Court entered on July 14, 2014 denying his motion to strike a defective and void order wherein he complains about the orders discussed above. As we have determined, the trial court was well within its authority to issue these orders. Therefore, we deny the motion for reconsideration.

CLEARLY, THE COURT DOES NOT WISH TO ADDRESS THE LACK OF JURISDICTION AND THE IRREPARABLE HARM COMMITTED UNDER COLOR OF LAW WITH INTENT TO CAUSE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

The Order of April 5, 2013 is affirmed. Motion for reconsideration denied. August 15, 2011 appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

This demonstrates why the judges do not sign their documents. This cannot be excused as obstinence. It is harassment by deliberate intentiona chaotic vexatious frivilous litigation.

Now we proceed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/27/2014

Why do they persist with injustice while sacrificing their integrity?

The latest in convoluted disinformation arrived from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Thirteen pages of a complete disregard for the issue, and absence of facts.

Why do they persist in the foolishness of ignoring the issue. It's no game for me.

Their fraud has corrupted the entire Montgomery County Bench, the Eastern District Court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and revealed a systemic problem throughout every state and federal judiciary regarding fraud.

It has demonstrated the complete failure of every level of state and federal government - politicians and law enforcement - to take ANY action to preserve, protect, defend, support or enforce, the United States Constitution. Responsibility for the Constitutional Crisis in the US rests with the Judicial Branch - undermined and usurped by the American Bar Association.

A problem created when the American Bar Association decided it was ethical to commit fraud and made it illegal to disclose it. Fraud is not ethical, moral or legal. Concealing it from the victim, the courts and law enforcement while obstructing justice is a violation of constitutional rights. Even when somehow the ABA convinced the supreme courts in every state to 'go along'. The victim of the 'fraud' injustice will end up 1) Homeless/Destitute, 2) Incarcerated, or 3) Suicide.

A deliberately defective order issued without jurisdiction which has been repeatedly enforced and acted upon while the court neglects the fact that the order is defective and void.

That is not something which is going to change. Jurisdiction is not retroactive.

1) The Court quashes the Appeal filed on August 15, 2011.
In doing so, the court has acknowledged the existence of a properly filed and timely appeal which was neglected by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. A VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS.

By their own acknowledgement, Judge Page lacked jurisdiction to issue the order of April 5, 2013 after improperly and ILLEGALLY conducting hearings during a pending appeal. A VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS.

2) The Superior Court neglects with clear intent and disinformation efforts to address the defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

Judge Carolyn Carluccio neglected her lack of jurisdiction. A VIOLATION OF PA LAW.

Judge Carolyn Carluccio neglected to address her clearly defective order. A VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS.

Judge Carolyn Carluccio neglected THE LAW, and the Constitutional rights of a litigant, choosing instead to further victimize the litigant with subsequent corrupt orders in support of her defective one. JUDGES ARE ALLOWED TO BE MALICIOUS.

- -

With the August 2011 Appeal pending, the litigant was left to await the decision.

UNTIL, a petition attempting to enforce the order was filed during the pending appeal.

Enforcement is allowed, BUT IT MUST CONSIDER THE VALID JURISDICTION OF THE ORDER being ENFORCED.
- Angst & Angst neglected to address the multiple failures in jurisdiction. This was a deliberate act to compel the judge to sacrifice his integrity.
- Judge Haaz did not oblige their manipulation.
- Judge Coonahan did not oblige their manipulation.
- Judge Page scheduled the hearing - in spite of the evidence of the pending appeal on the court record.
A VIOLATION OF PA LAW, RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Judge Page then further ruled while COMPLETELY neglecting the evidence of the defective and void order.
- Angst & Angst had presented no evidence in support of jurisdiction, or countering the evidence in the court record of the defect in the order of May 9, 2011. This was a deliberate act to compel the judge to sacrifice his integrity.

JUDGE PAGES ORDER WAS APPEALED AND MOVED FORWARD... THE NEGLECTED ONE STILL PENDING.

In the Appellant Brief it was clearly presented that the May 9, 2011 order was defective and void and that the evidence was presented during the improperly held hearings.

Angst & Angst neglected to address the defective and void order in their Breif, and failed again to counter ANY of the evidence which demonstrated the lack of jurisdiction for the court to issue of May 9, 2011. This was a deliberate act to compel the judges to sacrifice their integrity.

So we have a MEMORANDUM by DONOHUE, J. which neglects the central issue - the defective and void order of May 9, 2011. Neglects to address the denial of due process and the rights of the litigant. OH, and also completely neglects to mention that THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6 is based on this matter.

Rule 1.6 is the unconstitutional law which encourages this type of misdirected, disinformed injustice through overwhelming and excessive litigation which results when a lawyer commits a fraud upon the court and attributes it to a client.) and then alleges the information is protected by attorney-client privilege.

The thing is that ALL OF THE DISINFORMATION AND RHETORIC IN THE WORLD is never going to give Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio jurisdiction to issue her defective and void order of May 9, 2011.

FAILURE to address the defective and void order involves all further judges in the conspiracy to commit treason. That is what the crime is called when a judge issues an order without jurisdiction.

The MEMORANDUM by DONOHUE, J. also gets the facts completely wrong. Does that really matter? Not really... BECAUSE the incorrect information is just the disinformation tactic to distract from the fact that they are attempting to enforce a defective and void order issued without jurisidciton...

JUST BECAUSE THE JUDICIARY IGNORES THE LACK OF JURISDICTION does not provide proper jurisdiction. The fly in their disinformation.

Sadly, I filed out of necessity, not any intention to embarass the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. They panel, Donohue, Wecht, and Platt have sacrificed their integrity without provocation.

It's a simple procedure. It was not followed - the reasons being totally malicious and vile - Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio wanted to be a monster.

The problem is, in order for the judge to get away with being a monster, they have to follow procedures.

Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio failed - - perhaps she has a touch of the Downs.

Forcing me to rewrite the terror which I have lived through since 2007 in repeated filings which are ignored is just cruelty. An inescapable cruelty because if I fail to meet their deadlines (and I have not) the facts don't matter.

To the United States Congress, President, Supreme Court

Rule 1.6 is a state law, enacted by EVERY state judiciary, which collaterally causes a denial of constitutional rights, the rule of law, and protection of the law. All under the guise of lawyer confidentiality. The lawyers keep silent vigil on the corruption and injustice not exposing the massive injustice caused nationwide by
Rule 1.6 – Confidentiality of Information of the Rules of Professional Conduct

The state disciplinary board’s aggressive enforcement of Rule 1.6 (which is kept confidential) keeps lawyers silent while purporting to protect an imagined judicial integrity. The rhetoric of the American Bar Association misdirects identification of the problem which they authored and recommended to every state judiciary.

One Rule. Made Law. Each State. Every State.
Undermining Justice. Usurping Authority.
(1984 – 2009)
Lawyers mandated to silence… in Congress, the White House, in Government.
Cash for Kids. Foreclosures through fraud. Injustice.
In 2013, non-Lawyers finally found it and filed a Constitutional Challenge.

The state supreme court has a conflict of interest because they enacted it, so we took it to federal court.

The federal district court improperly dismissed (and neglected to mention they were required to follow the PA version of Rule 1.6). #13-4614

The third circuit court affirmed and denied en banc review (while also neglecting to mention they were required to follow the PA version of Rule 1.6). #13-4591
________________________________________

We hereby present
the Supreme Court of the United States,

the United States Congress, and

the President of the United States

a Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct

An unconstitutional law in every state which causes inescapable injustice and excuses and ignores judicial misconduct and corruption.

Rule 1.6 requires that Rule 1.6 be kept confidential.

Rule 1.6 requires the courts to conceal their corruption and injustice caused by Rule 1.6 – the same unconstitutional law being challenged.

Rule 1.6 is exposed; yet, the problem law still permits fraud, corruption and injustice to conceal itself.

Rule 1.6, an invalid and void unconstitutional law, is relentless.


PREEMPTION

Befitting a constitutional law, doctrine or statute, federal preemption continues to draw the interest and resources of the highest court in the land.

The U.S. Supreme Court accepts petitions for certiori and decides preemption cases.

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

The Supremacy Clause provides that the Constitution, and the laws and treaties stemming from it, are the supreme law of the land.

U.S. CONSTITUTION. Article VI, clause 2.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


The Supreme Court has held that when there is a conflict between a state and federal law, the state law is invalidated because the federal law is supreme.

Even a state regulation designed to protect the state’s vital interest must yield because
“under the Supremacy Clause, from which our preemption doctrine is derived, ‘any state law, however clearly within a State’s acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.’”

The Supreme Court defined preemption to “be either express or implied, and is compelled whether Congress’ command is explicitly stated in the statute’s language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose.”


PREEMPTION JURISPRUDENCE

The Constitution itself has already clearly made and announced the fundamental judgment regarding the relation of federal and state power: so long as the federal government has the constitutional power to enact the law, then the federal law is granted supremacy over conflicting state actions.

There are numerous instances of the Supreme Court, and lower courts, stating that the process of determining appropriate preemption is an inquiry into congressional intent; however, the intent of the Constitution is clearly to preempt every state law which would abridge, diminish, subvert or deny rights and privileges which were secured for the People.

But the roots of the doctrine are most clearly seen in Marbury v. Madison, where Chief Justice Marshall stated: “The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion.”


CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW

The legitimacy of construction by an unelected entity in a republican or democratic system becomes an issue whenever the construction is controversial, as it frequently is.


RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

Conceding, in 1934, the limited competence of legislative bodies to establish a comprehensive system of court procedure, and acknowledging the inherent power of courts to regulate the conduct of their business, Congress authorized the Supreme Court to prescribe rules for the lower federal courts not inconsistent with the Constitution and statutes.

Their operation being restricted, in conformity with the proviso attached to the congressional authorization, to matters of pleading and practice, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure thus judicially promulgated neither affect the substantive rights of litigants nor alter the jurisdiction of federal courts and the venue of actions therein and, thus circumscribed, have been upheld as valid.

Under the Rules Enabling Act, procedural rules may not modify “any substantive right” but laws in conflict with the rules are “of no further force or effect.”

While Challenging Rule 1.6 of the Rules Of Professional Conduct, the Federal Court was obligated under Rule 1.6 to dismiss the matter but neglected to indicate the reason. Rule 1.6 mandates they conceal that Rule 1.6 is the reason. Instead, like a child caught by surprise, they just made stuff up…


THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND

The Judiciary may make rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
Federal Courts may make rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
Federal Courts may make local rules, unless they violate substantive rights.

States may enact laws, unless they violate substantive rights.
State Judiciary may enact rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
Local state courts may make local rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
The Rules of Professional Conduct have been enacted into law, unless they violate substantive rights.

The Federal Court Local Rules for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania adopt the Rules of Professional Conduct enacted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania which includes Rule 1.6 which violates substantive rights provided in the Constitution of the United States.

Where substantive rights are violated, directly or collaterally, the law is repugnant to the Constitution and a nullity.

No matter how deeply the mandate of Rule 1.6 is buried and concealed, THE LAW MAY NOT VIOLATE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.


The judiciary have buried an unconstitutional law so deep in the law books that they never expected any non-lawyer to find it, and survive to prove it while being denied their constitutional rights and the protection of the law.


Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 83(a) allows for Local Rules under 28 USC § 2072 and 2074.

28 U.S.C. § 2072(b)
“Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.”

28 U.S. Code § 2072 – Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe
(a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals.
(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.
(c) Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section 1291 of this title.

28 U.S. Code § 2074 – Rules of procedure and evidence; submission to Congress; effective date
(a) The Supreme Court shall transmit to the Congress not later than May 1 of the year in which a rule prescribed under section 2072 is to become effective a copy of the proposed rule. Such rule shall take effect no earlier than December 1 of the year in which such rule is so transmitted unless otherwise provided by law. The Supreme Court may fix the extent such rule shall apply to proceedings then pending, except that the Supreme Court shall not require the application of such rule to further proceedings then pending to the extent that, in the opinion of the court in which such proceedings are pending, the application of such rule in such proceedings would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former rule applies.
(b) Any such rule creating, abolishing, or modifying an evidentiary privilege shall have no force or effect unless approved by Act of Congress.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Local Rule 83.6(IV)(b)(para 2)
“The Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by this court are the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania…”


THE RULE-MAKING POWER AND POWERS OVER PROCESS

Among the incidental powers of courts is that of making all necessary rules governing their process and practice and for the orderly conduct of their business. However, this power too is derived from the statutes and cannot go beyond them.


LIMITATIONS TO THE RULE MAKING POWER.

The principal function of court rules is that of regulating the practice of courts as regards forms, the operation and effect of process, and the mode and time of proceedings. However, rules are sometimes employed to state in convenient form principles of substantive law previously established by statutes or decisions.

But no such rule “can enlarge or restrict jurisdiction. Nor can a rule abrogate or modify the substantive law.”

This rule is applicable equally to courts of law, equity, and admiralty, to rules prescribed by the Supreme Court for the guidance of lower courts, and to rules “which lower courts make for their own guidance under authority conferred.”

As incident to the judicial power, courts of the United States possess inherent authority to supervise the conduct of their officers, parties, witnesses, counsel, and jurors by self-preserving rules for the protection of the rights of litigants and the orderly administration of justice.

The courts of the United States possess inherent equitable powers over their process to prevent abuse, oppression, and injustice, and to protect their jurisdiction and officers in the protection of property in the custody of law.

Such powers are said to be essential to and inherent in the organization of courts of justice.

The courts of the United States also possess inherent power to amend their records, correct the errors of the clerk or other court officers, and to rectify defects or omissions in their records even after the lapse of a term, subject, however, to the qualification that the power to amend records conveys no power to create a record or re-create one of which no evidence exists.


JURISDICTION – CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY

Congress’s authority is limited by provisions of the Constitution such as the Due Process Clause, so that a limitation on jurisdiction that denied a litigant access to any remedy might be unconstitutional.

Congress is also free to legislate away prudential restraints and confer standing to
the extent permitted by Article III.

“Congress may grant an express right of action to persons who otherwise would be barred by prudential standing rules. Of course, Art. III’s requirement remains: the plaintiff still must allege a distinct and palpable injury to himself, even if it is an injury shared by a large class of other possible litigants.”
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975). That is, the actual or threatened injury required may exist solely by virtue of “statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing, even though no injury would exist without the statute.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617 n. 3 (1973); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 493 n.2 (1974). Examples include United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669 (1973); Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (1972); Gladstone Realtors v. Village ofBellwood, 441 U.S. 91 (1979). See also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 8 n.4, 11–12 (1976). For a good example of the congressionally created interest and the injury to it, see Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 373–75 (1982) (Fair Housing Act created right to truthful information on availability of housing; black tester’s right injured through false information, but white tester not injured because he received truthful information). It is clear, however, that the Court will impose separation-of-powers restraints on the power of Congress to create interests to which injury would give standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 571–78 (1992). Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Lujan, reiterated the separation-of-powers objection to congressional conferral of standing in FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 29, 36 (1998) (alleged infringement of President’s “take care” obligation), but this time in dissent; the Court did not advert to this objection in finding that Congress had provided for standing based on denial of information to which the plaintiffs, as voters, were entitled.


NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE – Scope and Operation

Clause 18.
The Congress shall have Power * * * To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Necessary and Proper Clause, sometimes called the “coefficient” or “elastic” clause, is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress. Chief Justice Marshall’s classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland 1818 set the standard in words that reverberate to this day. “Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end.


JURISDICTION – SUPREME COURT

Implicit in the argument of Marbury v. Madison is the thought that the Court is obligated
to take and decide cases meeting jurisdictional standards.

“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404, (1821).


DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

But one who challenges a statute or possible administrative action need demonstrate only a realistic danger of sustaining an injury to his rights as a result of the statute’s operation and enforcement and need not await the consummation of the threatened injury in order to obtain preventive relief, such as exposing himself to actual arrest or prosecution. When one alleges an intention to engage in conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest but proscribed by statute and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he may bring an action for declaratory or injunctive relief.

Similarly, the reasonable certainty of the occurrence of the perceived threat to a constitutional interest is sufficient to afford a basis for bringing a challenge, provided the court has sufficient facts before it to enable it to intelligently adjudicate the issues.


JURISDICTION - EXECUTIVE ORDER

The Constitution was clearly intended to preempt state law.

Where state constitutions may not delegate statutory authority which exceeds the limits of authority and infringes upon the substantial rights protected by the Constitution of the United States law, Executive departments and agencies shall construe, in regulations and otherwise, a Federal statute to preempt State law only when the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other firm and palpable evidence compelling the conclusion that the Congress intended preemption of State law, or when the exercise of State authority directly conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute….


Respectfully,

We petition the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Congress and the President of the United States to take immediate action to repeal the rule, legislate a constitutional amendment or issue an executive order which indicates that Rule 1.6 which causes a collateral loss of constitutional rights and protection of the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and a nullity.


Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

Notes for OUR Government

Rule 1.6 is a state law, enacted by EVERY state judiciary, which collaterally causes a denial of constitutional rights, the rule of law, and protection of the law. All under the guise of lawyer confidentiality. THE LAWYERS KEEP SILENT VIGIL ON THE CORRUPTION AND INJUSTICE. They know better... but fear exposing the massive injustice caused by Rule 1.6.

The state disciplinary board's aggressive enforcement of Rule 1.6 (which is kept confidential) keeps lawyers silent while purporting to protect an imagined judicial integrity. The rhetoric of the American Bar Association misdirects identification of the problem which they authored and recommended.

One Rule. Made Law. Each State. Every State.
Undermining Justice. Usurping Authority.
(1984 - 2009)
Lawyers mandated to silence... in Congress, the White House, in Government.
Cash for Kids. Foreclosures through fraud. Injustice.
non-Lawyers finally found it and filed a Constitutional Challenge.

The state supreme court has a conflict of interest because they enacted it, so we took it to federal court.
The district court improperly dismissed (and neglected to mention they were required to follow the PA version of Rule 1.6).
The third circuit court affirmed and denied en banc review (while also neglecting to mention they were required to follow the PA version of Rule 1.6).

Rule 1.6 requires that Rule 1.6 be kept confidential.

Rule 1.6 requires the courts to conceal their corruption and injustice caused by Rule 1.6 - the very unconstitutional law being challenged.

Even where you know the problem law (Rule 1.6), the problem law was permitting fraud, corruption and injustice to conceal itself.

Rule 1.6, an invalid and void unconstitutional law, is relentless.

But, Rule 1.6 is exposed and IT'S DAYS ARE NUMBERED.

I promised Sandy Fonzo that I would provide the Cash for Kids families with closure by exposing how it happened and by making sure it was prevented in the future.

Every. Person. Matters.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

---

Befitting a constitutional law, doctrine or statute, federal preemption continues to draw the interest and resources of the highest court in the land.

The U.S. Supreme Court accepts petitions for certiori and decides preemption cases.


THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

The Supremacy Clause provides that the Constitution, and the laws and treaties stemming from it, are the supreme law of the land.

U.S. CONSTITUTION. Article VI, clause 2.

Article VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The Supreme Court has held that when there is a conflict between a state and federal law, the state law is invalidated because the federal law is supreme.

Even a state regulation designed to protect the state’s vital interest must yield because
“under the Supremacy Clause, from which our preemption doctrine is derived, ‘any state law, however clearly within a State’s acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.’”

The Supreme Court defined preemption to “be either express or implied, and is compelled whether Congress’ command is explicitly stated in the statute’s language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose.”


Preemption Jurisprudence

The Constitution itself has already clearly made and announced the fundamental judgment
regarding the relation of federal and state power: so long as the federal government has the constitutional power to enact the law, then the federal law is granted supremacy over conflicting state actions.

There are numerous instances of the Supreme Court, and lower courts, stating that the process of determining appropriate preemption is an inquiry into congressional intent; however,the intent of the Constitution is clearly to preempt every state law which would abridge, diminish, subvert or deny rights and privileges which were secured for the People.

But the roots of the doctrine are most clearly seen in Marbury v. Madison, where
Chief Justice Marshall stated: “The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion."


CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW

The legitimacy of construction by an unelected entity in a republican or democratic system becomes an issue whenever the construction is controversial, as it frequently is.


RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

Conceding, in 1934, the limited competence of legislative bodies to establish a comprehensive system of court procedure, and acknowledging the inherent power of courts to regulate the conduct of their business, Congress authorized the Supreme Court to prescribe rules for the lower federal courts not inconsistent with the Constitution and statutes.

Their operation being restricted, in conformity with the proviso attached to the congressional authorization, to matters of pleading and practice, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure thus judicially promulgated neither affect the substantive rights of litigants nor alter the jurisdiction of federal courts and the venue of actions therein and,thus circumscribed, have been upheld as valid.

Under the Rules Enabling Act, procedural rules may not modify “any substantive right” but laws in conflict with the rules are “of no further force or effect.”

While Challenging Rule 1.6 of the Rules Of Professional Conduct, the Federal Court was obligated under Rule 1.6 to dismiss the matter but neglected to indicate the reason. Rule 1.6 mandates they conceal that Rule 1.6 is the reason. Instead, like a child caught by surprise, they just made stuff up...

To recap...
The Constitution is Supreme law.
Judiciary may make rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
Federal Courts may make rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
Federal Courts may make local rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
States may enact laws, unless they violate substantive rights.
State Judiciary may enact rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
Local state courts may make local rules, unless they violate substantive rights.
The Rules of Professional Conduct have been enacted into law, unless they violate substantive rights.
(Even if they do so collaterally to non-lawyers who are not mandated by them.)

No matter how deeply they bury the mandate of Rule 1.6... THEY MAY NOT VIOLATE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.
The Courts know this. The lawyers know this. So, why are they violating your rights?

They hide behind their Rule 1.6 Confidentiality and deny your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, ... jail your children, steal your house, or destroy your life. They know what they are doing is ultimately unlawful. The judiciary have buried an unconstitutional law so deep in the law books that they never expected any non-lawyer to find it, and survive to prove it.

FRCP Rule 83(a) allows for Local Rules under 28 USC 2072 and 2075

28 U.S.C. § 2072(b) (2006) (“Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.”).

28 U.S. Code § 2072 - Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe

(a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals. (b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect. (c) Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section 1291 of this title.

28 U.S. Code § 2074 - Rules of procedure and evidence; submission to Congress; effective date

(a) The Supreme Court shall transmit to the Congress not later than May 1 of the year in which a rule prescribed under section 2072 is to become effective a copy of the proposed rule. Such rule shall take effect no earlier than December 1 of the year in which such rule is so transmitted unless otherwise provided by law. The Supreme Court may fix the extent such rule shall apply to proceedings then pending, except that the Supreme Court shall not require the application of such rule to further proceedings then pending to the extent that, in the opinion of the court in which such proceedings are pending, the application of such rule in such proceedings would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former rule applies. (b) Any such rule creating, abolishing, or modifying an evidentiary privilege shall have no force or effect unless approved by Act of Congress.

Local Rule 83.6(IV)(b)(para 2)The Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by this court are the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania...

The Rule-Making Power and Powers Over Process

Among the incidental powers of courts is that of making all necessary rules governing their process and practice and for the orderly conduct of their business. However, this power too is derived from the statutes and cannot go beyond them.


Limitations to The Rule Making Power.

The principal function of court rules is that of regulating the practice of courts as regards forms, the operation and effect of process, and the mode and time of proceedings. However, rules are sometimes employed to state in convenient form principles of substantive law previously established by statutes or decisions.

But no such rule “can enlarge or restrict jurisdiction. Nor can a rule abrogate or modify the substantive law.”

This rule is applicable equally to courts of law, equity, and admiralty, to rules prescribed by the Supreme Court for the guidance of lower courts, and to rules “which lower courts make for their own guidance under authority conferred.”

As incident to the judicial power, courts of the United States possess inherent authority to supervise the conduct of their officers, parties, witnesses, counsel, and jurors by self-preserving rules for the protection of the rights of litigants and the orderly administration of justice.

The courts of the United States possess inherent equitable powers over their process to prevent abuse, oppression, and injustice, and to protect their jurisdiction and officers in the protection of property in the custody of law. 332

Such powers are said to be essential to and inherent in the organization of courts of justice.

The courts of the United States also possess inherent power to amend their records, correct the errors of the clerk or other court officers, and to rectify defects or omissions in their records even after the lapse of a term, subject, however, to the qualification that the power to amend records conveys no power to create a record or re-create one of which no evidence exists.


JURISDICTION - Congressional Authority

Congress’s authority is limited by provisions of the Constitution such as the Due Process Clause, so that a limitation on jurisdiction that denied a litigant access to any remedy might
be unconstitutional.

Congress is also free to legislate away prudential restraints and confer standing to
the extent permitted by Article III.

438 “Congress may grant an express right of action to persons who otherwise would be barred by prudential standing rules. Of course, Art. III’s requirement remains: the plaintiff still must allege a distinct and palpable injury to himself, even if it is an injury shared by a large class of other possible litigants.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975). That is, the actual or threatened injury required may exist solely by virtue of “statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing, even though no injury would exist without the statute.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617 n. 3 (1973); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 493 n.2 (1974). Examples include United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669 (1973); Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (1972); Gladstone Realtors v. Village ofBellwood, 441 U.S. 91 (1979). See also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 8 n.4, 11–12 (1976). For a good example of the congressionally created interest and the injury to it, see Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 373–75 (1982) (Fair Housing Act created right to truthful information on availability of housing; black tester’s right injured through false information, but white tester not injured because he received truthful information). It is clear, however, that the Court will impose separation-of-powers restraints on the power of Congress to create interests to which injury would give standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 571–78 (1992). Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Lujan, reiterated the separation-of-powers objection to congressional conferral of standing in FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 29, 36 (1998) (alleged infringement of President’s “take care” obligation), but this time in dissent; the Court did not advert to this objection in finding that Congress had provided for standing based on denial of information to which the plaintiffs, as voters, were entitled.

Clause 18. The Congress shall have Power * * * To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE - Scope and Operation

The Necessary and Proper Clause, sometimes called the “coefficient” or “elastic” clause, is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress. Chief Justice Marshall’s classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland 1818 set the standard in words that reverberate to this day. “Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end.


JURISDICTION - Supreme Court

Implicit in the argument of Marbury v. Madison is the thought that the Court is obligated
to take and decide cases meeting jurisdictional standards.

“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404, (1821).


DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

But one who challenges a statute or possible administrative action need demonstrate only a realistic danger of sustaining an injury to his rights as a result of the statute’s operation and enforcement and need not await the consummation of the threatened injury in order to obtain preventive relief, such as exposing himself to actual arrest or prosecution. When one alleges an intention to engage in conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest but proscribed by statute and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he may bring an action for declaratory or injunctive relief.

Similarly, the reasonable certainty of the occurrence of the perceived threat to a constitutional interest is sufficient to afford a basis for bringing a challenge, provided the court has sufficient facts before it to enable it to intelligently adjudicate the issues. 549


EXECUTIVE ORDER

The Constitution was clearly intended to preempt state law.

Where state constitutions may not delegate statutory authority which exceeds the limits of authority and infringes upon the substantial rights protected by the Constitution of the UNited Stateslaw, Executive departments and agencies shall construe, in regulations and otherwise, a Federal statute to preempt State law only when the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other firm and palpable evidence compelling the conclusion that the Congress intended preemption of State law, or when the exercise of State authority directly conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute....

JURISDICTION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

The Federal Court has jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 and provide the relief requested declaring the challenged law UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Rule 1.6 causes the plaintiffs direct the loss of constitutionally protected rights and additionally prevents the state from addressing the loss, which is of itself a protected right which is also being denied..

Article V Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not permit the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to deny rights protected by the United States Constitution.

---

RETURN TO REPLY BRIEF INDEX

TRANSCRIPT: March 4, 2014 Healy v. Miller

Mon March 4, 2014, A hearing was held before Judge Weilheimer.

The defective and void divorce decree has been further enforced by Judge Weilheimer.

"When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason."

A question of jurisdiction cannot be ignored... BUT they ignore any rule or law once an injustice has occurred.

FURTHER DEMONSTRATING THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ESCAPING A DELIBERATELY DEFECTIVE AND VOID ORDER ISSUED BY A JUDGE WITHOUT JURISDICTION.

The transcript is available..

An annotated copy will be available shortly.

Attorney General investigating corruption

July 15, 2013

Kane behind ouster of judge from corruption role

Selected Quotes from PhillyNews.com article by Angela Couloumbis and Craig R. McCoy.

"In a bitter and secret legal fight, state Attorney General Kathleen Kane has succeeded in ousting the judge who has long overseen corruption investigations in Pennsylvania, The Inquirer has learned."

Could this be why no one has investigated my case?

"After a conflict that had been roiling since she took office in January, Kane took the unusual step of asking the state Supreme Court to remove Judge Barry F. Feudale as the supervising grand jury judge in Harrisburg. Kane told the high court in April in sealed papers that the judge was no longer fit to run a grand jury."

"The dispute is part of a larger struggle, between the new attorney general and her office's old guard of career prosecutors, that has spilled over into how several high-stakes cases are being handled - including a probe into political corruption in several counties, Philadelphia among them, according to people familiar with the situation. The scope and specifics of that investigation could not be learned."

"In May, the Supreme Court ruled in Kane's favor. The court's order did not bar him from serving as a judge, but removed him from the grand-jury position. The order was sealed and has not been made public."

"Judge Feudale worked as a "floating" senior judge, assigned by the Supreme Court to hear cases in 63 of the state's 67 counties. Over the last 12 years, chief justices have appointed him to preside over a series of investigating grand juries. Judges in that role are crucial players, refereeing fights over subpoenas or evidence and even putting a personal stamp on the outcome."

So this is a man who can prevent an investigation into corruption by guiding a grand jury to ignore injustice and corruption.

I hope and pray that Attorney General Kathleen Kane is reading this web site and recognizing the level of corruption and injustice being delivered upon the people of Montgomery County by a completely malicious judiciary determined to conceal their criminal abuse of power under color of law by continuing their actions to obstruct justice.

And... I am not the only one, there are other victims. Thankfully, their lives have not been as obliterated by injustice and failure to resolve issues which are repeatedly ignored, denied and delayed.

What made an entire judiciary decide that because of a divorce (and no other reason) one person should be victimized and lose every aspect of life with little hope or future of escaping their malice. Because of the simple reason that I recognized the injustice, identified it, documented it, survived it. I should be destroyed because they failed to do their job.

My sons have been denied their father, and the extended family. My family has suffered enough, but the judges won't stop the terror of their injustices until they attain my suicide which regrettably I have learned I am not capable of providing for them.

I have been pushed so close to suicide, at so many times. I understand it. I know it. I only wish I was capable of it and could have put my misery to an end. Instead, I live each day to be further victimized.

There's never been any walking away. When that was attempted, they came for me again, with more fraud and lies. AND ANOTHER NEW JUDGE. Who is now in the process of acting without jurisdiction to manipulate the court reporters to ignore requests for hearing transcripts. Their team grows and grows.

Judges have power which when abused can incriminate those who attempt to enforce their corrupt and void orders. So Judge Garrett Page compels the court reporters to inaction. Judge Page does so with a void order where he lacks jurisdiction. When queried on the ex parte order issued without any proceedings, Judge Page refuses to respond; or provide reasons for his actions; and refuses to hold any hearing on the matter.

The entire matter is being raised to the Superior Court Of Pennsylvania, where I am certain they will recognize the lack of jurisdiction and the judge's refusal to address their lack of jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, the judge has no authority.

The Superior Court Judges are going to wonder, WHY ARE THE COMMON PLEAS JUDGES FAILING LIKE THIS?

JURISDICTION is basic. It must be addressed. It is simple to address.

Ignoring the lack of jurisdiction is indicative of larger abuses. It is those other abuses which became terroristic in scope and determination to obliterate an innocent victim of corruption.