INJUSTICE -- Not Police. Not Public. It's the lawyers.

Do people really NOT see that it is the lawyers in the media who are the ones baiting the police and the public?

Every injustice, every corruption, every report, every failure to apply the Law, every podium.... a lawyer is standing right there.

THE ONLY PERSON GETTING PAID TO BE SPECIFICALLY THERE FOR THAT ANNOUNCEMENT OR SPEECH IS THE LAWYER.

It's not the blacks. It's the lawyers.
It's not the gays. It's the lawyers.
It's not the police. It's the lawyers.
It's not the judges. It's the lawyers.
It's not the columnists. It's the lawyers.
It's not the pundits. It's the lawyers.
It's not the immigrants. It's the lawyers.
It's not the fiances. It's the lawyers
It's not the politicians. It's the lawyers.
It's not the ministers. It's the lawyers.
It's not the victims. MY GOD. THEY KILLED THEM. THIS MUST STOP.

I do not hate lawyers.
I do hate a law which mandates the corruption of the entire profession which their 'non-profit social organization - which looks more like a union/mafia' had enacted into LAW in every state where the federal government is prevented from intervention because THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE STATE LAW... even while people are being denied basic constitutional protections.

DON'T HATE THE LAWYER. HATE THEIR UNETHICAL LAW.

Rule 1.6 is concealing the injustice of judges and lawyers

About that Sandusky Report

August 3, 2014

Governor Tom Corbett
Sheriffs of Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Legislature
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information was applicable to the ‘Sandusky Report’. As such, the report presented a very skewed version of events because the mandate of confidentiality undermined it from any impact. For example, we present a possible disclaimer which clearly was not included with the report.

Disclaimer
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, the Attorney General’s office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers.
The Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandate confidentiality of client information where the information
- would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
- would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office,
- would expose individual liability,
- would adversely affect their client.

Office of the Attorney General
The Report from the Attorney General regarding the investigation of Gerald Sandusky may not legally present:
- anything which exposes a negative impact of the judiciary
- anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Tom Corbett
- anything which exposes misconduct of Governor Tom Corbett
- anything which exposes misconduct of Acting Attorney General William H. Ryan, Jr
- anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Linda Kelly
- anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Kathleen Kane
- anything which exposes misconduct of the Attorney General’s office
- anything which exposes misconduct of Frank Fina
- anything which exposes misconduct the Commonwealth
- anything which exposes misconduct of any state agency
- anything which exposes misconduct, participation or acts of obstruction by any of the above in their individual capacity, or as a conspiracy

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 3, 2009
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on May 2, 2009
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 9, 2012
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 18, 2012
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on June 16, 2012
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on July 4, 2012
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on November 21, 2013
- anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to create, modify or fine tune any “LAW” regarding the Confidentiality of Email concealed within the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Report Production
Further, acting as Attorney General, Kathleen Kane contracted the creation of the report to Widener University law professor and former federal prosecutor H. Geoffrey Moulton.
(You might say “Kathleen Kane is his client.” and that the Rules of Professional Conduct mandate his confidentiality for her protection. Because, SHE IS… and IT DOES.)

Constitutionally
The Report additionally will not contain any information regarding the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION which was filed in federal court on August 8, 2013 (by two men who do not have to maintain confidentiality) seeking to restore the constitutional rights of litigants while restoring the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession and to deliver to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.

The Challenge has been presented to President Barack Obama and the United States Congress where every level of the state and federal judiciary have ignored the clear evidence of the Courts’ denial of constitutional rights and demonstrated their own actions to prevent resolution of the matter which was served to fifty-six states attorneys general – all of whom defaulted on the matter -- YET, THE COURT IGNORED THEIR DELIBERATE DEFAULT.

Political Campaign
Yes, Kathleen Kane shot her mouth off during her campaign for Attorney General of Pennsylvania,
AND
Kathleen Kane promised to investigate Attorney General Tom Corbett’s mishandling of the Sandusky case,
AND
Kathleen Kane believed Corbett to be stalling the case so it would not impact his run for Governor,
AND
Kathleen Kane was elected to the position of Attorney General,
AND
Kathleen Kane has an obligation to the People of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

BUT, as Attorney General, these corrupt and incompetent horses asses are NOW her clients, her boss, and her staff… The RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT mandate her confidentiality.

Pennsylvania State Police
With regard to the non-participation of the Pennsylvania State Police in the preparation and assembly of this report…. Did someone tell the PA State Police that we wouldn’t publish anything they might have to say because of the confidentiality mandate? The State Police participation would have potentially required a great deal of redaction and editing.

The Pennsylvania State Police do NOT have a Confidentiality Mandate. If they were to issue a report, it would be different.

1.6 Confidentiality of Information – While the Model Rule 1.6(a) duty of confidentiality is closely related to the attorney-client privilege, it is broader in scope than the attorney-client privilege, “which is a rule of evidence,” or “the work product immunity which is a rule of procedure.”

Rule 1.6 causes a mandated confidentiality of information regarding injustice and judicial corruption.

This was demonstrated in Luzerne County where Kids For Cash was IGNORED by every judge, district attorney, prosecutor and lawyer… until Judge Ann Lokuta violated the law and called the FBI to report Ciavarella et al. Ann Lokuta was disciplined and removed from the bench for her violations of Rule 1.6.

The Foreclosure Crisis nationwide was caused similarly by an ACT OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT resulting in the loss of constitutional rights and the loss of homes to fraudulent actions filed by lawyers (and judges) MANDATED to maintain confidentiality.

THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS LET THIS HAPPEN TO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.

Rule 1.6 mandates that an Attorney General ignore judicial corruption and injustice
- without regard for the number of children improperly incarcerated by a judge,
- without regard for the number of homes foreclosed upon using fraudulent documents,
- without regard for basic constitutional, civil and human rights,
- without regard for the denial of equal protection of the law,
- without regard for the law,
- without regard for an oath of office,
- without regard for ethics or morality, and
- without mercy for the victims overwhelmed, destitute and pushed to their limits who commit suicide.

Rule 1.6 DELIBERATELY PREVENTS LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL…

You attention to this matter of national importance is anticipated and expected. We are available to meet with you at any time to discuss this issue at length. Please contact us directly.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy
Todd M. Krautheim

AG Kathleen Kane demonstrates Rule 1.6 Confidentiality

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane neglected to include the following disclaimer in the Sandusky Report. This DISCLAIMER would have eliminated the questions raised by the report.

D I S C L A I M E R

The Attorney General of Pennsylvania represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, the Attorney General's office, various branches of the government, their agencies and their officers. The Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION mandate confidentiality of client information where the information - would affect the integrity of the judiciary, - would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office, - would expose individual liability, - would adversely affect their client.

AS SUCH...

The Report to the Attorney General in the Investigation of Gerald Sandusky may not legally present - anything which exposes a negative impact of the judiciary - anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Tom Corbett - anything which exposes misconduct of Governor Tom Corbett - anything which exposes misconduct of Acting Attorney General William H. Ryan, Jr - anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Linda Kelly - anything which exposes misconduct of Attorney General Kathleen Kane - anything which exposes misconduct of the Attorney General's office - anything which exposes misconduct of Frank Fina - anything which exposes misconduct the Commonwealth - anything which exposes misconduct of any state agency - anything which exposes misconduct, participation or acts of obstruction by any of the above in their individual capacity, or as a conspiracy - anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 3, 2009 - anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on May 2, 2009 - anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 9, 2012 - anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on April 18, 2012 - anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on June 16, 2012 - anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on July 4, 2012 - anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to modify the Rules of Professional Conduct on November 21, 2013 - anything relating to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acting to create, modify or fine tune any "LAW" regarding the Confidentiality of Email concealed within the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Further, acting as Attorney General, I have contracted the creation of the report to Widener University law professor and former federal prosecutor H. Geoffrey Moulton. ( You might say "I am his client." and that the Rules of Professional Conduct mandate his confidentiality for my protection. ) Because, I AM. and IT DOES.

The Report additionally will not contain any information regarding the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 - CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION which was filed in federal court on August 8, 2013 (by two men who do not have to maintain confidentiality so we do it for them) seeking to restore the constitutional rights of litigants while restoring the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and the legal profession and to deliver to the legislature the ability to perform the duties of their position to responsibly manage the law.

The Challenge now approaches the United States Supreme Court and the United States Congress where every level of the state and federal judiciary has ignored the clear evidence of the Courts' denial of constitutional rights and demonstrated their own actions to prevent resolution of the matter which was served to fifty-six states attorneys general - all of whom defaulted on the matter... YET, THE COURT IGNORED THEIR DELIBERATE DEFAULT.

P.S.

Yes, I shot my mouth off during my campaign for Attorney General of Pennsylvania, AND I promised to investigate Attorney General Tom Corbett's mishandling of the Sandusky case, AND I believed Corbett to be stalling the case so it would not impact his run for Governor, AND I was elected to the position of Attorney General, AND I have an obligation to the People of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, BUT, as Attorney General, these corrupt and incompetent horses asses are NOW my clients, my boss, and my staff... The RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT mandate confidentiality.

With regard to the non-participation of the Pennsylvania State Police in the preparation and assembly of this report.... Did someone tell the PSP that we wouldn't publish anything they might have to say because of our confidentiality mandate? Their participation would have potentially require a great deal of redaction and editing.

The Pennsylvania State Police do NOT have a Confidentiality Mandate. If they were to issue a report, I imagine it would be different.



1.6 Confidentiality of Information - While the Model Rule 1.6(a) duty of confidentiality is closely related to the attorney-client privilege, it is broader in scope than the attorney-client privilege, “which is a rule of evidence,” or “the work product immunity which is a rule of procedure.”

Rule 1.6 causes a mandated confidentiality of information regarding injustice and judicial corruption.

This was demonstrated in Luzerne County where Kids For Cash was IGNORED by every judge, district attorney, prosecutor and lawyer... until Judge Ann Lokuta violated the law and called the FBI to report Ciavarella et al. Ann Lokuta was disciplined and removed from the bench for her violations of Rule 1.6.

The Foreclosure Crisis nationwide was caused similarly by an ACT OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT resulting in the loss of constitutional rights and the loss of homes to fraudulent actions filed by lawyers (and judges) MANDATED to maintain confidentiality.

THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS LET THIS HAPPEN TO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.
THEY. LET. IT. HAPPEN.

Rule 1.6 mandates that an Attorney General ignore judicial corruption and injustice
- without regard for the number of children improperly incarcerated by a judge,
- without regard for the number of homes foreclosed upon using fraudulent documents,
- without regard for basic constitutional, civil and human rights,
- without regard for the denial of equal protection of the law,
- without regard for the law,
- without regard for an oath of office,
- without regard for ethics or morality, and
- without mercy for the victims overwhelmed, destitute and pushed to their limits who commit suicide.

Rule 1.6 DELIBERATELY PREVENTS LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL...

False Allegations... JUSTICE IS COMING

CONCERNING DISNEY's ONCE UPON A TIME:

FALSE ALLEGATIONS TO POLICE is an all too common occurrence. The victim of the false allegation suffers while the LIAR gets away with it. Had Hook hurt Emma there would have been a PSA.

Emma committing the crime of falsely accusing Hook being accepted as a goof or a prank only encourages THIS CRIME AGAINST MEN.

This action did not occur in the fictional town of Storybrooke or any of the other 'realms' where the show takes place. It happened in 'the real world' in New York. It involved New York Police arresting a man, keeping him overnight, and releasing him when the charges were dropped. The police got played. This is not activity which should be encouraged, endorsed or accepted.

The good guy gets hurt and the damage is ignored. False allegations to police destroy lives. Emma is the hero of the show - "The Savior". Resorting to illegal dirty tricks are not the traditional qualities of a hero. Also, Emma never even apologized before she reconnected with the victim and drove off to Storybrooke. Emma knew she was in the real world because she referred to her victim as Killian, and not Hook.

If you think it is a small matter you have no idea how terroristic divorce has become. Take it from the victim of A TERRORISTIC DIVORCE, you have no idea what goes on once you head down the rabbit hole of the American Judicial system. Eight years of injustice left me homeless and destitute with no future while under constant litigation.

It lead to a constitutional challenge which exposes why the US Constitution has been ignored since the late 1980's.



Once Upon A Time has been advertising that WICKED IS COMING. Maybe that's right in Storybrooke, but in 'the real world'...

The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is currently in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia...
JUSTICE IS COMING.

Operation Greylord

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1.6 has destroyed too many people, and families.

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

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

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

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

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

Resurrect Justice.

Warrington Township Police

Chief James Miller,

I have just been advised that my mother was visited by a patrol car at her home today at 871 Mustang Road.

My mother is an 80 year old woman living alone with health issues. While unintentional, the visit from your officer frightened her. the officer asked about my whereabouts, what car i drove, and how often I driove her car. I am sure you can understand her fright.

Your officer was relaying a message from a Montgomery Township Police Officer after she received repeated calls from him today. I have responded to officer Ruchkin by fax. I include that fax for your reference.

I would like to know what allegations were made that caused Warrington Police to pay a courtesy call to learn my whereabouts and what car I drove. This is a genuine request for information.

The matter in Montgomery Township is a civil matter being litigates in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. I am seeking to assert my lawful and legal ownership of property illegally and fraudulently conveyed to the Millers - a lawyer and real estate agent. Judge Coonahan has been notified of the threat against me made by Montgomery Township Police via a court filing this evening.

Thank You,

Terance Healy

Montgomery Township Police Department

Cheif Scott Bendig,
Officer John Rushin,

regarding the repeated calls to my mother's home today, please stop that.

Attached are copies of documents relating to the civil litigation regarding the fraudulent conveyance of my property and residence at 110 Banbury Avenue, North Wales, PA 19454

Copies of:
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Docket #2013-29976 (1 page)
Complaint in Ejectment (29 pages)
Emergency Praecipe for immediate Eviction/Order of Possession (1 page)
Emergency Praecipe for immediate Eviction/Order of Possession (Addendum) (1 page)

Please accept these documents as a Criminal Tresspass Complaint against David & Jennifer Miller in this regard. If this format is not acceptable for a foprmal complaint, please forward the proper complaint forms to the address below.

While it was not my intention to file a criminal complaint at this time, the threat to my liberty mandates a response.

Terance Healy

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

( PDF )

IN THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NORRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA

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

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

1. After service of the EMERGENCY PRAECIPE file with this Court on October 15, 2013, Plaintiff's 80-year old mother was contacted by telephone multiple times by the Montgomery Township Police Department.

2. Montgomery Township Police Office Ruchkin has threatened the plaintiff with arrest if he approached his own property at 110 Banbury Avenue North Wales, PA 19454.

3. Plaintiff has taken no aggressive or violent action against the Defendants and as such, the threats to his freedom from Montgomery Township are unwarranted, unnecessary and unlawful.

4. Defendants have misrepresented ownership to Montgomery Township Police and have manipulated them into actions which are clearly an abuse of power under color of law.

5. As the Plaintiff is unaware of any allegation of criminal charges, the Montgomery Townnship Police have no jurisdiction in this civil matter.

6. THREATS TO THE SAFETY AND LIBERTY OF THE PLAINTIFF WARRANT THI COURTS IMMEDIATE ATTENTION.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff respectfully requests this honorable Court issue an EX PARTE ORDER FOR POSSESSION authorizing the Sheriff's Department to take immediate action to remove, eject and prevent the Defendants from occupying the property and residence.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy

---

CASE DOCUMENTS
Civil Complaint – Action in Ejectment ( PDF )

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

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

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

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

Civil Complaint - Action in Ejectment

( PDF )

IN THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NORRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA

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

CIVIL COMPLAINT - ACTION IN EJECTMENT

JURISDICTION

1. The Court has jurisdiction in ths matter as the matter is being brought in the county where the land is located, ia a matter relating to civil trespass, where there are no criminal charges currently being filed by the Plaintiff; where there is no financial considerations currently being sought by the Plaintiff.

OWNERSHIP

2. Pursuant to Rule 1054, Plaintiff, Terance Healy, asserts his ownership of the property located at 110 Banbury Avenue, North Wales, PA 19454.

3. The Deed to the Property lists the Plaintiff as Grantee. [ Exhibit A ]

4. The instruments filed regarding the Property identified by Montgomery County as Parcel #46-00-00467-11-7 confirms the transfer of the title to the Plaintiff recorded on 1/16/1996.

5. A list of instruments recorded by the Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds which related to the property/parcel is attached. [ Exhibit B ]

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE

6. The transfer of the deed to the Miller's represents a fraudulent conveyance of the property;
a) Fraud: A person represents that they are the true owner of the land, but they are not.
b) Forgery: A person has given a forged Deed.
c) A Bad Power of Attorney: A person claims to have "power of attorney" but does not have the legal authority to act for another person; the power of attorney if invalid; the power of attorney is not properly executed and or notarized.
d). misrepresentation of marital status.
e) Undue Influence
f) Mistakes were made recording legal documents
g) Falsified title records
h) Representations on legal documents are invalid or incorrect.

NOTICE TO TRESPASSERS

7. Notice having been provided as a courtesy on July 26, 2013 at the property. (1) stapled to the front door frame, (2) stapled to the garage door frame and (3) stapled to the Mail box post. [ Exhibit C ]

8. No notice is required by law.

9. Receipt of Notice having been acknowledged by phone from Montgomery Township Police, officer McGuigan.

10. Plaintiff makes no allegation of Criminal Trespass at this time. This is a civil matter, Police involvement is unnecessary and outside their jurisdiction.

DAMAGES

11. Plaintiff is not currently seeking damages, however does not waive damages and reserves that right which may be asserted upon gaining access to the property.

COMPLAINT - CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

12. Plaintiff provides this Honorable Court with a copy of a document filed on August 8, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which challenges the constitutionality of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and has been served upon Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General and the Attorneys General of the United States. [ Exhibit D ]

13. "The Rules of Professional Conduct set out the minimum ethical standards for the practice of law and constitute a set of rules which all lawyers must follows." - The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

14. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information causes a denial of the constitutionally protected rights to petition the Government for redress of grievances (First Amendment); causes a denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without duie process of law (Fifth Amendment); which causes the denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law by a State (Fourteenth Amendment).

15. Plaintiff believes that Defendant is a currently practicing legal professional who 'must follow' the Rules of Professional Conduct, and as such Plaintiff asserts that any misrepresentation made by Defendant will be lawfully ignored by this Honorable Court resulting in the denial of Plaintiff's constitutionally protected rights.

16. The potential of a represented party intentionally introducing an act of fraud or misconduct which triggers the loss of constitutionally protected rights when facing a Pro Se litigant creates a situation which would demand strict actions regarding misconduct.

17. Those lawful practices endorsed and enabled by the Rules of Professional Conduct are unconstitutional and as such are a nullity.

18. Plaintiff does NOT ALLEGE knowledge of any prior misconduct by the Defendants, and is respectfully not acting with the intent to disparage, undermine or disrespect the Defendants or adversely affect the integrity of this Honorable Court.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable court issue an Order for Ejectment and permit the Plaintiff to safely return to the property of which he has been lawfully granted exclusive use and occupancy.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy

---

---

CASE DOCUMENTS
Civil Complaint – Action in Ejectment ( PDF )

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

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

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

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