Superior Court of Pennsylvania - Unnecessarily Discourteous and Disrespectful

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

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

AND

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

The Per Curiam Order is NOT signed by any judge.

The Per Curiam Order includes a journal number.

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

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

The Per Curiam Order is dated 21st November 2014.

The Motion had been filed on 14th November 2014.

The Motion for the Rule of Law was DENIED.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion for the Applicable Rule of Law

Filed in Superior Court - PDF version

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

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

MOTION FOR THE APPLICABLE RULE OF LAW

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

THE REQUEST WAS DENIED.

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

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

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


Respectfully,
Terance Healy

Montgomery County doesn't follow law, court orders, ethics... or honor the deals they coerce out of their victims

I have heard an unconfirmed report that Gabrielle Drexler, who had been coerced into a guilty plea to avoid jail time for a perjury charge, has been incarcerated.

Her case indicates the misuse of the technology available to law enforcement to interfere and intercept people's lives via phones and computers. They got her to plead guilty by aggressively threatening her with jail time. So to avoid jail, she plead guilty. I hear they have put her in jail this week anyway.

In this post-Snowden world, a trial would have been too damaging for the County and very difficult to conceal. So, the County renegs on their coerced deal with a girl represented by a County provided attorney. Ethics is not Montco's strong suit. One might think that they apparently forgot about the pending case filed by Gabrielle in the US District Court which will expose their actions.

A trial would have revealed the county's surveillance capabilities. I don't imagine that DA Ferman informed the Grand Jury of those capabilities when seeking to prosecute the girl for perjury. Rule 1.6 excuses those opopsies. After the Merion School District SPYCAM mess, Montco didn't want further scrutiny of their misconducts.

Usually, Risa Ferman uses the perjury scenario against the county officials who challenge her. She would need a 24 hour perjury court to handle all the perjury in Montco if she really cared about truth. That Public Corruption Task Force she created when she was elected hasn't prosecuted anyone.

(You don't suppose they misunderstood their job, and ARE CAUSING CORRUPTION? Hmmm. No worries Rule 1.6 will cover it up... until JUSTICE RETURNS.)

This last week, Montgomery County has been in the news for the ethics violations of Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio. Judge Carluccio knew she was violating ethics policies when it happened. She announced her violation to all of the parties involved in her unethical buying and selling of the county office space.

Judge Carluccio seems to be under the remarkable belief that if you boast about your lack of ethics you are not violating ethics rules. The PhillyNews editorial was also surprised at the inaccuracy of Judge Carluccio's personal brand of ethics.

Review the malicious injustice that she has ordered upon litigants in her court and you will learn that her knowledge of the law and procedure is also her own personal brand.

Review the movie ART OF THE STEAL and you can actually see what Judge Carluccio looks like when she concocts her imaginary stories. She does not think well on her feet. Her delusions would be on the transcripts to my case BUT they are not being provided for my Appeal in Superior Court. (And Rule 1.6 is allowing the lower court to obstruct justice while the superior court wrestles with the pointlessness of them issuing an order which wouldn't be followed citing Rule 1.6 - OR - citing Rule 1.6 themselves to avoid taking any action. A Rule that covers every conspiracy and crime.

I feel bad for Gabrielle. The necessity for the District Attorney to attack a young girl in order to conceal the county's illegal use of surveillance technology to create and damage evidence was the priority.

The District Attorney is way too busy concealing the crimes of the county judiciary and her various task forces.

The County's new rule provides methods for hacking into EVERY litigant in the county who files electronically. This will help with cclearing the court calendar.... litigants won't get their email notices and won't show up for court. They lose by default, and the county blames the victim indicating they sent an email. SOMEHOW THIS HAS BEEN MADE THE OFFICIAL MONTGOMERY COUNTY PROCESS EVEN WHEN THE FLAWS IN THEIR SYSTEM ARE OBVIOUS, as it their intent to deny access to the courts. I suppose it will reduce the volume and varieties of judicial misconduct.

The Prothonotary has ignored my reports to them of the outdated and invalid certificate on their servers for years which creates an opportunity for computers to be illegally accessed. Is the County behind it? or their Private Investigators? or the opposing counsel? or anyone who goes up on the county web site and sees that "E" and knows your computers are exposed.

Peopple have been wondering why lawyers have begun running for the job of Prothonotary, and other Row Officers. The answer is simple. Rule 1.6. Once they have the Prothonotary as a lawyer mandated to conceal their misconduct and crimes, they don't have to worry about a rogue individual not cooperating in their injustice. Though Mark Levy has cooperated and not done his job in my case. It is too risky for him to not be under Rule 1.6. Yes, Rule 1.6 makes continued injustice mandatory.

Anyone who breaks Rule 1.6 does not get back into their Bar Organization. That's what happened to Judge Ann Lokuta when she reported on the misconduct of Judge Ciavarella in the Kids for Cash scandal. She violated Rule 1.6. Even after Ciavarella was convicted by the Federal Govt of incarcerating 5000 kids, Judge Lokuta could not get her job back. Rule 1.6 makes doing the right thing IMPOSSIBLE.

So it seems folks spend way too many TAX DOLLARS on their twisted avoidance of the laws and ethics which they ignore anyway.

At what point did the Montgomery County realize that they were above the law AND free to deny constitutionally protected civil rights of the people. Rule 1.6 has been in effect in Pennsylvania since the 80's.. and they terrorized me for 8 years by ignoring my rights. That could all be hidden until my case escaped to Superior Court - an action which Judge Page was not able to undo - no action too unlawful, too corrupt. The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 will demonstrate the unconstitutional aspect of THEIR failure to enforce (or follow) the law...

Attorney General Kathleen Kane has denied responsibility for enacting or enforcing Rule 1.6. We have asked who has that responsibility. And when she responds with regard to the unconstitutional delegations of authority, the judiciary may regain its integrity, lawyers can regain their self respect, and the legislature can do their job.

JUSTICE IS COMING.

Persevere. When is the media going to notice the effort to resurrect justice? Afterwards, there will still be news to report. There will simply be less injustice.

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF COMPLETE COURT RECORD

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF COMPLETE COURT RECORD

COUNT ONE:
FAILURE TO DELIVER THE COMPLETE RECORD OF THE MATTER

1. Pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Prothonotary of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania was directed to provide the record for this matter being appealed before the Superior Court.

2. The Prothonotary failed to prepare and deliver the record by the date directed by the Superior Court. (June 28, 2013)

3. The Prothonotary has failed to deliver the complete record to the Superior Court.

4. The Service List of Record Documents transmitted by Mark Levy, Prothonotary on July 8 2013 includes reference numbers where documents have NOT been delivered.

5. The Service List of Record Documents transmitted lists documents which have not been delivered to the Superior Court on July 8, 2013 or July 11, 2013.

COUNT TWO:
FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE TRANSCRIPTS FOR THE MATTER

6. Transcripts related to hearings on the matter have not been prepared and delivered to the Superior Court.

7. Requests for the Production of Transcripts pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure were requested (1) concurrent with the filing of the Notice of Appeal; (2) updated on May 15, 2013; (3) resubmitted on May 22, 2013.

8. Court Reporters have neglected to prepare and deliver the Transcripts as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

COUNT THREE:
INCOMPLETE TRANSCRIPTS ARE MISSING REFERENCED EXHIBITS

9. Transcripts which have been provided are missing referenced Exhibits.

10. This omission has been presented to the Court Reporters and the Court Reporters Office in Norristown. There has been no response or action regarding the missing documents.

Whereas, the Appellant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court address the issues presented and issue an Order
-requiring the Prothonotary to immediately Produce the COMPLETE record of the matter.
-requiring the immediate preparation and production of the transcripts for the matter.
-requiring the production of the missing exhibits referenced in transcripts.
which will permit this Appeal to proceed according to the schedule provided.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/Terance Healy/s/
Terance Healy
Pro Se

c/o 871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

PROOF OF SERVICE


I hereby certify that I am this 25th day of July, 2013 serving the foregoing

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF COMPLETE COURT RECORD

upon the persons and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R.A.P. 121:

Service by FIRST CLASS MAIL	Sonya Healy
	c/o Angst & Angst
	Harleysville, PA

Service by FIRST CLASS MAIL	Mark Levy, Prothonotary
	Montgomery County Courthouse
	Norristown, PA

Service by FIRST CLASS MAIL	Judge Garrett Page
	Montgomery County Courthouse
	Norristown, PA

July 24, 2013
Terance Healy
Pro Se
c/o 871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976

Appeal Progress Report

Spent the day at Superior Court making copies of the files which were transmitted from the Norristown Prothonotary.

Always a game, or tactic, or demonstration of the inability for anyone in Norristown for follow rules, procedure and law. The files were to have been delivered to the Superior Court by June 28, 2013.

They were received on July 8, 2013 at Superior Court. The swagger of the Montgomery County Courthouse demonstrates the tremendous arrogance to believe that the rules do not apply to them.


There are also several missing items, exhibits, transcripts, etc... Of course they would not send everything. The Rules of Appellate Procedure don't apply to Montgomery County. Oy!

To the Court Reporters:

Message to the Court Reporters:

Please advise the court reporters that I plan to file a complaint with the Superior Court regarding their deliberate failure to produce the transcripts as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

I will additionally be filing federal suits against each for their participation in the obstruction of justice and denial of due process which they have chosen to become involved in.

Judge Page lacked jurisdiction and engaged in intimidation tactics to prevent justice in this matter.

Please advise your reporters accordingly.
Terance Healy
www.work2bdone.com/live

Email Exchange Regarding Court Reporter Preparation of Transcripts. 1. On April 30, 2013, upon receipt of the Order Granting Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Appellant/Defendant filed the document with the Prothonotary. ( #2007-12477-391 ) ( EXHIBIT A ) 2. Appellant/Defendant then went to the Court Reporters Office to arrange for the production of the transcripts for the matter. Appellant/Defendant met with P. Fajardo, and also met briefly with Byron Battle, Chief Court Reporter.. 3. Appellant/Defendant was traveling to Florida the next morning to attend the funeral of his father who had passed away on April 28, 2013. ( EXHIBIT B ) 4. During his time in Florida, Appellant/Defendant contacted P. Fajardo by telephone to update the list of transcripts necessary for the Appeal. 5. On May 15, 2013, upon his return, Appellant/Defendant filed with the Prothonotary a Notice “Request for the Production of Transcripts” listing the transcripts necessary for the Appeal. ( #2007-12477-394 ) The Notice included a signed copy of the Order Granting Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 6. On May 15, 2013, a copy of the time-stamped Notice “Request for the Production of Transcripts” was emailed to P. Fajardo in the Court Reporters Office. ( EXHIBIT C ) 7. On May 15, 2013, P. Fajardo acknowledged receipt of the listing, and accepted responsibility to notify the appropriate Court Reporters. ( EXHIBIT D ) 8. On May 16, 2013, the Court Reporters' Office was thanked by the Appellant/Defendant, and exhibits missing from the official transcript for February 11 & 20, 2013 were raised as a concern. (EXHIBIT E ) 9. On May 16, 2013, P. Fajardo indicated that the Appellant/Defendant would be contacted if any further information was required. ( EXHIBIT F ) 10. On May 19, 2013, the Court Reporters' Office was thanked by the Appellant/Defendant who inquired as to when the transcripts would be available to review. ( EXHIBIT G ) 11. On May 20, 2013, P. Fajardo indicated that my inquiry would be forwarded to the individual court reporters. ( EXHIBIT H ) 12. On May 20, 2013, Appellant/Defendant was contacted by Byron Battle, Chief Court Reporter, by telephone. Byron indicated that Judge Page had contacted the court reporters with instructions to NOT prepare the transcripts. 13. On May 21, 2013, Appellant/Defendant wrote to the Court Reporters Office requesting that they continue to work towards producing the hearing transcripts, as there had been no information shared by Judge Page; no contact between Judge Page and the Appellant/Defendant; no hearing or conference had been petitioned; no hearing or conference had been scheduled; no hearing or conference had been held. ( EXHIBIT I ) 14. On May, 21, 2013, Appellant /Defendant received via email the transcript for a brief proceeding held on January 17, 2013. The Court Reporter additionally filed a copy of the transcript with the Prothonotary. ( #2007-12477-397 ) ( EXHIBIT J ) 15. On May 22, 2013, Appellant/Defendant emailed P. Fajardo requesting the name of who had added the transcript for the brief proceeding on January 17, 2013 to the list of transcripts to be produced. ( EXHIBIT K ) 16. On May 22, 2013, Appellant/Defendant resubmitted the Notice “Request for the Production of Transcripts” to clarify the transcripts required and the associated Court Reporter for each hearing. ( #2007-12477-398 ) ( EXHIBIT L ) 17. On May 22, 2013, P. Fajardo responded to my email with a courtesy copy of a Court Order signed by Judge Garrett D. Page on May 21, 2013. ( EXHIBIT M ) 18. On May 22, 2013, Appellant/Defendant acknowledged the email and the order, further calling attention to the courts lack of jurisdiction. The lack of jurisdiction was further compounded by the pendancy of a prior appeal which had been deliberately neglected by the Prothonotary. The Prothonotary failed to prepare and forward the matter to the Superior Court after the August 15, 2011 Notice of Appeal. The email additionally pointed out the overall injustice and corruption which has interfered with every aspect of the matter since 2007. ( EXHIBIT N ) 19. On May 22, 2013, Appellant/Defendant assembled and posted the issues regarding the Order of May 21, 2013 to his web site, and opened up discussions with friends about how to address the issues. ( EXHIBIT O ) ( www.work2bdone.com/live ) 20. On May 22, 2013, Appellant/Defendant emailed the Court Reporter who had transcribed the January 17, 2013 requesting the name of the person who requested/authorized the transcription of the matter. ( EXHIBIT P ) 21. On May 23, 2013, the Order of May 21, 2013 signed by Judge Garrett D. Page was filed and docketed with the Prothonotary. ( #2007-12477-399 ) ( EXHIBIT Q ) 22. On May 23, 2013, the Court Reporter indicated via email that Byron Battle, Chief Court Reporter, had instructed her to transcribe the proceeding from January 17, 2013, and that she believed that it was at the request of Judge Page. ( EXHIBIT R ) 23. On May 23, 2013, the Court Reporter followed up her email with another indicating that as a result of the Judge's recent Order, I would be expected to make arrangements for payment for the transcripts prior to them being transcribed and produced for the Superior Court. ( EXHIBIT S ) 24. On May 24, 2013, Appellant/Defendant emailed the Court Reporter to clarify the issues involved. In a follow up email, Appellant/Defendant further indicated that Judge Page lacked jurisdiction to revoke his Order Granting Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and it appeared as if Judge Page was attempting to prevent the record from being delivered to the Superior Court. ( EXHIBIT T )

COURT REPORTERS HAVE EACH INDIVIDUALLY CORRESPONDED DIRECTLY INDICATING THEIR REFUSAL TO PRODUCE THE TRANSCRIPTS.