03.07
2007-12477-286 Defendant Response
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION – LAW
SONYA HEALY : #2007-12477
v. :
TERANCE HEALY :
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY CONTEMPT PETITION OF FEBRUARY 24, 2011 AND COUNTERPETITION
A. Response to Plaintiff’s Petition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2
B. Agreed Order of September 6, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4
C. Plaintiff’s Material Breach of the Agreed Order of September 6, 2007
– Burglary, Break-In, Vandalism, Poisoning
– Photos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6
– Presenting False Documents to Police . . . . . . . . . . Page 16
– Judge DelRicci Conceals Document . . . . . . . . . . . Page 17
– Motion to Compel Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 17
– “Secret” Order of August 22, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18
– Impunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 19
D. Plaintiff’s Other Breaches of Agreed Order of September 6, 2007 . . . Page 19
– Police Reports
– Fraudulent Letters
E. Plaintiff’s Fraud and Harassment Voids Agreement . . . . . . . . . . Page 20
– Petition for Relief from Harassment / Fraud / Barratry
F. Ex Parte Communication between Angst & Angst and Judge Bertin . . Page 20
– Ex Parte Communications
– Recusal of Judge Bertin
G. COUNTERPETITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 21
H. Petitions Currently Pending before the Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 23
I. Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 24
A. Response to Plaintiff’s Petition
1. Admitted
2. Admitted
3. Denied. The copy provided as Plaintiff’s Exhibit A is incomplete.
4. Denied.
5. Plaintiff’s partial statement omit’s the primary consideration of the Agreement.
“1) Husband shall have exclusive possession of the marital residence and shall be 100% responsible for the payment of the mortgage to Wells Fargo in the amount of $ 2,494.13 by the 15th of every month.”
6. Denied.
7. Denied. Husband has never been in default of the Agreed Order.
8 – 10 Denied. There is no reference to the mortgage in Plaintiff’s Petition filed on September 24, 2008.
Defendant’s Response had predicted that the incomplete, misnumbered and poorly written petition was intended to delay the custody proceedings. The record shows that the Custody modification proceedings commenced on December 26, 2007 were delayed by excessive and irrelevant discovery issues relating to this petition until just days before the minor child’s 18th birthday.
The Petition was withdrawn by the Plaintiff in August 2009 after the 18th Birthday of the parties minor child.
The Petition dated July 6, 2009 was filed as Judge Thomas DelRicci was recusing himself.
Judge Bertin’s Order of August 25, 2009 split the Defendant’s CounterPetition from the Response filed on August 19, 2009. As a stand alone petition the issues presented were “not cognizable’ and the petition was dismissed. Defendant was ordered to pay Plaintiff related fees. Upon submission of the invoice for fees, plaintiff indicated that Ex Parte communication had occurred.
A Petition regarding the Ex Parte Communication, filed September 14, 2010, is currently scheduled to be heard in this Court in June 2011.
11. Denied.
12. Denied. Husband has never been in default of the Agreed Order.
13. Denied.
14. Denied. Husband has never been in default of the Agreed Order.
15. Denied. Evidence of Wife’s ruined credit should be presented at trial.
16. Denied. Wife’s irresponsible financial dealings do not negate her responsibility for the mortgage.
17. Denied. Husband has never been in default of the Agreed Order.
18. Denied. The last hearing on Equitable Distribution was held in August 2010 over six months ago.
19. Denied. Wife’s irresponsible financial dealings are not relevant.
20. Denied. Wife’s irresponsible financial dealings are not relevant.
Count II
21. Denied.
22. Denied.
23. Denied. This absolutely ridiculous statement is clearly meant to be humorous.
24. Denied.
VERIFICATION
The Verification by the Plaintiff has been falsified.
Angst & Angst have intentionally acted to enable the recovery of fees by the Plaintiff through their professional malpractice insurance.
B. Agreed Order of September 6, 2007
The Defendant respectfully submits this typed transcript as a true and correct transcription of the Agreed Order of September 6, 2007. [Docket# 2007-12477-22]
AGREED ORDER of September 6, 2007
1) Husband shall have exclusive possession of the marital residence and shall be 100% responsible for the payment of the mortgage to Wells Fargo in the amount of $ 2,494.13 by the 15th of every month.
2) In the event that Husband does not pay the mortgage by the 15th of any given month, then he will be considered in default of this agreement and exclusive possession will immediately transfer to Wife. Husband must vacate the marital residence within 10 days after his default.
[Agreed Order (page2)]
3) If & When exclusive possession of the Marital residence is transferred to Wife, the residence will be immediately listed for sale with a realtor who is mutually agreeable to both parties. If a realtor can not be chosen within 5 days either party may petition for a hearing. The parties agree to list the residence at a sale price suggested by the realtor and to reduce the sale price as recommended by the realtor.
4) If default by Husband occurs due to his failure to pay the mortgage in a timely manner, then Husband shall be responsible for any late fees and/or penalties imposed by Wells Fargo, as well as any moving costs and rent forfeited by Wife and/or any lost security deposit or other penalty incurred by Wife as a result of having to break her lease. Husband will reimburse wife for these amounts within 30 days of default.
[Agreed Order (page 3)]
5) Sometime after the next 14 days, Wife shall be permitted to remove the following items from the marital residence:
– All of her parent’s furniture safe
-boxes clothes
(1) sofa
(2) la-z-boy recliner
(1) kitchen table
(2) chairs
– Colin’s bedroom furniture (1) bed
(1) dresser
(1) bureau
– Brennan’s desk
– Wife’s premarital bedroom set & doll case
– Items gifted to Wife – any items disputed in this regard shall remain in the marital residence
– Wife’s music boxes
– ½ kitchen ware
[Agreed Order (page 4)]
– Father’s tools
– Playstation and Game cube & games (Colin’s)
– One Television (-functional) (bedroom)
– Children’s clothing and personal belongings
– Wife’s personal belongings & clothes one closet – dresser / headboard
– ½ Christmas decorations – to be divided prior to Thanksgiving.
[Agreed Order (page 5)]
6) Husband shall be 100% responsible for the dog “max” and shall hold wife harmless and indemnify her from any and all damages incurred by wife as a result of the dog.
7) The parties agree to get together on some date prior to Thanksgiving to divide the remaining items of personal property in the marital residence.
[Signature – Sonya Healy] And now this 6th day of September, 2007
This Agreement is hereby made an Order of [Signature – Terance Healy] Court.
[Signature – Hon. Toby Dickman]
Pages 1, 2 3, and 4 have been initialed by the parties in the upper right corner.
C. Plaintiff’s Material Breach of the Agreed Order of September 6, 2007
Burglary, Break-In, Vandalism, Poisoning
1. On March 22, 2008, Plaintiff and a team of a dozen people broke into, burglarized and vandalized the Defendant’s home. Additionally, the family dog was poisoned and died six months later.
2. Exhibit A: Robbery
3. The following are photos are from March 22, 2008. The photos were taken by several concerned neighbors.
Presenting False Documents to Police
4. Montgomery Township Police were called by concerned neighbors and responded within seconds.
5. Police left minutes later permitting the break-in, burglary and vandalism to continue.
6. Montgomery Township Police Report #2008-08165. (Exhibit B)
7. Police were contacted by the Defendant when he arrived home.
8. Police informed the Defendant (1) who had entered the home, (2) how they had broken into the home, and (3) that officers had been shown a document which permitted the Plaintiff to enter the home.
9. Defendant provided the officers with a copy of the Agreed Order of September 6, 2007 which granted exclusive use of the residence to Defendant.
10. The officers mocked the handwritten Agreed Order document indicating that the one presented by the Plaintiff was one page which was cleanly typed.
11. Montgomery Township Police have not provided their Report #2008-08210 despite a subpeona sent on March 4, 2010 by Marguerite Nocchi. Exhibit C
Judge DelRicci Conceals Document
12. At a hearing on May 14, 2008, Robert Angst presented the ‘cleanly typed‘ document to Judge DelRicci.
13. Judge DelRicci did not permit the Defendant to review the document, or obtain a copy. A breach of proper court procedure.
14. Defendant directly asked to see the document and to have a copy. Judge DelRicci denied the request.
15. Defendant’s repeated attempts to obtain a copy of that document have been disregarded.
Discovery Hearing – Plaintiff Lies
16. Defendant requested a copy of the document described as “A clear copy of the letter written by Angst & Angst which was presented to Montgomery Township Police which caused them to disregard Sonya Healy, and her agents, activity at the residence on March 22, 2008” in a letter titled “Equitable Distribution – Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents” on January 28, 2010.
17. Plaintiff’s Discovery Response denies the existence of any such document. The response was not dated and delivered a week after the dated ordered by Judge Bertin.
18. During a Hearing to Compel Discovery Documents on May 19, 2010, the Plaintiff again denied the existence of any such document.
19. On August 12, 2010, Defendant discovered a copy of the document at the Prothonotary in Norristown, PA. (Exhibit D – Notice of Discovery of Ex Parte Orders Dated August 22, 2007)
“Secret” Order of August 22, 2007 by Judge Rhonda Daniele
20. A Civil Rights Violation.
21. The Order of August 22, 2007 was issued without any formal proceeding.
22. The Order of August 22, 2007 was not distributed to the Defendant.
23. The Order of August 22, 2007 was not docketed with the Prothonotary.
24. The “Secret” Order of August 22, 2007 had not previously been available as part of the case file at any of the dozen or so times the Defendant had reviewed the file at the Prothonotary.
25. The “Secret” Order was written by Angst & Angst.
26. The “Secret” Order grants Exclusive Possession of the marital residence to the Plaintiff.
27. The “Secret” Order restricts the Defendant to Supervised Visitation with his son.
28. Supervised Visitation is for the most vile criminals and sex offenders. As such, it is entirely inappropriate in this matter.
29. The “Secret” Order slanders the Defendant.
30. The “Secret” Order is a cleanly typed document.
31. The “Secret” Order is cause for a Federal lawsuit against Judge Rhonda Daniele.
32. Maintaining the “Secret” protects Judge Rhonda Daniele, who is the head of the Family Court Division.
33. Family Court Masters and Judges had access to the document. Their own illegal, unethical and irresponsible actions are cause for their inclusion as parties in a Federal lawsuit.
34. The “Secret” Order provides an instrument by which the Plaintiff can demand impunity in exchange for maintaining the ‘secret’.
35. Plaintiff has proceeded through this case with ABSOLUTE IMPUNITY.
Impunity
36. Impunity – the impossibility, de jure or de facto, of bringing the perpetrators of violations to account – whether in criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings – since they are not subject to any inquiry that might lead to their being accused, arrested, tried and if found guilty, sentenced to appropriate penalties, and to making reparations to their victims.
37. Impunity arises from a failure to meet obligations to investigate violations, to take appropriate measures in respect of the perpetrators, particularly in the area of justice, by ensuring that those suspected of criminal responsibility are prosecuted, tried and duly punished; to provide victims with effective remedies and to ensure that they receive reparation for the injuries suffered; to ensure the inalienable right to know the truth about violations; and to take other necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of violations.
D. Plaintiff’s Other Breaches of Agreed Order of September 6, 2007
1. On August 22, 2007, the same day the “secret” order was issued, Plaintiff requested police escort to the home she had abandoned in May 2007.
– Police Report #2007-21323 (Exhibit E)
2. On October 20, 2007, the date selected for delivery of the items listed in the Agreed Order of September 6, 2007, Plaintiff contacts police presenting false documents.
– Police Report #2007-26713 (Exhibit F)
3. In Plaintiff’s Petition filed on September 24, 2008, fraudulent documents were created to misrepresent attempts to contact Defendant.
4. After being Ordered to return items from the Burglary, Defendant received increasing aggressive and non-cooperative letters from Plaintiff’s attorneys attempting to have him violate the Agreed Order of September 6, 2007.
5. Plaintiff has repeatedly filed petitions and withdrawn the petitions regarding property issues.
6. Plaintiff was provided an agreed remedy to the property issues which was further ordered by Judge Emanuel Bertin and voluntarily failed to exercise the order.
7. Agreed Order of August 25, 2009 (Exhibit G) paragraph 6 states:
“6. The parties will meet at the marital home at 1PM Sat 9/12/09 to resolve personal property issue and walk through inspections. If either party wants to cancel, that party can opt out & it won’t be done.” (Docket# 2007-12477-157)
8. Minutes before 1 PM on September 12, 2009, Plaintiff contacted Defendant and cancelled.
E. Plaintiff’s Fraud & Harassment Voids Agreement
1. When entering into the Agreed Order of September 6, 2007, the Defendant was unaware of the previous order written by Angst & Angst and Ordered by Judge Rhonda Daniele.
2. Plaintiff acted to defraud the Defendant when she made payments to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and subsequently cancelled those payments along with the cancellation of the printed copies of the mortgage statements.
3. Defendant hereby reintroduces and incorporates by reference the PETITION FOR RELEIF FROM HARASSMENT, FRAUD AND BARRATRY filed on August 26, 2008 (Exhibit H). Docket# 2007-12477-156
4. Exhibit H was previously filed as part of “RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDER AND COUNTERPETITION”. Docket# 2007-12477-154
5. On August 25, 2007, Judge Bertin had ordered the separation of the Response from the Counter Petition (Docket#2007-12477-158) making the stand alone criminal fraud and harassment issues presented NOT COGNIZABLE in Family Court. (Exhibit I)
F. Ex Parte Communication between Angst & Angst and Judge Bertin
1. Angst & Angst intentionally presented their displeasure for Judge Bertin, who did not find the Defendant in contempt, by revealing the ex parte communications with the Judge in their invoices for fees.
2. Without offering any explanation, Judge Bertin recused himself from the case days after the introduction of the Plaintiff’s invoices as an Exhibit during an Equitable Distribution hearing before Bruce Goldenberg.
3. Petitions are currently pending before this Court to obtain the content of the Ex Parte communications and letters between Angst & Angst and Judge Bertin and any additional Ex Parte Documents and communications received by the Judges and Masters of this Court.
G. COUNTERPETITION
1. Material Breach is defined as a breach of contract that is so substantial that it defeats the purpose of the parties in making the contract and gives the non-breaching party the right to cancel and sue for damages.
2. It is the law in Pennsylvania that a party to a bilateral contract breaches a contract when she fails to do something she expressly or impliedly agreed to do.
Johnson v. Finestra, Inc. 305 F.2d 179, 181 (3d Cir.1965)
3. Plaintiff caused a material breach of the contract when she broke into, burglarized, and vandalized the marital residence, additionally poisoning the family pet who died months later.
4. Fraud is the intentional misrepresentation of an important issue of the contract.
5. The presence of fraud in a contractual proceeding makes the contract voidable by the party upon whom the fraud was perpetrated.
6. Defendant was kept unaware of the previously executed Order of Judge Rhonda Daniele which granted exclusive use of the marital residence to Plaintiff.
7. Defendant was unaware of the manipulations of the mortgage account by the plaintiff’s actions cancelling a mortgage payment; and cancelling the printing of mortgage statements.
8. Plaintiff breached the contract through her fraudulent misrepresentations when entering into the Agreement.
9. If a breach amounts to a material failure of performance, the other party is discharged from any liability under the contract.
Borough of Greentree v. Tortorette, 205 Pa. Super. 532, 533, 211 A.2d 76, 77(1965).
10. The Mortgage Agreement was executed by both Defendant and Plaintiff.
11. Defendant continued to make mortgage payments to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage as non-payment would affect his credit standing.
12. Plaintiff has failed to compensate the Defendant in any manor for the continued mortgage payments.
13. Plaintiff has unfairly benefited from the continued payments by the Defendant.
14. Defendant incorporates by direct reference the following which appear in the attached Exhibit H.
Petition For Relief from harassment Fraud and Barratry
Count I Conspiracy / Fraud
Count II Fraud
Count III Conspiracy Fraud
Count IV Financial Hardship
Count V Harassment
Count VI Contempt Dissipation of Assets
Count VII Harassment / Intentional Delay of Documents
Count VIIIHarassment / Intentional Delay of Documents
Count IX Harassment / Persistent Requests for Non-Existent Items
Count X Costs Related to Legal Research
The limited time allowed to the Defendant to respond to the Emergency Petition requires me to stop here to file as much of this document as can be completed prior to the closing of the Prothonotary.
The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 9:00 AM.
The remaining portions to the document will be filed with the Prothonotary as soon as possible with copies available at the hearing.
H. Petitions Currently Pending before the Court
Filed by Plaintiff:
Exceptions to the Recommendation of Conference Conciliator (1 page) filed 8/6/2010
Filed by Defendant:
Exceptions to the Conference Officer/Master in Support (4 pages) filed 8/10/2010
Emergency Petition for Relief (3 pages) filed 8/12/2010
Failure to Comply with Court Order dated August 22, 2007 (3 pages) filed 8/24/2010
Contempt of Court Order in Support (3 pages) filed 8/24/2010
Petition Regarding Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Communications (2 pages) filed 9/14/2010
Petition Regarding Discrepancies/Errors on Invoice for Fees (4 pages) filed 9/14/2010
Exceptions To The Recommendation of Conference Officer/Master in Equitable Distribution filed 11/8/2010
Motion for the Production of Documents filed 12/22/2010
(There are 2 petitions filed this date, the other sought a single ex parte document sent to Judge Carluccio and was immediately denied by Judge Carluccio, the other sought all the ex perte documents from Angst & Angst sent to the previous Judges assigned the case.)
Request Rule of Law regarding Dismissal:
Motion for the Production of Document filed 12/22/2010
Respectfully Submitted,
____________________________________
Terance Healy, Pro Se
Defendant
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this document are treue and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the Penalties of PA. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
________________________________________
Terance Healy
Exhibit A – ROBBERY
Exhibit B – Montgomery Township Police Report #2008-08165
Exhibit C – Subpeona
Exhibit D – Notice of Discovery of Ex Parte Orders Dated August 22, 2007
Exhibit E – Montgomery Township Police Report #2007-21323
Exhibit F – Montgomery Township Police Report #2007-26713
Exhibit G – Agreed Order of August 25, 2009
Exhibit H – Petition for Relief from Harassment, Fraud and Barratry
Exhibit I – Judge Bertin’s Order of August 25, 2009
