A Terroristic Divorce

A Linux machine using Safari searched for Ed Weideman this morning.

So many people have expressed a strong desire to see Ed prosecuted for his part in the case. A former Montgomery Township Police Officer who looks so damn guilty as he hides when I see him in local stores.

Apparently I was the only one who thought he was a friend. Until, it was revealed he had a part in the surveillance, and the connection to the police, and then of course he helped burglarize and vandalize my home and kill my dog.

Here ya go Ed… something for you to find on your next search. Google Yourself!

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION – LAW

SONYA HEALY : #2007-12477

v. :

TERANCE HEALY :

PETITION TO RESCIND/CANCEL THE ORDER OF APRIL 14, 2011 WHICH VIOLATES PENNSYLVANIA LAW AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
AND RESCHEDULE ALL OUTSTANDING PETITIONS

1. The Order issued on April 14, 2011, copy attached, is in violation of Pennsylvania Law.

RULE 1920.41 NO DEFAULT JUDGMENT
No judgment may be entered by default or on the pleadings.

2. The Order issued on April 14, 2011 is in violation of the United States Constitution, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

3. The Order issued on April 14, 2011 is in violation of the United States Constitution, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241, Conspiracy Against Rights.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241
CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

4. The Order issued on April 14, 2011 neglects to address the matter of the Defendant’s Response and Counterclaim filed on March 8, 2011.

5. Defendant has not been permitted to opportunity to present the response and Counterclaim.

6 Defendant’s Response and Counterclaim includes allegations and corresponding documents to support the allegations which include the following:

A. Civil Rights Violations of the Judges and Masters

B. Ethics Issues and Violations by the Judges and Masters

C. Ethics Issues and Violations of Valerie Angst and Robert Angst of Angst & Angst

D. Plaintiff’s Perjury

E. Plaintiff’s Unsworn Falsification to Authorities

F. Plaintiff’s False Reports to Law Enforcement Authorities
– Falsely incriminating another
– Fictitious Reports

G. Plaintiff‘s Falsification and Intimidation

H. Plaintiff’s False Swearing

I. Plaintiff’s False Alarms to agencies of Public Safety

J. Tampering with Public Records or Information
– Domestic Relations Office
– Montgomery County Prothonotary

7. Judge Carluccio has issued the Order of April 14, 2011 to prevent the entry of any exhibit or testimony which will expose the corrupt actions of the prior judges on this case.

8. Judge Carluccio is extending the impunity granted inexplicably to the Plaintiff which permits repeated violation of Court Order and the Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

9. The impunity granted to the Plaintiff has prevented any justice in this case and permitted the continued harassment and terror of the Defendant for over 5 years.

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.

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.

10. At a hearing in Equitable Distribution on March 29, 2011, it was repeatedly presented that the Court had numerous outstanding petitions with financial issues which needed to be addressed prior to a Hearing in Equitable Distribution.

11. Judge Carluccio repeatedly assured the Defendant that those hearings would be held and rescheduled some of them from June 2011 to May 5, 2011.

12. The outstanding petitions were noted each time an issue disputed in the petitions arose during the Equitable Distribution Hearing.

13. Judge Carluccio repeated indications on March 29, 2011 that the Hearing was on Equitable Distribution and any exhibits and evidence regarding the outstanding petitions would be addressed at their respective hearings.

14. There has not been any hearing on the outstanding petitions where the Defendant has been provided any opportunity to present his evidence and testimony.

15. Each Short List has denied the Defendant any opportunity to speak, instead allowing the Plaintiff’s Attorney, Valerie Angst to completely misrepresent the issues and purpose of the petitions, even where she has failed to file any response to the document.

16. Judge Carolyn Carluccio ordered a Hearing in Equitable Distribution for March 29, 2011 with the full knowledge that there were numerous outstanding financial issues which required resolution and attention of the Court.

17. The Court schedule available on-line through www.Montcopa.org indicated a number of other outstanding petitions were to be addressed by the Court on that date.

18. On March 29, 2011, The Defendant was required to sign in as a Pro Se party.

19. The document provided for sign-in was incorrectly titled, indicating the matter being addressed was the Plaintiff’s Emergency Family Petition dated February 24, 2011.

20. Judge Carluccio began the hearing by indicating that we were there for the Hearing in Equitable Distribution, and the outstanding petitions would NOT be presented or discussed during that proceeding and those matters would be handled at their respective hearings.

21. On April 14, 2011, The Order of Judge Carluccio ONLY lists the petitions filed by the Defendant and incorrectly indicates they have been resolved, dismissed, addressed, or the Court does not have jurisdiction.

22. The April 14, 2011 Order neglects to address ANY of the Plaintiff‘s Petitions, Responses or Counterpetitions, which include:

– The Plaintiff filed Exceptions to the Recommendation of the Conciliator dated August 6, 2011.

– The Plaintiff’s Counterpetition to the Defendant filed Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Court Order Dated August 22, 2007.

– The Plaintiff’s Counterpetition to the Defendant filed Plaintiff’s Contempt of Court Order in Support.

– The Plaintiff’s Counterpetition to the Defendant filed Petition Regarding the Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Communications.

– The Plaintiff’s Counterpetition to the Defendant filed Petition Regarding Discrepancies / Errors on Invoice for Fees.

23. Plaintiff has not withdrawn any of the above-listed Counterpetitions.

24. Defendant has not withdrawn any Petition or Counterpetition.

Rule 232. Counterclaim. Termination of Plaintiff’s Action.
(a) A discontinuance or nonsuit shall not affect the right of the defendant to proceed with a counterclaim theretofore filed.

(b) A counterclaim may not be terminated, in whole or in part, by the defendant, except by discontinuance or voluntary nonsuit, and subject to conditions similar to those applicable to the plaintiff.

25. The Following Petitions remain to be addressed by the Court.

Plaintiff filed Exceptions to the Recommendation of the Conciliator
(Docket# 2007-12477-210 filed August 6, 2010)
Defendant filed Exceptions to the Recommendation of Conference Officer/Master in Support
(Docket# 2007-12477-211 filed August 10, 2010)

Defendant filed Emergency Petition for Relief (Re: Medical Benefits)
(Docket# 2007-12477-214 filed August 12, 2010)

Defendant filed Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Court Order Dated August 22, 2007
(Docket# 2007-12477-226 filed August 24, 2010)
Plaintiff Response and Counterpetition
(Docket# 2007-12477-249 filed October 6, 2010)

Defendant filed Plaintiff’s Contempt of Court Order in Support
(Docket# 2007-12477-227 filed August 24, 2010)
Plaintiff Response and Counterpetition
(Docket# 2007-12477-249 filed October 5, 2010)

Defendant filed Petition Regarding Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Communications
(Docket# 2007-12477-240 filed September 14, 2010)
Response and Counterpetition
(Docket# 2007-12477-248 filed October 5, 2010)

Defendant filed Petition Regarding Discrepancies/Errors on Invoice for Fees
(Docket# 2007-12477-241 filed September 14, 2010)
Response and Counterpetition
(Docket# 2007-12477-247 filed October 5, 2010)

Defendant filed Petition for the Production of Documents
(Docket# 2007-12477-271 filed December 22, 2010)

Defendant filed Petition for the Production of Document
(Docket# 2007-12477-272 filed December 22, 2010 as EMERGENCY)

Plaintiff’s Emergency Family Petition
(Docket# 2007-12477-283 filed February 24, 2011 as EMERGENCY)
Defendant Response and Counterpetition
(Docket# 2007-12477-286 filed March 8, 2011)

Defendant filed Petition for the Recusal of Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio for Conspiracy, Corruption, Fraud, Intimidation, Conflict of Interest, Denial of Due Process/Procedure, and Denial of Civil Rights
(Docket# 2007-12477-289 filed March 16, 2011)

26. The Defendant reaffirms the allegations and statements in the Petition file on March 16, 2011 requesting the recusal of Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio from the matter, copy attached.

WHEREAS, The Defendant requests the Honorable Court take appropriate action as follows:

1. Rescind/Cancel the April 14, 2011 Order of Judge Carolyn Carluccio; and

2. The Court promptly schedule the Defendant’s outstanding petitions before the appropriate Court; and

3. The Court cease any preparation of an Equitable Distribution Order relating to the case until the outstanding petitions have been resolved, as issuance of any such order will only serve to create further chaos in the matter; and

4. The Court deny any further jurisdiction with regard to the entire matter based upon allegations and evidence of multiple civil rights violations relating to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Constitution of the United States;

5. The Court deny any further jurisdiction with regard to the entire matter based upon its inability to address issues before the court due to collateral estoppel and coordinate jurisdiction.

6. The Court immediately act to transfer the matter to Court of Common Pleas in another county; or recommend and arrange escalation of the matter for hearings before a higher court.

Respectfully Submitted,

Terance Healy
Pro Se

Two people rang my doorbell about an hour ago. They were from MCES. Montgomery County Emergency Services.

1. They did not know why they were here.

2. They did not know who sent them.

…and they try to call me crazy.

They saw the volume of paperwork. The evidence of the criminal actions of the court.

They left.

Now I suppose I would be called paranoid if I said there was something suspicious about their visit.

If it was the police who sent them I would consider it intimidation and a threat. After all, Ofc Dougherty contacted my mother under similarly concealed reasons yesterday.

Today, my mother recieved a phone call from Officer Dougherty to check on me.

Am I to assume that Ofc Dougherty doesn’t realize he had the ability to end this nightmare in August 2007. Instead, Ofc Dougherty made the nightmare worse by having me involuntarily committed. He faked the paperwork. He falsified the police reports. He kept the reports from me for years. Then when I got the report the lies were evident.

Ofc Dougherty is responsible for the problem being permitted to go on for 5 years.

Ofc Dougherty knows who contacted police that day to make the ridiculous report of a threat.

Ofc Dougherty has maintained the secret which has permitted the destruction of my life for the last five years.

At any time, Ofc Dougherty and the Montgomery Township Police could reveal the truth about their actions and bring this to an end. Instead, they have sat silently as I am destroyed and Angst & Angst have manipulated the Court Masters and judges into misconduct. It is the original crime which has been kept secret… that crime has perpetuated the constant harassment and terror I experience on a daily basis. The complete violation of my civil rights. And now it has exposed Judge Carluccio as a co-conspirator, as she has acted in her official position as a Judge to obstruct justice.

Anyone who was manipulated by Angst & Angst could have done the right thing at any time. but they were too busy protecting each other…. and destroy every aspect of my life.

When it was suggested that Ofc Dougherty stop by my home today to check on me, I clearly indicated that would not be good and would be viewed as a threat. I DO NOT TRUST HIM. Last time I did that was August 8, 2007… and he destroyed my life and enabled the terror I have experienced for five years.

So he called my mother??? Her life has been hell as I have been destroyed. her finances are destroyed. Her security is at risk. Ofc Dougherty destroyed an entire family with his illegal actions in August 2007. UNFORGIVABLE.
ABOSLUTELY UNFORGIVABLE.

When you consider that Awareness Technologies has refused to remove their illegally installed program from my computers and has knowledge of how their products have been used in regard to false allegations against me… I consider it a threat that I receive regular emails from Awareness Technologies announcing how their products can be used to invade and target various new technologies.

Their program is NOT for surveillance.
It is remote control software.
It can be installed invisibly and illegally. If targeted, you do NOT necessarily have to do anything to cause it to be installed.
There is no available method for removal of their program.
Since their program was repackaged in 2007, it is no longer considered a virus/spyware program and is not detected or removed by anti-spyware/anti-virus programs.
Prior to 2007, WebWatcher was considered malware under another name.
When you do detect it, the false reports to authorities begin in an effort to cover up the illegal use of their product.
In the hands of a private investigator, with law enforcement/FBI connections on their resume, the program can be used to destroy anyone.

America. You do not need stealth remote control access, web blocking technology and realtime access to monitor your children. Teach your children responsibility. If you trust your children, your children will trust you. Why wouldnt you tell them you are watching, instead of sneaking around trying to catch them doing something.

The LEGAL LOCK has been lifted. No explanation for the extended lock period was provided.

Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio’s Order of March 14, 2011 represents a clear case of Obstruction of justice.

The Order reinforces the allegations made in the Request for her Recusal which she denied.

She has not held any hearings where she has permitted the presentation of any exhibits for the following matters.

Where PA Rule 1920.41 indicates that “No judgment may be entered by default or on the pleadings.” the cancellation of the proceeding for the above listed petitions is a violation of Pa law.

When you consider the evidence which will be presented at the proceedings will clearly indicate the corruption and conspiracy of the judiciary in this case, judge Carluccio’s Order becomes a over-up and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Today, I again contacted the FBI in Phildadelphia. Reporting the Civil rights violation, the illegal actions of Judge Carluccio in not having hearing on any matter now that the overall corruption has been documented. The US Attorney’s office has indicated they only take cases which are passed to them from the FBI.

The FBI occasionally waits to be involved in on a case until the State Attorney General has requested their assistance.

I met with a contact at State Representative Todd Stephens office in Montgomeryville to present the latest information. I have been in discussions with them to get the assistance of the PA Attorney General. Previously, I had been in contact with State Representative Rick Taylor regarding the issue.

After confirming the appropriate action to take with State Representative Kate Harper’s staff, who were in the loop duiring the August 2010 activities, I was then off to meet with staff at State Senator Stewart Greenleaf’s office in Wilow Grove.

They are reviewing documents left with them. Documents included the following:

2007-12477-286 Defendant Response Detailing the Civil Rights Violation and the corrupt actions of the Court. (129 Pages)
The Court had done everything possible to prevent this reply from being submitted. Only having 2 days notice of the petition and hearing, they did not want me to have time to present any exhibits and the hearing was ended without any opportunity to present the response and counter petition.

This document only exposes the corruption of the court. The technology issues are not addressed in the document. But the technology manipulations are evident throughout.
FBI never investigated anything.
Police never investigated anything.
County Detectives never investigated anything (and ended any action at the direction of Judge DelRicci)
No one ever helped. No one ever looked at any of the evidence which has been secured.

PETITION FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE CAROLYN TORNETTA CARLUCCIO FOR CONSPIRACY, CORRUPTION, FRAUD, INTIMIDATION, CONFLICT OF INTEREST and DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS / PROCEDURE and DENIAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS

The attempt to get copies of the inappropriate Ex Parte letters between Agnst & Angst and the Judges.
2007-12477-271 Defendant Motion for the Production of Documents

The attempt to get copies of the inappropriate Ex Parte letters between Agnst & Angst and Judge Carluccio.
2007-12477-272 Defendant Motion for the Production of Document

I returned home. Contacted Network Solutions to check on the resolution of my account which would permit me to access my email again. though they keep saying someone is working on it, there is no change. The account is on a LEGAL BLOCK.

At around 5PM, I began crying at the overwhelming hopelessness of 5 years of terror and harassment with no help from anyone. Isolated, alone, attacked and victimized for 5 years.

Destroyed professionally, financially, personally and emotionally.

No one helps. I ask, I beg, I plead, but no one helps.

It’s been 2 days since I reported the access issues regarding my Network Solutions account.

Network Solutions is still unable to determine why my account has a LEGAL BLOCK on it. This is not just one domain. It is my overall account which I am not able to access.

The FBI has indicated that
… if they are investigating I might not be contacted by them.
… if they are not investigating I might not hear from them.
How do you determine the difference?

Why is this site being blocked from access by computers connected to the internet through the Pennsylvania Network?

Stranger still is the consideration that while the Republicans cannot get to the content on my web site, the Democrats can access it.

Is this a Constitutional First Amendment issue? or just another method to hinder my communication on the overwhelming volume of issues.

For the record, I have always voted based on the character of the person, not their political party.