08.10
FYI, I sent the following to PA Governor Tom Corbett’s office on August 9, 2011.
If someone could please follow up for me I would appreciate it.
| PA Governor’s Office | GovernorsOffice2@state.pa.us |
| PA Attorney General | Info@attorneygeneral.gov |
The more I pull things together – the more they tear me down.
The facts are clear. The situation is clear. It is long past time for someone to get involved.
THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT IS A WORK IN PROGRESS FOR MY INFORMATION AND FOR BACKUP PURPOSES
Collateral info is linked on the web and available from the court Docket #2007-12477
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION – LAW
SONYA HEALY : #2007-12477
:
:
v. :
:
:
TERANCE HEALY :
COMPLAINT: Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio
DEFENDANT makes the following complaints and requests an immediate investigation of Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio, judge, for the following unlawful, unethical and unconstitutional actions made under color of law; and hereby offers the following exhibits and statements to support his complaint and allegations.
Judge Carolyn Carluccio has been made aware of the extreme injustice suffered by the Defendant during the duration of the above referenced case as documented in his Response and Counter Petition.
Defendant’s Response and CounterPetition for Emergency Hearing on March 9, 2011
Judge Carolyn Carluccio has acted with clear and undeniable intent to prevent further exposure of the corruption of the prior judges assigned to the above referenced case.
Response to Ex Parte Letter from Agnst & Angst to Judge Carluccio
Judge Carolyn Carluccio has in multiple situations and on multiple occasions intentionally acted to obstructed justice and deny the Defendant his rights to due process in an effort to prevent exposure of the extreme injustice which has been brought upon the Defendant in this case.
Motion for the Production of Document
Motion for the Production of Documents
Judge Carolyn Carluccio has further acted in violation of State and Federal Law and the Constitution of the United Stated to violate the Constitutional rights of the Defendant.
EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION TO STAY/VACATE THE ORDER OF MAY 9, 2011 FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Judge Carolyn Carluccio has repeatedly denied the Defendant’s multiple requests for hearings regarding enforcement of existing Court Orders relating to financial and health concerns continuing the inexplicable impunity granted to the Plaintiff in this matter.
Judge Carolyn Carluccio has intentionally acted to ignore Petitions filed with the Court by ruling without reading the petition, reviewing the facts of the allegations, or conducting any hearing where testimony and evidence could be presented by the parties.
Judge Carolyn Carluccio has directly acted with extreme malice and determined intent to deny the Defendant any ability to live on a daily basis – ordering him to be homeless, while ordering him to be responsible for the mortgage and responsible for all household bills; greatly hindering his ability to present an appeal of her malicious and cruel order.
Judge Carolyn Carluccio has acted with such unethical behavior, corruption and with complete and absolute disregard for the Law, that the Defendant has been unable to retain legal counsel to represent him in his case.
PETITION TO VACATE THE ORDER OF MAY 9, 2011 FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
PETITION REQUESTING SCHEDULING OF UNRESOLVED CLAIMS
EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION TO STAY/VACATE THE ORDER OF MAY 9, 2011 FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
EMERGENCY DENIED by Judge Carolyn Carluccio – to be scheduled in due course.
Hearing Scheduled for July 18, 2011
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS/PROCEDURE: REFUSAL TO HOLD HEARINGS ON ELEVEN (11) PETITIONS BEFORE THE COURT.
1. On June 6, 2011, Defendant filed a Petition Requesting Scheduling of Unresolved Claims. (COPY ATTACHED)
2. Defendant’s Petition to Schedule Unresolved Claim contains eleven (11) paragraphs each referring to a petition filed with the court since August 6, 2010.
3. On July 18, 2011, a short list conference was held with regard to the Defendant’s Petition to Schedule Unresolved Claims.
4. A Transcript of the short list conference was recorded by Amy Beth Boyer. (COPY ATTACHED)
5. The Judge began by indicating the issues to be addressed and includes the “Defendant Terance Healy’s Petition to Schedule Unresolved Claims filed on June 6, 2011.” (Transcript, Page 2, line 7-9).
6. The Judge indicated her reasons for the short list being “on the record”.
“Because I want to make sure that you hear everything that I say loud and clear, that you do not change my words or transpose them or say that I say and do things which I do not do. I’m doing this frankly, for my own protection, as well as each of yours.”
(Transcript, Page 3, line 12-17)
7. Judge Carluccio indicates she will first turn to the Defendant, as Petitioner. However, without allowing the Defendant to speak, Judge Carluccio instead turns to Valerie Angst to respond. (Transcript, page 3, line 21-25 through page 4, line 1).
8. Because the matter, and related issues, have NOT been presented, Valerie Angst, counsel for the Respondant, is unsure of the issue to which she should respond. (Transcript, page 4, line 3-4).
9. Valerie Angst proceeds to respond to issues which have not been presented to the Court.
10. Valerie Angst makes incorrect statements regarding the DEFENDANT’s Petition before the Court, addresses her own statement, and refutes her own statement. (Transcript, page 4, line 6-25 continues through page 5, line 1-5).
12. Judge Carluccio speculates regarding a Hearing occurring in March, and attributes false statements to the Defendant. (Transcript, page 5, line 6-16).
14. Judge Carluccio declares her Order as “actually a FINAL ORDER“. (Transcript, page 5, line 17-18).
15. Judge Carluccio then proceeds to offer unsolicited and inaccurate legal advice to the Defendant on
(a) how he has forfeited an opportunity to appeal her order and
(b) how she has no jurisdiction over the matter and
(c) how she can do nothing about that petition.
(Transcript, page 5, line 18 through page 6, 4).
16. The Defendant, the Petitioner in the matter, has not yet been permitted to present any testimony, exhibits or information with regard to his petition before the Court.
17. Judge Carluccio then decided to move on to the next matter. (Transcript, page 5, line 5-7)
18. The Defendant requested an opportunity to speak with regard to the petition before the Court moves on to the next issue.
“Excuse me, Your Honor. If I may speak with regard to the petition to vacate” (Transcript page 6, line 8-10)
19. Judge Carluccio then became uncertain and curiously disoriented with regard to which petition the Defendant wished to address. (Transcript, page 6, line 11- 23)
20. The Defendant addressed the timeliness of his Petition before the Court. (Transcript, page 6 line 24 – 25 through page 7, line 1)
21. The Defendant presented the inability of the Court to schedule the matter on a timely basis.
22. The Defendant presented that the matter was additionally filed as an Emergency Petition.
23. Judge Carluccio did NOT grant the Emergency and ordered the matter to be scheduled within due course. (COPY ATTACHED)
24. Three weeks later, the matter was finally scheduled before the Court for a short list conference on July 18, 2011.
25. Judge Carluccio begins a series of short self-refuting sentence fragments.
26. Judge Carluccio has not yet heard any testimony from the Defendant beyond the court’s delayed scheduling of the matter.
27. Judge Carluccio is having a personal discourse and is refuting arguments which have not yet been made, or presented or alleged.
“All right. All right. Let’s go back.
Okay, you raise a point that we can look at it, but I still can’t do anything today.
I can’t do anything today.
I have no jurisdiction over it.”
(Transcript, page 7, line 13-17 continuous statements )
28. Judge Carluccio proceeds on to address issues which are NOT part of the Petition to Schedule Unresolved Claims.
29. Judge Carluccio next inexplicably begins to address the Petition to Vacate the Order of May 9, 2011.
(continuing from previous quotes…
“And the other part, once a grounds decree is ordered, the divorce is granted.
I mean we went ahead with ED, the divorce is done.”
(Transcript, page 7, line 18-20)
30. The Defendant has still not yet been permitted to testify, address or raise any substantive issue presented in his PETITION TO SCHEDULE UNRESOLVED CLAIMS.
31. The Defendant has continued to be denied the opportunity to present the testimony and supporting information for this Petition, a scheduling petition in regards to eleven (11) petitions filed with the court since August 6, 2010.
NOTE: JUDGE CARLUCCIO IS AVOIDING HAVING THIS SCHEDULING HEARING REGARDING THE FAILURE TO SCHEDULE ELEVEN OTHER SUBSTANTIVE PETITIONS BEFORE THE COURT.
32. The Exhibits relating to the failure to hold hearings on the eleven matters are clearly documented and included as an exhibit to this document. (SEE ATTACHED)
33. Judge Carluccio indicates that the Defendant is “not fully appreciating the rules that are in place here, and that’s what makes this difficult for me to explain to you why I can’t touch this.”
(Transcript, page 7, line 21-24)
34. The Defendant assures the judge that he “fully understands” what is going on in her courtroom. (Transcript, page 7, line 25 continues to page 8, line 1)
35. Judge Carluccio is experiencing difficulty explaining the ‘rules which are in place here” because she has failed to follow the Rule of Law, Procedure, Ethics or Decorum in her courtroom.
36. The Defendant understands the Judge’s difficulty in explaining why she “can’t touch this.”
(Transcript page 7, line 24)
37. The Defendant continues to attempt to raise a substantive issue with regard to a petition, citing Pennsylvania law, and indicating he is prepared to offer citations which were upheld on appeal on the substantive issue.
“…where the 3301 has not been filed properly, the Divorce Decree is invalid, therefore it invalidates any equitable distribution because it was never filed.” (Transcript, page 8, line 7-9)
38. Judge Carluccio interrupts the Defendant in his presentation of the substantive issues of the PETITION TO VACATE THE ORDER OF MAY 9, 2011 requesting evidence which had been provided as part of that petition as Exhibit A.
39. The Defendant addresses the document provided, and furthers that the praecipe specifically requested that no Divorce Decree be issued until there is a hearing on all unresolved claims.
40. Valerie Angst confirms that information. ‘That‘s correct.” (Transcript, page 8, line 20)
41. Judge Carluccio erroneously suggests that she held those hearings on March 29, 2011. (Transcript, page 9, line 3-4)
42. The Exhibits relating to the rescheduling of the matter by praecipe/email and never distributed to the parties are clearly documented and included as an exhibit to this document. (SEE ATTACHED)
RE #42
FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY
42. On January 10, 2011, during a short list proceeding, Judge Carolyn Carluccio issued an Order scheduling the protracted hearings to occur on June 1-2, 2011. (Docket# 2007-12477-282)
42. On March 10, 2011, Judge Carolyn Carluccio issued a Scheduling Order for a Hearing on Equitable Distribution.
43. Sometime prior to March 29, 2011, several praecipe/(emails) were transmitted to Court Administration rescheduling the hearings from June 1-2, 2011.
Praecipe# 92518
44. The rescheduling was never communicated to the parties by any phone call, memo, letter, Order or Scheduling Order.
42. On March 29, 2011, the court schedule erroneously indicated the wrong petitions to be heard.
43. The scheduling errors were immediately identified and brought to the court’s attention at the onset of March 29, 2011 proceeding.
No Comment.
Add Your Comment