02.20
The Order of September 23, 2011
A voidable order is an order that must be declared void by a judge to be void; a void order is an order issued without jurisdiction by a judge and is void ab initio and does not have to be declared void by a judge to be void.
Only an inspection of the record of the case showing that the judge was without jurisdiction or violated a person’s due process rights, or where fraud was involved in the attempted procurement of jurisdiction, is sufficient for an order to be void. Potenz Corp. v. Petrozzini, 170 Ill. App. 3d 617, 525 N.E. 2d 173, 175 (1988).
In instances herein, the law has stated that the orders are void ab initio and not voidable because they are already void.
An Inspection of the Record – there is no way to understand the complete and absolute VOID-ness of the Order issued on September 23, 2011 without having the following breakdown. Without it, the intentional tactical failures becomes so chaotic that it begs to be ignored. With it, the proof that on the record of the case the judge lacked jurisdiction, violated the defendant’s due process rights and committed fraud is more than sufficient for the order to be VOID AB INITIO.
Three Main issues for review/inspection of the court record
1.) Last minute filing submitted, ordered, and withdrawn
2.) Sanctions Ordered against the Defendant
3.) Failure to conduct hearings/permit testimony
The Order of September 23, 2011
1.) Last minute filing submitted, ordered, and withdrawn
Plaintiff’s Petition titled:
PLAINTIFF SONYA HEALY’S RESPONSE TO PETITION REQUESTING DOCUMENTS AND INJUNCTION BLOCKING SALE OF HOME UNTIL APPEAL BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HAS BEEN DECIDED
And;
COUNTERPETITION FOR JUDGE TO ORDER DISBURSEMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE MARITAL RESIDENCE AS WELL AS SANCTIONS FOR DEFENDANT’S FRIVOLOUS FILINGS, AND DECLARATORY ORDER PROHIBITING ANY FURTHER FILINGS UNDER THIS DIVORCE DOCKET
– was transmitted electronically to the Prothonotary on September 22, 2011 at 10:29 PM
– was accepted/docketed by the Prothonotary on September 23, 2011 at 9:17 AM
The Docket demonstrates the failure of the Plaintiff to serve the Defendant and file the related Certificate of Service.
The Order of September 23, 2011 does not reference the Plaintiff’s Petition yet grants the relief requested.
On September 28, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Plaintiff electronically filed PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW requesting the withdrawal of the “PENDING” Counterpetition.
|
Plaintiff did not serve the Counterpetition upon the Defendant prior to the hearing and failed to file a Certificate of Service indicating compliance with due process and procedure.
Due Process and Procedure requires a petition to be properly filed and served upon a party prior to the hearing. The Court did not permit the Defendant any opportunity to prepare/present a response to the Counterpetition. When this failure of due process was pointed out by Defendant during the proceeding on September 23, 2011, the Defendant was ignored. The Court Order of September 23, 2011 granted requested relief relating to the Counterpetition. The Court was without jurisdiction and Denial of the Defendant’s due process rights is sufficient for an order to be void. |
The Order of September 23, 2011
2.) Sanctions Ordered against the Defendant
Plaintiff’s Petition titled:
PLAINTIFF SONYA HEALY’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TERANCE HEALY’S “EMERGENCY PETITION FOR INJUNCTION TO STAY/VACATE THE ORDER OF MAY 9, 2011 FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION’ AND COUNTER PETITION FOR SANCTIONS
– was transmitted electronically to the Prothonotary on July 14, 2011 at 8:55 AM
– seeking “Plaintiff to be awarded attorney fees in the amount of $3,000 for Defendant’s vexatious conduct.”
The Order of July 18, 2011 states:
A Protracted Hearing on Plaintiff’s counter Petition for Sanctions filed July 14, 2011 is scheduled for Friday September 23, 2011 from 10:30 a.m until noon.
The Docket demonstrates the failure of the Plaintiff to serve the Defendant and file the related Certificate of Service.
| During the proceeding on September 23, 2011, there was an ex parte exchange of a document between Judge Carluccio and Valerie Angst. This ex parte exchange was called to the attention of the Court by the Defendant. The Defendant was ignored. The document was not provided to the Defendant. |
The Order of September 23, 2011 states:
Plaintiff’s Counter Petition for Sanctions filed 7/14/11 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff’s attorney fees in the amount of $13,750 which shall be deducted from the Defendant’s share of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home.
The Court offered no explanation regarding the additional $10,750 that was added to the amount of the sanction.
|
Plaintiff did not serve the Counterpetition upon the Defendant prior to the hearing and failed to file a Certificate of Service indicating compliance with due process and procedure.
Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any vexatious behavior by the Defendant or indicate which petitions were filed unnecessarily. The defendants only recourse to enforce Plaintiff to comply with court orders was to petition the court for enforcement. The Court was without jurisdiction and Denial of the Defendant’s due process rights is sufficient for an order to be void. The Courts participation and failure to correct the ex parte communication creates the appearance of impropriety sufficient for an order to be void |
The Order of September 23, 2011
3.) Failure to conduct hearings/permit testimony
The Protracted hearing on September 23, 2011 was ordered on July 18, 2011
“A Protracted Hearing on Plaintiff’s counter Petition for Sanctions filed July 14, 2011 is scheduled for Friday September 23, 2011 from 10:30 a.m until noon.”
1.5 Hours were scheduled for the hearing.
The docket shows that there was no Certificate of Service for the Plaintiff’s Counter Petition for Sanctions filed 7/14/11.
On July 21, 2011 Defendant filed:
PETITION REQUESTING AN IMMEDIATE STAY/RESCHEDULING REGARDING THE ORDER OF JULY 18, 2011 AS THE INCOMPLETE WRITTEN ORDER PLACES THE DEFENDANT IN JEOPARDY
The Court had issued a verbal order into the record. The transcript would not be available for weeks.
The Defendant believed be would be subjected to arrest for following the verbal order as the available printed documents indicated he must vacate the property.
Police called when Defendant was photographing the Plaintiff’s dissipation of assets in August 2011 and September 2011
On August 17, 2011, the Short List was scheduled for September 20, 2011. *
On August 15, 2011 Defendant filed (concurrent with the filing of an Appeal):
Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
On August 15, 2011, Defendant filed an Appeal of the defective Order of May 9, 2011 (Divorce Decree & Equitable Distribution)
On August 19, 2011 Defendant filed:
Petition Requesting the Scheduling of Outstanding Petitions
This Petition recapped the number of petitions which remained unheard by the court.
Since the August 12, 2010 discovery of a Secret, Ex Parte, Undocketed and Undistributed Order issued by Judge Rhonda Daniele, Petitions submitted by the Defendant were no longer heard.
On August 30, 2011 Defendant filed:
Petition Requesting Distribution/Docketing of Ex Parte Court Order
While seeking Police intervention of the Plaintiff’s dissipation of Assets (which was denied), Defendant learned that Montgomery Township Police were requested by the Montgomery County Deputies to assist in ensuring that the Defendant had vacated the Property on June 9, 2011.
Montgomery County Sheriff Eileen Behr has refused to provide any information.
On August 31, 2011 Defendant filed:
Petition Requesting Documents and Injunction Blocking Sale of the Home Until Appeal by The Superior Court of Pennsylvania Has Been Decided
Plaintiff was failing to provide any information regarding the Sale of the Home – a violation of Power Of Attorney. The Real estate Agent would not Provide any information. The verbal order of July 18, 2011 had ordered removal of the Defendant’s property by the closing date of the home. Defendant was not disclosing that date. The Appeal had been filed and no action had been taken with regard to supersedeas or stays while the appeal is pending.
On September 1, 2011 Defendant filed: (AS EMERGENCY)
Petition Requesting Documents and Injunction Blocking Sale of the Home Until Appeal by The Superior Court of Pennsylvania Has Been Decided
On September 1, 2011 Defendant filed:
Petition Regarding the Scheduling of Outstanding Petitions
On September 2, 2011 Defendant filed:
Petition for the Recusal of Judge Carolyn Carluccio
On September 6, 2011, on the faxed Request of the Plaintiff, Judge Carluccio IMMEDIATELY continued the hearing scheduled for September 20, 2011 to September 23, 2011 to accommodate the Plaintiff’s inability to appear.
On August 17, 2011 The DEFENDANT PETITION REQUESTING AN IMMEDIATE STAY had been scheduled for September 20, 2011.
Closing Date for the house had been set on July 24, 2011 and signed/accepted by Plaintiff on July 27, 2011.
The Closing date was scheduled for September 20, 2011.
Plaintiff intentionally prevented the Defendant from knowing the closing date. A violation of Power of Attorney law.
Keller Williams Real Estate Agent, Chris Grucella had deliberately and intentionally prevented the Defendant from knowing the closing date.
Keller Williams Real Estate has deliberately and intentionally prevented the Defendant from knowing the closing date.
It is not unreasonable to suggest that Plaintiff had informed Angst & Angst of her reason for being “unable to attend” on September 20, 2011.
Angst & Angst were deliberately and intentionally creating an appearance of impropriety for Judge Carluccio.
Judge Carluccio did endorse and encourage the an appearance of impropriety by her immediate response to the faxed continuance request without any opportunity for the Defendant to object.
| On September 23, 2011, while reviewing the above information, when the appearance of impropriety became undeniable and evident, Judge Carluccio interrupted the Defendant’s review of information denying any wrongdoing prior to the issue of impropriety even being raised. |
As part of the continuance Order, the following petitions were additionally scheduled for September 23, 2011:
PETITION REQUESTING AN IMMEDIATE STAY/RESCHEDULING REGARDING THE ORDER OF JULY 18, 2011 AS THE INCOMPLETE WRITTEN ORDER PLACES THE DEFENDANT IN JEOPARDY (filed July 21, 2011)
PETITION REGARDING THE SCHEDULING OF OUTSTANDING PETITIONS
(filed September 1, 2011)
PETITION FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE CAROLYN CARLUCCIO
(filed September 2, 2011)
Even though the three additional petitions were added for the date, no additional time was provided on the court schedule.
On September 12, 2011, the following petitions were additionally scheduled for September 23, 2011:
PETITION REQUESTING DISTRIBUTION/DOCKETING OF EX PARTE COURT ORDER (filed August 30, 2011)
PETITION REQUESTING DOCUMENTS AND INJUNCTION BLOCKING SALE OF THE HOME UNTIL APPEAL BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HAS BEEN DECIDED (filed August 31, 2011)
Even though the two additional petitions were added for the date, no additional time was provided on the court schedule.
On September 23, 2011, the following items were to set to be heard within a 90 minute Protracted Hearing:
PLAINTIFF’S COUNTER PETITION FOR SANCTIONS (filed July 14, 2011)
PETITION REQUESTING AN IMMEDIATE STAY/RESCHEDULING REGARDING THE ORDER OF JULY 18, 2011 AS THE INCOMPLETE WRITTEN ORDER PLACES THE DEFENDANT IN JEOPARDY (filed July 21, 2011)
PETITION REGARDING THE SCHEDULING OF OUTSTANDING PETITIONS (filed September 1, 2011)
PETITION FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE CAROLYN CARLUCCIO (filed September 2, 2011)
PETITION REQUESTING DISTRIBUTION/DOCKETING OF EX PARTE COURT ORDER (filed August 30, 2011)
PETITION REQUESTING DOCUMENTS AND INJUNCTION BLOCKING SALE OF THE HOME UNTIL APPEAL BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HAS BEEN DECIDED (filed August 31, 2011)
The following had not yet been scheduled:
Defendant’s PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (filed August 15, 2011 concurrent with APPEAL)
Defendant’s RESUBMISSION: PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (filed September 19, 2011)
The Appeal was in process and Judge Carluccio had acknowledged that in an Order for a Concise statement.
BUT INSTEAD…
The Judge heard testimony ONLY on the petition filed immediately before the hearing, given to the Defendant AT the hearing, and never properly served,
AND withdrawn immediately after the proceeding titled:
PLAINTIFF SONYA HEALY’S RESPONSE TO PETITION REQUESTING DOCUMENTS AND INJUNCTION BLOCKING SALE OF HOME UNTIL APPEAL BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HAS BEEN DECIDED
And;
COUNTERPETITION FOR JUDGE TO ORDER DISBURSEMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE MARITAL RESIDENCE AS WELL AS SANCTIONS FOR DEFENDANT’S FRIVOLOUS FILINGS, AND DECLARATORY ORDER PROHIBITING ANY FURTHER FILINGS UNDER THIS DIVORCE DOCKET
And the Judge issued her Order granting all of the releif requested in THAT documented and denied and dismissed all of the petitions properly filed, served and prepared.
IT WAS CLEAR THAT FURTHER INJUSTICE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THEIR GOAL OF THE DEFENDANT’S SUICIDE. The Defendant was surrounded by 7 deputies during the September 23, 2011 proceeding. They were going to intimidate him to the point of emotional breakdown. I stood strong as I endured their corruption, injustice, lawlessness and intimidation.
The ultimate problem… I am not capable of suicide. And, I am a survivor.
Judge Carolyn Carluccio would never hold the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis which would then permit the Appeal to move forward. How could she entertain that hearing? Wouldn’t the Court be embarrassed after having caused one party to be destitute, and homeless, to issue an order admitting it?
No Comment.
Add Your Comment