05.17
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
| Terance Healy | : Docket Number 2007-12477 |
| (Appelant) | : |
| : | |
| vs. | : |
| : | |
| Sonya Healy | : |
| (Appellee) | : |
CONCISE STATEMENT OF ERRORS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
1. The Appellant responds timely to the Order of April 30, 3013 issued and signed by the Honorable Garrett D. Page to file of record a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b).
NOTE: Judge Page’s Order incorrectly lists the filing Date of the Appeal as April 3, 2013.
2. The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on April 26, 2013.
3. The Appeal was accepted at the Prothonotary, however it was not docketed until April 29, 2013.
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
4. Concurrent with the filing of the Notice of Appeal on April 26, 2013, Appellant filed a Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis which was docketed on April 29, 2013.
5. Though scheduled to appear in Judge Page’s courtroom on April 29, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Judge Page had his court staff direct Appellant that it was not necessary to appear in his courtroom.
6. Judge page refused to accept the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on April 29, 2013 at 9:00 AM and the Appellant was directed to Court Administration.
7. Court Administration directed Appellant to Judge Emanuel Bertin, the signing judge, who refused to hear the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and directed the Appellant to Court Administration.
8. Court Administration directed Appellant to Judge Cheryl Austin. After having the Appellant wait outside her courtroom for 2 hours, Judge Austin refused to hear the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Judge Austin refused to even meet the Appellant. The Appellant was directed back to Court Administration by Judge Austin’s staff.
9. Court Administration had the Appellant wait in the hallway of the Courthouse while seeking a judge to hear the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
10. After over 2 additional hours had passed, Appellant informed the Court Administrator that he would return upon being contacted by Court Administration that they had succeeded in finding a judge to hear the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
11. At the end of the day, Court Administration contacted the Appellant and indicated that a judge had signed the order to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and that Appellant needed to return to the courthouse to sign the document.
12. Appellant returned to the courthouse on April 30, 2013, and learned that the Order to Proceed In Forma Pauperis had been signed by Judge Garrett D. Page without requiring an appearance by the Appellant in court.
13. The Appellant timely files this document with the Montgomery County Prothonotary. Time Stamped copies to be delivered to Judge Garrett d. Page on May 17, 2013, with time stamped courtesy copies to Angst & Angst representing the Appellee.
ISSUES FOR APPEAL
14. The Order dated 3rd of April 2013 represents a Final Order issued by Judge Garrett D. Page after a protracted hearing on February 11, 2013 which was continued on February 20, 2013.
LACK OF JURISDICTION
15. The Order of 3rd April 2013 is defective as it has been issued while the court lacked jurisdiction during the pendancy of an Appeal filed on August 15, 2011.
16. The Order of 3rd April 2013 is defective as it has been issued in enforcement of an Order issued on September 23, 2011 where the court lacked jurisdiction during the pendancy of an Appeal filed on August 15, 2011.
PENDING APPEAL
17. The Appeal filed on August 15, 2011 is currently pending. Copy Attached as Exhibit A.
18. A Concise Statement of Errors Complained of On Appeal submitted timely on September 15, 2011 as Ordered on August 22, 2011 related to the Appeal filed on August 15, 2011 is attached as Exhibit B.
19. The Montgomery County Prothonotary has indicated the Pending Appeal has not yet been forwarded to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania until the Court addresses the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed concurrently with the Appeal on August 15, 2011.
COURTS FAILURE TO ADDRESS VOID ORDERS
20. The Order of 3rd April 2013 neglects to address the VOID Order issued on September 23, 2011.
21. The Order of 3rd April 2013 neglects to address the VOID Order issued on July 18, 2011.
22. The Order of 3rd April 2013 neglects to address the VOID Order issued on May 9, 2011.
23. The Order of 3rd April 2013 neglects to address the failure of the Court to hold hearings on outstanding petitions filed by the Appellant.
COURTS FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE PENDING APPEAL
24. The Order of 3rd April 2013 neglects to address the Pending Appeal filed on August 15, 2011.
COURTS FAILURE TO ADDRESS COUNTERPETITION & REASSIGNMENT ISSUES.
25. The Order of 3rd April, 2013 fails to address the failure of Angst & Angst to follow due process and procedure in the filing of the matter with the court during the pendancy of an Appeal.
26. The Order of 3rd April 2013 neglects to address the ex parte actions of Angst & Angst to have the matter reassigned from Judge Haaz in May .
27. The Order of 3rd April 2013 neglects to address Angst & Angst’s participation in ex parte communications, deliberate and manipulative failure of due process and procedure, fraud upon the court, extortion and forgery.
DURING THE HEARING
28. The Court was unclear and did not address jurisdiction while the prior Appeal was pending with Superior Court.
29. The Court scheduling orders were unclear and did not permit opportunity to schedule witnesses.
30. The Court did not permit testimony regarding the failure to conduct the hearing as ordered by Judge Haaz.
31. The Court did not permit equal time for the Defendant to testify and present all related exhibits.
32. The Court, upon realization that a hearing had not taken place on the matter, proceeded to participate and coach Valerie Angst, attorney for Plaintiff into a story which could not be proven.
33. When requesting a copy of the transcript for the prior proceeding be produced, the Court indicated that it was the responsibility of the Defendant to produce those documents.
34. When the multiple prior Petitions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis which had been ignored by the court were brought to the Court’s attention the Court indicated awareness that those petitions were pending on the Court’s schedule.
35. The Court clearly failed to consider the Appellant/Defendant’s ability to pay when rendering the Order of 3rd April 2013.
36. The Court did not permit testimony which would confirm that Angst & Angst had been confidentially disciplined regarding their actions in this matter resulting in a six month delay in the scheduling of the hearing and a reassignment from Judge Haaz.
37. The Court permitted the perjury of Sonya Healy without consequence.
38. The Court issued a ruling for over $ 300,000 based upon the testimony of one person, the Plaintiff, who indicating the defendant’s failure to follow a order to deliver property which was issued verbally on the court record; and where that court record was not produced during the hearing.
39. The Court directly instructed the Appellant/Defendant that information regarding Federal issues would not be heard or addressed. The failure of the prior judiciary to act in accordance with law, procedure and the Defendant’s civil rights precluded much direct testimony on those issues.
40. The Court neglected to address the failure of the prior judges to conduct hearings on the petitions filed with the court which had been arbitrarily dismissed and denied without any proceeding.
41. The Courts ignored and refused to permit a destitute Defendant to proceed In Forma Pauperis which would have permitted the presentation of the failures of the prior judiciary to conduct proceedings and also clearly demonstrate proceedings which took place without proper jurisdiction.
CONSPIRACY TO DENY JUSTICE AND PREVENT ACESS TO THE COURTS
42. The refusal of a judge to address prior failures of the court should never negate the civil rights of any party.
43. The reassignment or recusal of a judge, through each member of the Family Court bench who have chosen to recuse, or quietly and secretly been reassigned from the matter, should not cause their failures to be implemented with extreme bias and malice against the Appellant/Defendant, without opportunity for reconsideration.
44. The refusal of the judges of the Montgomery County judiciary to hear a petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis of a Defendant who has been caused to be destitute as a direct result of the continued denial of due process, failures to enforce court orders and deliberate and intentional failure to conduct hearings is clearly demonstrated when a Defendant must walk the hallways of the courthouse for an entire day to seek a Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis only to be ignored…
…then having the petition granted without any appearance before a judge.
Respectfully,
Terance Healy
EXHIBIT A
Appeal filed August 15, 2011
Exhibit B
Concise Statement of Errors Complained of On Appeal submitted September 15, 2011
