A Terroristic Divorce

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Sonya Healy	: Montgomery County
(Appellee)	: #2007-12477
	:
v.	: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
	: #104 EDM 2011
Terance Healy	: #1330 EDA 2013
(Appellant)

PETITION FOR PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OF “GOOD CAUSE SHOWN”

AND
PETITION TO SCHEDULE A HEARING ON EX PARTE ORDER OF MAY 21, 2013
AND
PETITION REQUESTING EXPLANATION AND REASON FOR THE PROTHONOTARY’S FAILURE TO ACT ON THE APPEAL FILED AUGUST 15, 2011

1. Defendant has received the Honorable Court’s Order of May 21, 2013 which vacates the Order of April 29, 2012 granting the Defendant permission to proceed in forma pauperis.

2. The Order of May 21, 2013 was executed without a proceeding, or an opportunity for the Defendant to address any issue or change in circumstances being raised.

3. The Order of May 21, 2013 indicates the decision was made “upon good cause shown.”

INAPPROPRIATE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION

4. The Order demonstrates that inappropriate ex parte communication has taken place in regard to the matter and that the information exchanged was of such certain accuracy and undeniable merit as to compel the Court to immediately reverse and rescind the Defendant’s permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

5. Defendant requests the Court provide the circumstances of the ex parte communication along with any available documentation and transcripts of the communication.

6. Defendant recognizes the possibility that the Order may have been vacated based on invalid and fraudulent information provided and improperly accepted by the Court with deliberate and ultimate intent to directly impact, stall or prevent and Appeal, Transcript or Administrative paperwork from being prepared and transmitted with regard to Appeal filed August 15, 2011 and Appeal filed April 26, 2013 and docketed April 29, 2013.

7. Defendant requests that the Court prepare and provide complete evidence of “good cause shown” and serve within 5 days of the filing of this petition to the Defendant permitting the opportunity to address the information which has been considered in an instant ex parte order which has directly hindered the preparation or the Appeal.

DENIAL OF ACCESS TO COURTS

8. In Forma Pauperis permission had been sought and obtained concurrently with the Defendant’s Notice of Appeal and related paperwork to cause to be prepared and transmitted to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in regard to the Appeals filed on August 15, 2011 and April 3, 2013.

9. The Court’s deliberate neglect to address four (4) Petitions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis constitutes an unconstitutional denial of access to the courts which has further caused an Appeal filed on August 15, 2011 to be stalled in the Montgomery County Prothonotary.

FAILED TO ADDRESS/SCHEDULE
Filed December 7, 2010 Judge Wall, Judge Carluccio, Judge Haaz, Judge Page

Filed Dcember 14, 2010 Judge Wall, Judge Carluccio, Judge Haaz, Judge Page

Filed August 15, 2011 Judge Carluccio, Judge Haaz, Judge Page

Filed September 19, 2011 Judge Carluccio, Judge Haaz, Judge Page

HEARING REMAINS UNSCHEDULED

10. Defendant requests that the Court IMMEDIATELY address the failure to schedule a hearing on the Ex Parte Order which has been issued and executed in this matter while failing to schedule the requisite hearing within 10 days of execution of the Order.

DELIBERATE SABOTAGE OF DEFENDANT’s APPEAL

11. Where the Court has neglected with extreme bias to address and resolve the lack of jurisdiction on void orders, challenges to jurisdiction, errors and defects related to orders, and orders issued without proper service and procedure, while accepting and endorsing perjured testimony in his Court, the Defendant requests a explanation of the Court’s action in violation of law and procedure which has again resulted in harm and a continued denial of Constitutionally protected civil rights, and rights to due process and procedure.

12. Defendant asks that the Court IMMEDIATELY address the appearance of sabotage regarding of the Appeals to Superior Court.

13. Defendant submits as supporting exhibit, the one page Order vacating the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis has caused his attention to be shifted as the following additional petitions and collateral documents were necessary to address the ex parte actions of the Court, resulting in 3 concurrent Appeals to the Superior Court at different stages of Appeal.

PROTHONOTARY

14. In contradiction of Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Prothonotary staff has been instructed to NOT prepare and transmit any of the appeal paperwork pending approval of the In Forma Pauperis status.

15. Defendant requests that Mark Levy, Prothonotary address the failure of his department to handle the paperwork properly and specifically address why the prior notice of appeal was not caused to be transmitted to the Superior Court upon notice that the Court had Granted permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed April 30, 2013.

16. Defendant requests that the prothonotary indicate why upon notification of the change In Forma Pauperis status, they STILL neglected to sent the notice of appeal with regard to the Appeal filed August 15, 2013 to the appellate prothonotary.

Respectfully Submitted,

Terance Healy
Pro Se

c/o 871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976
215-262-0938
215-343-1686

Exhibit A

Order of May 21, 2013
(1 page)

Order of April 30, 2013
(1 page)

Exhibit B

Montgomery County Docket
#2007-12477

Exhibit C

Montgomery County Docket Entry
#2007-12477-399

Exhibit D

Petition for the Production of Documents
filed May 22, 2013