A Terroristic Divorce

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

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

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT IN ABSENCE OF TRANSCRIPT

PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

1. Defendant filed a Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in this matter on December 7, 2010.

2. On December 7, 2010, Defendant appeared before the Honorable Kelly Wall who requested further information and asked for the petition to be resubmitted.

PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (AMENDED)

3. Defendant re-filed a Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in this matter on December 14, 2010.

4. On December 14, 2010, Defendant appeared before the Honorable Kelly Wall who has yet to issue a ruling on the matter.

PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Concurrent with Appeal)

5. On August 15, 2011, Defendant filed a Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis concurrent with a Notice Of Appeal and additional documents as required.

6. On August 15, 2011, the Honorable Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio, the “signing judge”, was not available to hear the instant petition.

DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS / PROCEDURES / ACCESS TO THE COURTS

7. The Court has not held scheduled a hearing on the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

8. The Court did not address the request to schedule the hearing in a PETITION REQUESTING THE SCHEDULING OF OUTSTANDING PETITIONS filed August 19, 2011.

9. On August 22, 2011, acknowledging the appeal the Court ordered a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P Rule 1925(b) docketed on August 25, 2011.

10. On September 1, 2011, a Petition Regarding the Scheduling of Outstanding Petitions was filed and included the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

11. On September 2, 2011, a Petition for the Recusal of Judge Carolyn Carluccio was filed.

12. A prior request for recusal had been filed on March 16, 2011 as 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 On March 29, 2011, the petition was DENIED without discussion or opportunity for testimony regarding the issues documented.

13. On September 15, 2011, a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal was filed and served on Judge Carluccio.

14. On September 19, 2011, the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was resubmitted.

15. The Prothonotary would not transmit the appeal or notify the appellate prothonotary of the appeal prior to the Petition To Proceed in Forma Pauperis being approved.

16. On September 20, 2011, an Extraordinary Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis was filed directly with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

17. On September 20, 2011, The Defendant’s Extraordinary Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was submitted directly to the Superior Court Of Pennsylvania. Docket #104 EDM 2011

18. Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. Rule 554(b) the Superior Court Docket #104 EDM 2011 which includes the Defendant/Appellant’s Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and related exhibits constitutes notice to an appellate prothonotary of the pendancy of the appeal.

ABUSE OF POWER UNDER COLOR OF LAW

19. On September 23, 2011, the Court refused to address the two (2) Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis pending on her calendar.

20. On September 23, 2011, Judge Carolyn Carluccio incorrectly denied being the ‘signing judge’ responsible for the petition on August 15, 2011.

21. On September 23, 2011, Judge Carolyn Carluccio conducted a hearing
where she lacked jurisdiction during the pending appeal,
where she lacked jurisdiction as the petition under consideration had been filed immediately before the proceeding and the Defendant had not been served,
where the Defendant had not been permitted time to read the petition,
where the Defendant had not been permitted time to prepare a response to the petition,
where the Defendant was not permitted to testify,
where the Defendant was not permitted to call witnesses,
where all of the petitions which had been filed, properly served and scheduled for the proceeding were summarily declared moot.
where the petition filed immediately before the proceeding related to an order issued on July 18, 2011 where the Court was similarly without jurisdiction as the Defendant had not been served with the petition

30. On September 23, 2011, Judge Carluccio was aware of every issue relating to the Appeal of her defective Order of May 9, 2011 having ordered and been served the Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal on September 15, 2013.

31. On September 23, 2011, Judge Carluccio was aware that the Appeal would challenge and void her subsequent Order of July 18, 2011 where she had indicated that she did not have jurisdiction in the matter.

32. On September 23, 2011, Judge Carluccio issued an Order part on the record and part in written form where each issue related to the relief being requested in the Plaintiff’s petition filed immediately before the hearing.

33. On September 28, 2011, Valerie Angst filed a preacipe to withdraw the petition filed immediately before the proceeding on September 23, 2011 which was the basis for the Order of September 23, 2011.

34. The Order of September 23, 2011 prohibited the Defendant “from filing any further petitions/motions regarding events that occurred prior to the date of this Order” and intended to prevent the Defendant from any further litigation.

35. Defendant followed the Order of September 23, 2011 while awaiting information about the progress of the Appeal.

MALICE / TERROR / ABUSE OF POWER UNDER COLOR OF LAW

36. Irreparable damage had occurred which included the deliberate and intentional unlawful and unethical ex parte participation of Judge Carolyn Carluccio to issue void orders, delay hearings and prevent the appeal from being transmitted to the Superior Court.

37. While the overwhelming bias of the equitable distribution was intentional and clearly evident, bias or unfairness are not grounds for an appeal.

38. The equitable distribution ordered the Defendant to be homeless; gave the Plaintiff full financial control; granted a misleading and invalid power of attorney to a Plaintiff who had violated Agreed Orders, burglarized the Defendants home, refused to permit visitation with the parties children, not followed any court order and was excused every time the Defendant filed with the Court to enforce compliance with court orders; and neglected to address any issue properly presented to the court by the Defendant.

39. Judge Carluccio had not expected the fatal defect which would render the divorce decree void to be discovered, documented, and a valid reason for APPEAL.

40. On Appeal, the bias of the equitable distribution order would further validate the Defendant’s allegations which were ignored in the petitions filed requesting Judge Carluccio to recuse.

41. The Defendant was regularly informed by the Prothonotary that the Appeal was awaiting action on the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT

42. On October 14, 2011 (#104 EDM 2011), the Superior Court denied the Defendant’s Extraordinary Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis citing “where there was no appeal pending before the Superior Court and that court’s jurisdiction was not being infringed upon by the trial court’s action, there was no predicate for Superior Court’s exercise of jurisdiction to issue writ of prohibition; Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has original jurisdiction to issue a writ on the lower court where no appeal is pending.”

43. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania was notified of the pending appeal in the Defendant’s Petition filed directly with the appellate prothonotary on September 20, 2011 and assigned #104 EDM 2011.

44. On October 18, 2011, the Montgomery County Prothonotary received, acknowledged and docketed #2007-12477-355 the related Superior Court Order dated October 14, 2011 #104 EDM 2011 .

45. On October 19, 2011, Judge Carluccio filed her Opinion related to the Appeal.

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE / DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS

46. Forbidden by Order of the Court from filing any petition/motion relating to events before September 23, 2011, the Defendant waited for the hearing to be scheduled.

47. After Plaintiff’s filing of a petition in May 2012, Defendant learned of the assignment of the matter to Judge Haaz.

OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN COURT

48. On July 10, 2012, in open court, Judge Haaz reviewing the Defendant’s Response and Counterpetition;
(1) heard the Defendant’s statement that his appearance in court was not a waiver of due process, procedure, and further not a waiver of the pending appeal filed August 15, 2011;
(2) immediately addressed Angst & Angst’s failure to serve the petition to Defendant which if left unaddressed would contribute to a lack of jurisdiction;
(3) learned about Valerie Angst’s secret efforts with Court Administration to have Judge Haaz removed from the matter;
(4) learned about Valerie Angst’s secret efforts with Judge Carluccio to have Judge Haaz removed from the matter;
(5) issued an Order for Court Administration to schedule a protracted hearing on the matter.

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

49. The hearing was never scheduled. Defendant’s letters to Judge Haaz, Court Administrator Michael Kehs, and Family Court Administrator Cheryl Leslie regarding the failure to schedule the hearing were ignored.

50. A December 13, 2012 Order announced the matter reassigned to Judge Page and a hearing scheduled for January 17, 2013 on the Plaintiff ‘s May 2012 petition.

51. Citing the failure to schedule the pending Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the ommission of the Defendant’s Response & Counter Petition in the citation, the successful reassignment from Judge Haaz and other issues, on December 28, 2012, Defendant filed Objections to the Reassignment of the Matter/Petition to Enforce the Scheduling Order of July 10, 2012.

52. The Reassignment petition was not addressed by Judge Haaz before the reassignment date.

53. Refiled as an emergency petition, on January 3, 2013 Judge Page ordered the petition to be scheduled in due course.

54. The failure to coordinate scheduling, cite the proper petition titles and list the correct names of the litigants and their legal representatives resulted in
Order of January 17, 2013
Order of January 18, 2013
Order of January 24, 2013
Order of January 29, 2013
Order of January 30, 2013
Order of February 1, 2013
Order of February 12, 2013
Order of February 13, 2013
Order of February 15, 2013

CREDABILITY DETERMINATION / LEGAL ISSUES IGNORED

64. During the hearing on February 11, 2013, jurisdiction was challenged by the pending appeal, Judge Page refused to address the issue of jurisdiction.

65. During the hearing on February 20, 2013, jurisdiction was challenged and the Court did not address the issue; the defects of the void order which the plaintiff was seeking to enforce were presented and the Court did not address the issue; the defects of the void order upon which the void order was based were presented and the Court did not address the issue; the defects of the equitable distribution order and defective divorce decree were presented and the Court did not address the issue.

66. During the hearing, the Court acknowledged the Defendant’s financial condition and denied the Defendant’s request to produce the transcript for the September 23, 2011 hearing.

67. The Montgomery County Prothonotary has not transmitted or prepared any documents relating to the August 15, 2011 Notice of Appeal to the appellate prothonotary.

FAILURE TO PREPARE/TRANSMIT THE APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT

68. The Montgomery County Prothonotary indicated that they will take no action to prepare and transmit the appeal until the Petition To Proceed In Forma Pauperis is ordered by the court.

69. The Court Reporters have taken no action to produce transcripts related to the Appeal filed August 15, 2013.

70. On March 12, 2013, the transcripts for the half-day hearing on February 11, 2013 and the full day hearing on February 20, 2013 are entered on the docket.

71. On March 14, 2013, the Exhibits related to the February 11, 2013 and February 20 hearings are entered on the docket. The Plaintiff’s exhibits are missing from the exhibit document.

COURT ORDER OF APRIL 3, 2013

72. On April 3, 2013, Judge Page issues an absurd order which neglects to address the challenges to jurisdiction, neglects to address the pending appeal, neglects to address void defective orders, and orders the homeless and destitute Defendant to pay over $300,000 to the Plaintiff.

73. The Order of April 3, 2013 did not address any pending Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

APPEAL FILED APRIL 26, 2013

74. On April 26, 2013, a Notice of Appeal relating to the Order of April 3, 2013 and associated documents were presented to the Prothonotary. The clerk refused to docket the Notice of Appeal until the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was granted by the Court.

DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE COURT

75. On April 29, 2013, Defendant filed another Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

76. On April 29, 2013, the time stamped Notice of Appeal is served upon Judge Page who refuses to address the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and directs the Appellant to Court Administration.

77. Court Administration directs the Appellant to Judge Emanuel Bertin.

78. Judge Emanuel Bertin refuses to address the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and directs the Appellant to Court Administration.

79. Court Administration directs the Appellant to Judge Cheryl Austin.

80. Judge Austin keeps the Appellant waiting for two hours in the hallway outside her courtroom. Then a member of Judge Austins staff indicates that Judge Austin refuses to address the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and directs the Appellant to Court Administration.

81. Appellant waits for over 2 hours outside Court Administration while they search for an available judge to address the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

82. Appellant instructs Court Administration to contact him if they succeed in finding a judge to address the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

83. At the end of the day, Court Administration contacts the Appellant indicating that they have found a judge to address the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

84. The Appellant is instructed that he must return to the courthouse to sign the Order. A New Rule?

85. On April 30, 2013, the single page document requiring signature has already been signed by Judge Garrett Page and numbering on it begins at the number six (6).

86. In the entire history of this matter the Defendant has never been required to sign a Court Order.

PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS GRANTED

87. The Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis GRANTED by Judge Page is filed with the Prothonotary on April 30, 2013. There was no hearing.

CONCISE STATEMENT OF ERRORS REQUESTED

88. On April 30, 2013, Judge Page orders a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. Rule 1925(b).

TRANSCRIPTS FOR THE MATTER REQUESTED

89. On May 15, 2013, Appellant files a Request for the Production of Transcripts and meets with the Administrator in the Court Reporters Office to coordinate delivery.

CONCISE STATEMENT OF ERRORS FILED/SERVED

90. On May 17, 2013, Appellant files the Concise Statement of Errors Complained Of On Appeal and serves the document to Judge Page.

PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS VACATED

91. On May 21, 2013, without notice, with any hearing and refering to ‘good cause shown’, Judge Page vacates his Order regarding the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

92. The ex parte ORDER to VACATE specifically prevents preparation of hearing transcripts which support the Appellants statements provided in the Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal.

93. Where a Petition to proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied, in whole or in part, the court shall briefly state its reasons. Pa. R.A.P. Rule 552(e).

Pa. R.A.P. Rule 552(e) Consideration and action by the court indicates “the application and verified statement shall be submitted to the court, which shall enter its order thereon within 20 days from the date of the filing of the application. If application is denied, in whole or in part, the court shall briefly state its reasons.”