A Terroristic Divorce

July 15, 2013

Selected Quotes from PhillyNews.com article by Angela Couloumbis and Craig R. McCoy.

“In a bitter and secret legal fight, state Attorney General Kathleen Kane has succeeded in ousting the judge who has long overseen corruption investigations in Pennsylvania, The Inquirer has learned.”

Could this be why no one has investigated my case?

“After a conflict that had been roiling since she took office in January, Kane took the unusual step of asking the state Supreme Court to remove Judge Barry F. Feudale as the supervising grand jury judge in Harrisburg. Kane told the high court in April in sealed papers that the judge was no longer fit to run a grand jury.”

“The dispute is part of a larger struggle, between the new attorney general and her office’s old guard of career prosecutors, that has spilled over into how several high-stakes cases are being handled – including a probe into political corruption in several counties, Philadelphia among them, according to people familiar with the situation. The scope and specifics of that investigation could not be learned.”

“In May, the Supreme Court ruled in Kane’s favor. The court’s order did not bar him from serving as a judge, but removed him from the grand-jury position. The order was sealed and has not been made public.”

“Judge Feudale worked as a “floating” senior judge, assigned by the Supreme Court to hear cases in 63 of the state’s 67 counties. Over the last 12 years, chief justices have appointed him to preside over a series of investigating grand juries. Judges in that role are crucial players, refereeing fights over subpoenas or evidence and even putting a personal stamp on the outcome.”

So this is a man who can prevent an investigation into corruption by guiding a grand jury to ignore injustice and corruption.

I hope and pray that Attorney General Kathleen Kane is reading this web site and recognizing the level of corruption and injustice being delivered upon the people of Montgomery County by a completely malicious judiciary determined to conceal their criminal abuse of power under color of law by continuing their actions to obstruct justice.

And… I am not the only one, there are other victims. Thankfully, their lives have not been as obliterated by injustice and failure to resolve issues which are repeatedly ignored, denied and delayed.

What made an entire judiciary decide that because of a divorce (and no other reason) one person should be victimized and lose every aspect of life with little hope or future of escaping their malice. Because of the simple reason that I recognized the injustice, identified it, documented it, survived it. I should be destroyed because they failed to do their job.

My sons have been denied their father, and the extended family. My family has suffered enough, but the judges won’t stop the terror of their injustices until they attain my suicide which regrettably I have learned I am not capable of providing for them.

I have been pushed so close to suicide, at so many times. I understand it. I know it. I only wish I was capable of it and could have put my misery to an end. Instead, I live each day to be further victimized.

There’s never been any walking away. When that was attempted, they came for me again, with more fraud and lies. AND ANOTHER NEW JUDGE. Who is now in the process of acting without jurisdiction to manipulate the court reporters to ignore requests for hearing transcripts. Their team grows and grows.

Judges have power which when abused can incriminate those who attempt to enforce their corrupt and void orders. So Judge Garrett Page compels the court reporters to inaction. Judge Page does so with a void order where he lacks jurisdiction. When queried on the ex parte order issued without any proceedings, Judge Page refuses to respond; or provide reasons for his actions; and refuses to hold any hearing on the matter.

The entire matter is being raised to the Superior Court Of Pennsylvania, where I am certain they will recognize the lack of jurisdiction and the judge’s refusal to address their lack of jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, the judge has no authority.

The Superior Court Judges are going to wonder, WHY ARE THE COMMON PLEAS JUDGES FAILING LIKE THIS?

JURISDICTION is basic. It must be addressed. It is simple to address.

Ignoring the lack of jurisdiction is indicative of larger abuses. It is those other abuses which became terroristic in scope and determination to obliterate an innocent victim of corruption.

Message to the Court Reporters:

Please advise the court reporters that I plan to file a complaint with the Superior Court regarding their deliberate failure to produce the transcripts as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

I will additionally be filing federal suits against each for their participation in the obstruction of justice and denial of due process which they have chosen to become involved in.

Judge Page lacked jurisdiction and engaged in intimidation tactics to prevent justice in this matter.

Please advise your reporters accordingly.
Terance Healy
www.work2bdone.com/live

The true problem with illegal surveillance and intrusion in American’s lives is not just what is seems on the surface.

It is is how it is being shared. Centers are in place nationwide to share the data being collected. MAGLOCLEN and RISS.net are examples.

And then there is the private investigators who are former law enforcement and also a part of the data exchange network. They can do evenm more to intrude into your life. When you catch them, law enforcement does nothing to prosecute or end the intrusion. They ignore your report and encourage, endorse and permit the intrusion to continue.

The more you discover, the more the cover-up becomes a necessity.

There is no escape. They will destroy you. You cannot win. Anyone who knows about the capabilities also knows the level of destruction which can be inflicted by this organization. They destroy people for trying to survive their tactics.

They interfere in justice. They corrupt and pervert every aspect of American life. But, it is very American to pretend that they have no affect. Americans will ignore it. They will mock it. Should t.hey discover they are caught in it. They learn their mistake too late.

Snowden was not affected by it… and recognized the damage that was being done. He is a hero.

When the actions of those who offer protection from terrorists become worse than the terrorist actions…
Don’t become the terrorist.

Some nights I wake up in the middle of the night and it hits me… HARD… 8 years of my life trying to survive the constant fraud, injustice and litigation.

Where 18 judges decided it was ok to violate law and procedure to attack me. … and I fall apart.

What could possibly motivate them? Why does no one stop them?

I just wonder what motivates A TEAM to destroy every aspect of a persons existence.

Isolate them from everyone. Cripple them emotionally. Attack every thought. Annihilate everything around them… and then not permit them any escape or comfort.

After 8 years it is absolutely criminal.

And there is no one to rescue me no matter how loudly i beg for help.

Imagine being terrorized for 8 years of your life… and no opportunity to escape… and no one doing anything on your behalf to help. … watch my destruction.

Jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to decide a case; to render a decision that will be recognized and enforced by authorities and other courts.

Jurisdiction
– Requires the court have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action
– Requires the court have jurisdiction over each party to the action
– Requires due process of law – the appearance or service of process (notice of pendency of the lawsuit) before the defendant can be personally bound by any judgment.
– If the defendant has not received proper notice, the court’s power to adjudicate is imperfect.
– Defective service of process goes to lack of notice.
– Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Challenging Jurisdiction – MUST BE ADDRESSED BY THE COURT.

Judges who ignore questions of jurisdiction, likely lack jurisdiction and have acted improperly, or criminally. Judges who repeatedly fail to address the lack of jurisdiction are abusing their power under color of law.

Deliberately ignoring a lack of jurisdiction when properly before the court is an abuse of power under color of law.

The judges have had plenty of opportunity to indicate the requirements of jurisdiction for their [void] orders.
They have NOT addressed their jurisdiction because doing so would reveal their corrupt actions.

I have indicated the failures in regard to jurisdiction. THIS HAS BEEN IGNORED.

For presenting the criminal lack of jurisdiction and the malicious retaliation of the judges when confronted with the errors, I have been destroyed and my civil rights further eliminated. The failures grow, and the corrupt abusive actions of the judges become more and more blatant.

Appealing their void orders and the malicious orders attempting to enforce void orders has lead to further injustice where judges have acted without jurisdiction while jurisdiction rests with the Superior Court. Those actions illegally and unethically prevent the matter from being prepared and transmitted to the Superior Court. Effectively denying access to the courts. A a court which has refused to hold hearings and prevented and ignored due process and procedure is not going to permit a higher court to review their intentional errors to the most basic concept of jurisprudence. It’s called ABUSE. It is a crime.

Prosecuting a corrupt judge is rare… and their terroristic retaliation to a challenge causes an inescapable misery which leads many to suicide.

When it is the corruption and lack of integrity caused by the entire judicial bench. Life becomes torture. A nightmare of injustice and unending litigation with no opportunity for judicial review.

Judge Garrett Page was provided the opportunity to not accept the assignment of this matter. He chose poorly.

I had questioned the reassignment of the case from Judge Haaz.
EMERGENCY OBJECTION TO THE REASSIGNMENT OF THIS MATTER / PETITION TO ENFORCE THE SCHEDULING ORDER OF JULY 10, 2012

Judge Page came into the matter with more advance information than any other judge since 2007.

Judge Page was offended by my Objection to the Reassignment. I explained to him that it was not personal. 1) There had been no reason provided for Judge Haaz not holding the hearing he ordered.
2. There had been no reason provided for Court Administration failing to schedule the hearing before Judge Haaz.
3) The matter had been before 15 judges already. It is reasonable to request an explanation for the arbitrary reassignment to yet another judge.
4) No acceptable explanation was offered.

It would take a judge with a great deal of integrity to be able too handle the issues involved in the matter. Since 2007, I have given each judge the benefit of the doubt. Each judge failed immediately… with one notable exception. Judge Haaz. Judge Haaz effectively and immediately addressed defects in due process when presented to him during the short list conference in July 2012. It seemed that the pending stalled Appeal was preventing the hearing from being scheduled. Jurisdiction remains with the Superior Court until the Appeal is decided.

Judge Page failed quickly, demonstrating poor and careless organizational issues, and his bias to dismiss the Pro Se Defendant even when the facts are clearly on the court record. Judge Page went on to recognize that hearings had NOT taken place before Judge Carluccio. When he came to that realization, he and Valerie Angsgt began a little dance. He accepted and encouraged her misinformation. He coached her through a few statements, as Judge Page needed to protect the ‘integrity’ of Judge Carluccio’s invalid orders.

Problem is that there is no protecting a void order which lacked jurisdiction. There is no way to make up for the lack of jurisdiction, the lack of hearings, the lack of due process, etc. The Orders are Void Ab Initio. After the hearing, in his absurd Order, Judge Page neglected to address any of the issues I presented regarding jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is necessary. Jurisdiction has tangible elements which must be in place to permit the judge to conduct hearings and issue orders. Without jurisdiction, the judge is powerless and prevented from issuing an Order. If the judge had jurisdiction, it could be presented in minutes. When they fail to address their jurisdiction, they perpetrate a fraud and create a conspiracy which eventually involves more and more people in their crimes.

Judge Carluccio did not have jurisdiction to issue the Divorce Decree. She was informed of the fatal defect… AND IGNORED IT. The Equitable Distribution Order written by Judge Carluccio cannot stand without a Divorce Decree so the Equitable Distribution Order is VOID AB INITIO.

BUT, Judge Carluccio was dishing out unfair punishments and irreparable damage to the target of her maliciously biased orders. Judge Carluccio had secretly cancelled hearings AND GOTTEN CAUGHT. Judge Carluccio had made false reports to the courthouse deputies in an attempt to intimidate me. Judge Carluccio had ‘made ridiculous things up out of thin air’ committing fraud in her own courtroom. Judge Carluccio was not going to permit the resolution of any matter raised by the Defendant. She was determined to do what SHE WANTED TO DO without regard to civil rights, due process or the law. She was the judge and she could abuse the power of her office to compel other people to enforce her invalid/void orders. In doing so she made county personnel a party to her crimes. Judge Carluccio’s fraud and abuse also causes her to forfeit her judicial immunity… AND ALSO FORFEIT THE IMMUNITY FOR THE PRIOR JUDGES.

Judge Carluccio made a complete mess out of everything and further obstructed justice, denied access to the court, and illegally blocked an Appeal of her void order from being sent to Superior Court. She began a cascading series of illegal actions based on her invalid and void orders. By continuing the abuse, she terrorized the victim of the court’s deliberate injustice. She ordered her target to be homeless, prevented him from obtaining his possessions, and deliberately ignored petitions filed with the court to address the impending irreparable damage. This after 6 years of constant litigation and the complete denial of any custody or visitation (without explanation or reason).

The actions of Sonya Healy and Angst & Angst to involve more and more people in their criminal actions leads them to interpret that they would never address the injustice and face prosecution when the team harassing and terrorizing the one person is SO huge. Every County Department, realtors, title search companies, insurance companies, so many people have deliberately kept me uninformed. It suggests there is yet another secret order which requires people to ignore any request for information.

Judge Carluccio further issued an Order preventing the Defendant from addressing any of her prior malicious actions. While the Appeal was sitting in Norristown and NOT BEING PREPARED FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT, I was prevented from addressing the abusive and criminal actions of the judiciary to conceal their injustice.

One important thing to remember is that Judge Page issued his $300,000+ Order knowing that I had followed all of the prior orders and had testified to the exact date and time the items in question were delivered to the location ordered verbally on the Record by Judge Carluccio. I also have in my possession the hand written document from Judge Carluccio which was greatly expanded by Valerie Angst and Peggy before placing the photoshopped signature of Judge Carluccio on the Order.

Judge Page ignored all of the evidence. He proceeded with apparent intent to bury me so deeply in debt that I would never recover. Note: Ordering a homeless person who has been unemployed since 2007 to pay over $300,000 to the person who deliberately and criminally manipulated corrupted and polluted the entire judiciary is clearly intended to bury the victim in debt so deep that he will never escape. At my highest full salary, the amount would be greater than 5 years salary. Imagine that? For something which they lied about. And where they neglected to produce the verbal part of the order.

When the absurd Order was appealed, Judge Page was forced to play along and GRANTED the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis(IFP). I had spent an entire day attempting to have a judge hear the IFP. No judge would hear it.

IT WAS REALIZED THAT THE EARLIER APPEAL WOULD ALSO BE TRANSMITTED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT… AND MAKE AVAILABLE THE TRANSCRIPTS WHICH CLEARLY DOCUMENTED THE TREMENDOUS INJUSTICE AND THE JUDGE’S FRAUD.

Judge Page then, WITHOUT ANY PROCEEDING, revoked the Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. He further notified each of the Court Reporters to NOT PREPARE the transcripts required and requested.

Judge Page lacked jurisdiction to revoke his order granting the status. BUT, HE DID IT. In doing so he has made each of the court reporters a party to his criminal obstruction and denial of access to the courts.

I could not appeal the revocation because I would need the Pauper status to file that appeal. There had been a rule change that further blocked the filing of the Notice of Appeal document without the IFP in place. When they revoke your IFP, and you need an IFP to proceed, the court has deliberately prevented access to the higher courts.

Judge Page was also covering his own judicial errors. He wrote an opinion which is laughable in that it also fails to address the very specific issue of jurisdiction. It suggests that Judge Carluccio must have had jurisdiction because she issued her order. THEREFORE, there is no need to examine the issue of jurisdiction. He digs deeper and comes up with statements which are almost as crazy as Judge Carluccio’s ‘if it is not circled’ fraudulent misrepresentation.

When I point out that my rights are being denied and request explanations and hearings, Judge Page has now DENIED those petitions WITHOUT HEARINGS. Clearly now dealing with a judge without integrity criminally abusing the power of his office under color of law to obstruct justice and deny access to the higher courts.

At what point did Judge Page lose his integrity? At one point he suggested he had integrity.

Bear in mind, I have no choice but to defend against the injustice. There is no escape from the constant intrusions. Surely, the judge had to know I would appeal his absurd Order. BUT NOW AN Appeal WOULD EXPOSE JUDGE CARLUCCIO AND THE OTHERS.

Prior to the February hearing when I requested a continuance due to the failing health of my father who has since passed away. I had escalated the written request to Judge Page’s attentioon with a phone call. Judge Page failed to respond all day and had a member of his staff call and say I had to appear for the hearing. I begged the person to have him reconsider. Judge Page personally called from his own cell phone and ORDERED me to be in his courtroom at 9:00 AM the next morning. As the hearing was scheduled for the afternoon, I was under the impression Judge Page simply wanted to meet me before permitting the continuance.

BUT NO. Judge Page was being a ‘dick’. He thought the hearing was scheduled for 9:00 AM. He had no intention of considering the continuance. He wanted the proceeding to occur without regard for my family emergency.

AND, Judge Page didn’t even show up at the Courthouse til close to 10:00 AM. I had none of my paperwork with me, and Angst & Angst were unaware of the judge’s rescheduling to 9:00 AM. Judge Page was now basically embarassed into continuing the hearing. Not for any compassionate reason. Simply because of his own carelessness.

The handwriting was on the wall. I know the drill. Each judge is slightly different. Judge Page was going to attempt to prevent exhibits and evidence at the hearing. I had to be as over-prepared as possible. At the hearing, I made sure all exhibits were submitted. I recall thinking that Valerie Angst had taken NO ACTION to respond to the lack of jurisdiction. She ignored it. I recall thinking that would be problematic for her on Appeal. Generally, if you neglect to address an issue in the hearing, the issue may not be raised/defended during the Appeal. So I kind of knew things would go against me with Judge Page, BUT the Appeal process could not be ignored and blocked AGAIN.

Yet, here we are. Judge Page is creating needless drama by issuing orders without hearings where he lack jurisdiction during a pending Appeal. And until he proves that his court has jurisdiction, he is simply helping to build a clearcut Federal case.

What do they gain by terrorizing me? Don’t they realize I have no other choice and must persevere through their harassment intrusion and terror. It would seem they become angry as I am forced to point out their corruption and failures which subject me to incredible injustice. What do they expect? Seriously, They annihilated every aspect of my life… Did they think I would disappear quietly into the night? That’s not gonna happen.

{Judge Page’s actions have been reported to law enforcement authorities. Had they acted when the crimes were first reported in 2007, things would have gone differently.]

Read Non-Annotated Version here

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant, Terance Healy (“Appellant”) appeals from this Court’s April 3, 2013 Order which granted Appellee’s Petition to Caiculate Defendant’s Penalty and to Reduce his Share of the Marital Estate by his Penalties.

On February 11, 2013 and February 20, 2013, this Court held a two-day protracted hearing on Plaintiff’s Petition to Calculate Defendant’s Penalty to Enforce his Share of the Marital Estate, Defendant’s Response and Counter Petition, and Defendant’ s Emergency Objection to the Reassignment of this Matter/Petition to Enforce the Scheduling Order of 7/10/2012.

After the parties’ protracted hearing, this Court issued an Order on April 3, 2013 which calculated Appellant’ s penalty for his failure to return listed items in the Court’ s September 23, 2011 Order. Pursuant to this Order, Appellant was fined $500.00 per day for his disobedience of the Order. (Order (2007-12477) seq.3 52)). Appellant failed to return the specified items for 511 days, thereby making his total calculated penalty by this Court
$255,500.00 plus $5,016.50 for attorneys’ fees. (Order (2007-12477) seq.387)). Appellant’s share of Appellee’s retirement account and Appellant’s share ofthe marital residence in the amount of $180,710.58 was deducted from his total penalty of $311,716.50. Id.

On May 16, 2013, Appellant filed the instant appeal. On May 17, 2013, Appellant also filed a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.

ISSUES

Appellant raises the following issues on appeal which have been summarized since said issues overlap:

1. The trial court lacked jurisdiction over the matter since the court’s April 3, 2013 and September 23, 2011 Orders were issued while the court lacked jurisdiction during a pending appeal filed on August 15, 2011.

2. The trial court failed to address the void orders of September 23, 2011, July 18, 2011, and May 9, 2011.

3. The trial court failed to address outstanding petitions filed by Appellant.

4. During the protracted hearing, the trial court committed procedural errors such as not permitting the opportunity to schedule witnesses, unclear scheduling orders, not permitting testimony regarding the failure to conduct the hearing as ordered by Judge Haaz, not permitting equal time for Appellant to testify and present all related exhibits, coached opposing counsel, failed to give Appellant a copy ofthe transcript from a prior protracted hearing, failed to consider Appellant’s ability to pay when it rendered its April 3, 2013 Order, permitted Appellee to commit perjury, failed to permit Appellant to proceed In Forma Pauperis, did not address the failure of prior judges to conduct hearings on petitions previously filed with the court, did not permit Appellant to present evidence on Federal issues, and issued a ruling for over $300,000 based only upon the testimony of Appellee.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Issues pertaining to jurisdiction are pure questions of law, and an appellate court’s scope of review is plenary. In re B.L.J., Jr., 938 A.2d 1068, 1071 (Pa. Super. 2007).

DISCUSSION

A. THIS COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE PROTRACTED HEARINGS ON FEBRUARY 11, 2013 AND FEBRUARY 20, 2013 SINCE APPELLANT HAD NO PENDING APPEAL IN
THE SUPERIOR COURT.

During the protracted hearing held on February 11, 2013, Appellant argued that Appellee’s Petition to Calculate Defendant’s Penalty to Enforce his Share of the Marital Estate should not have been heard by this Court since there was an appeal pending in the Superior Court based on a defective Divorce Decree. (N.O.T., Hearing on Plaintiffs Petition for Contempt, 2/11/13, p. 6-10). Specifically, Appellant argued that the appeal was filed on August 15, 2011 and that the appeal was not properly forwarded by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas to the Superior Court for review. Id. at 7.

On August 15, 2011, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal in response to Judge Carluccio’s May 9, 2011 Order granting a Divorce Decree and Equitable Distribution. Appellant’s Notice of Appeal stated that Judge Carluccio’s May 9, 2011 Order became a final order on July 18, 2011. On August 22, 2011, Judge Carluccio issued a Concise Statement of Matters complained of on appeal which directed Appellant to file said statement within 21 days ofthe date ofthe Order’s entry on the docket pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(B). (Order (2007-12477) seq.333)).

Appellant’s argument that Judge Carluccio’s May 9, 2011 Order became final on July 18, 2011 is meritless. However, the July 18, 2011 Order merely directed that there shall be an exchange of requested items between Appellant and Appellee and that a protracted hearing was scheduled for September 23, 2011. (Order (2007-12477) seq.320)). The May 9, 2011 Order itself was a final and appealable order from which Appellant should have properly appealed
within 30 days after the entry of said Order. See Pa.R.A.P. 903 (2013).

Further, Appellant’s claim that this Court lacked jurisdiction due to the pendency of an appeal from Judge Carluccio’s May 9, 2011 Order is precluded by the collateral estoppel doctrine. Under the collateral estoppel doctrine, an issue of law or fact is precluded from being re-litigated once it has been finally adjudicated. Balent v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 669 A.2d 309, 313 (Pa. 1995). On July 18, 2011, Judge Carluccio addressed Appellant’ s Petition
to Vacate Order of May 9, 2011. In this Petition, Appellant claimed that Judge Carluccio lacked jurisdiction to issue a Divorce Decree. Judge Carluccio, however, ruled that her May 9, 2011 Order was final and that Appellant failed to appeal within 30 days ofthe date ofthe Order. (N.O.T., Defendant’s Petition to Vacate Order of May 9, 2011, 7/18/11, p. 5). As a result of Judge Carluccio’s ruling on July 18, 2011, Appellant was properly precluded from
raising the same issue before this Court during his protracted hearing on February 11, 2013.

Additionally, Appellant asserts on appeal that Judge Carluccio’s May 9, 2011, July 18, 2011, and September 23, 2011 Orders were void and unenforceable. However, Appellant failed to file a timely appeal from each of these final Orders pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 903. Therefore, Appellant’s failure to follow the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure rendered his appeal improperly filed, this Court had jurisdiction to hear Appellee’s Petition to Caleulate Defendant’s Penalty to Enforce his Share ofthe Marital Estate and issue a subsequent order, and the May 9, 2011, July 18, 2011, and September 23, 2011 Orders remain valid and enforceable.

A party may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal if granted leave by a lower court. Pa.R.A.P. 551. On August 15, 2011 Appellant filed a Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis concurrent with his Notice of Appeal. In this current appeal, Appellant argues that the lower court failed to allow hirn to proceed in forma pauperis. However, Appellant’s argument is meritless since his Notice of Appeal was not filed within 30 days of the entry of the order
from which his appeal was taken. See Pa.R.A.P. 903 (2013). Therefore, his Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was also untimely filed.

B. THIS COURT WAS PROPER IN CALCULATING APPELLANT’S CONTEMPT AMOUNT BASED ON JUDGE CARLUCCIO’S SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 ORDER.

The Coordinate Jurisdiction Rule prohibits judges of coordinate jurisdiction sitting in the same case from overruling each other’s decisions. Ryan v. Berman, 813 A.2d 792, 795 (Pa. 2002). This rule will only be disregarded in exceptional circumstances where there has been a change in the controlling law, a substantial change in the facts or evidence giving rise to the dispute, or where the prior holding was clearly erroneous and would create a manifest injustice. Id. The purpose of this rule is to protect the settled expectations of the parties, insure unifonnity of decisions, maintain consistency during the course of a single case, effectuate the proper and streamlined administration ofjustice, and bring litigation to an end. Id.
Appellant’s challenge to his contempt fine should have bcen appealed from Judge Carluccio’s September 23, 2011 Order since Appellant’s penalty was derived from this final and appealable order. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5105 (2013). Further, this Court considered Appeliant’s ability to pay his contempt fine imposed by the September 23, 2011 Order and allowed Appellant’s marital share to be deducted from his total contempt fine, thereby reducing the total penalty’. Therefore, based on the Coordinate Jurisdiction Rule and Appellant’s failure to properly appeal Judge Carluccio’s September 23, 2011 Order, this Court properly calculated Appellant’ s penalty.

C. THIS COURT PROPERLY DENIED APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS ASSERTING FEDERAL ISSUES.

A court of common pleas has unlimited original jurisdiction except in cases where exclusive original jurisdiction of an action or proceeding is vested in another court of Pennsylvania. 42 Pa.C.S. § 931(a) (2013). Here, Appellant’s claim on appeal is that this Court denied information regarding his Federal issues at the time of his protracted hearing. This Court’s ruling not to address Appellant’s Federal issues was proper in light of 42 Pa.C.S. §
93 1(a).

D. THIS COURT PERMITTED EQUAL TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO TESTIFY AND PRESENT ALL RELATED EXHBITS.

Appellant contends, on appeal, that this Court failed to permit equal time for hirn to testify and present all related exhibits. During the protracted hearing, Appellant persistently tried to testif’ to matters which were moot and beyond the jurisdiction ofthis Court. First, Appellant’s claim that there was a pending appeal from the Court’s May 9, 2011 was meritless since Appellant failed to file a tirnely appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 903 (2013).
Second, Appellant’s argument that his Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was never ruled upon also lacked merit since Appellant filed this Petition concurrent with an untirnely appeal. Therefore, there was no pending appeal for Appellarit to proceed in forma pauperis.

However, in Iight of Travitzky v. Travitzky, 534 A.2d 1081, 1085-86 (Pa. Super. 1987), this Court does not oppose a remand ofthe case to further determine Appellant’s present ability to comply. This is despite the coordinatejurisdiction ruling which would require otherwise.

Lastly,Appellant was barred from litigating any Federal issues since this Court is a court of common pleas and has no original jurisdietion over Federal issues. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 931(a) (2013). Accordingly, Appellant was not permitted by this Court from testifying and presenting any evidence as to these issues. As to all other issues properly before this Court, Appellant was given sufficient time to testif’y and present evidence.

E. THIS COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED APPELLEE’S TESTIMONY IN CALCULATING APPELLANT’S TOTAL CONTEMPT AMOUNT.

A finder of fact is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility ofwitnesses. Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 34 A.3d 1, 39 (Pa. 2011). Here, Appellant asserts that this Court permitted Appellee to commit perjury and issued a ruling on his contempt based solely on Appellee’s testimony. Pursuant to the Court’s September 23, 2011 Order, Appel1ant was required to retum the following items to
Appellee: 1) crosscut saw, 2) 50% of family pictures, 3) Delacroix “Olympies” painting, 4) dishes, crystal and glasses consisting ofNontake china collection and all dishes, crystal and glassware that were located in the china closet and buffet that were in the marital residence, and all other crystal, china, and dishes removed from the marital residence, and 5) the ottoman to oversized green chair. (Order (2007-12477) seq.352)). Appellant was fined $100.00 per day for each day he failed to comply with this Order beginning on September 27, 2011. Id.

At the protracted hearing, Appellee testified that she Set up a separate IRA rollover account for Appellant pursuant to the Court’s May 9, 2011 Order which required Appellee to make a lump sum payment of $ 108,335.00 to Appellant. (N.O.T., Hearing on Plaintiff’s Petition for Contempt, 2/11/13, p. 47-48); See (Order (2007-12477) seq.304)). However, at the time ofthe hearing, Appellant had not effectuated the necessary paperwork for Appellee
to complete the transfer. Id. at 49. Further, Appellee testified that Appellant did not return the items Iisted in the Court’s September 23, 2011 Order. Id. at 54.-55. At the hearing, this Court was the fact finder and was free to believe all of the testimonial evidence presented by Appellee and determine that her testimony was credible. See Samuel-Bassett, 34 A.3d at 39. Therefore, this Court acted properly in granting Appellee’s Petition to offset Appellant’s penalty by his share of the marital estate due to Appellant’ s failure to execute the documents required for Appellee to complete the IRA transfer and Appellant’ s failure to abide by the September 23, 2011 Order requiring Appellant to retum certain items to Appellee.

F. THIS COURT’S SCIIEDULING ORDERS WERE CLEAR AND APPELLANT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SCHEDULE WITNESSES.

This Court’s scheduling orders were clear and gave Appellant notice as to the time, dates, matters to be heard, and location ofthe parties’ protracted hearing on February 11, 2013 and February 20, 2013. See (Order (2007-12477) seq.369)); (Order (2007-12477) seq.372)); (Order (2007-12477) seq.376)); (Order (2007-12477) seq.377)); (Order (2007-12477) seq.378)). In the weeks leading up to the protracted hearing, Appellant called this Court’s chambers several times and mandated changes to the above-cited Orders based on lack of clarity. Although this Court’s original Orders were clear and specific, changes were made to accomrnodate Appellant’s trivial requests. Therefore, any argument on appeal that this Court’s scheduling orders were unclear is without merit.

Further, Appellant’s argument that this Court did not allow hirn to schedule witnesses is also unfounded. This Court has no role in a litigant’s ability to schedule witnesses and does not participate in such matters. Accordingly, it was Appellant’s duty to ensure the scheduling of any witnesses he intended to call at ihe time of the protracted hearing.

G. THIS COURT WAS PROPER IN NOT ADDRESSING APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT THAT PRIOR JUDGES FAILED TO CONDUCT HEARINGS ON HIS PETITIONS FILED WITH THE COURT.

On July 18, 2011, Judge Carluccio held a hearing on Defendant’s Petition to Vacate Order of May 9, 2011, Defendant’s Petition to Schedule Unresolved Claims, and Defendant’s Emergency Petition for Injunction. During this hearing, Judge Carluccio stated that all of Defendant’ s petitions filed before the date of said hearing were moot since they were all previously addressed by the Court. (N.O.T., Defendant’s Petition to Vacate Order ofMay 9, 2011,
7/18/11, p. 17). As a result, Judge Carluccio stated that she would enter an order precluding Appellant from fihing additional frivolous motions which alleged issues that were previously addressed by the Court. Id at 17-18. Accordingly, on September 23, 2011, Judge Carluccio entered an Order which prohibited Appellant from fihing further petitions and motions regarding events that occurred prior to the date ofthis Order. (Order (2007-12477)
seq.352)). Therefore, based on the collateral estoppel doctrine and the clear language in Judge Carluccio’s final order, Appellant’s argument that the Court failed to hear any outstanding petitions was not properly before this Court on February 11, 2013 and February 20, 2013. See Balent v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 669 A.2d 309, 313 (Pa. 1995).

H. THIS COURT PROPERLY DENIED APPELLANT’S REQUEST FOR A COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT FOR ANY PRIOR PROCEEDING.

A party is required to request a copy of the transcript of a proceeding with the court reporter for the proceeding, the cierk of the trial court in which the proceeding took place, or in open court. Pa.R.J.A. 5000.5 (2013). Here, Appellant made a request for a copy ofthe transcript for a prior proceeding in open court during an unrelated hearing. However, Appellant failed to timely make his request and further, Appellant was denied the ability to file any further motions based on issues previously addressed by the Court. See (Order (200712477) seq.352)). Therefore, Appellant’s request for the transcript for any prior proceeding was moot since the request was based on matters already heard by the Court. This Court reasonably granted Appellant’ s request for transcripts pertaining to the protracted matter before Judge Page on February 11, 2013 and February 20, 2013.

I. THIS COURT PROPERLY DENIED APFELLANT’S REQUEST TO ADDRESS ANY EX PARTE ACTIONS OR ALLEGED MISCONDUCT ON BEHALF OF APPELLEE’S COUNSEL.

Pursuant to the collateral estoppel doctrine and Judge Carluccio’s September 23, 2011 Order, this Court properly denied Appellant’s request to address any ex parte communication or misconduct on behalf ofAppellee’s counsel since this was a matter previously addressed in Appellant’s September 14, 2010 Petition Regarding Ex Parte Communications by Defendant. The Court’s September 23, 2011 Order explicitly states that Appellant was prohibited from fihing any further petitions which contained issues that were previously addressed by the Court. (Order (2007-12477) seq.352)). Therefore, this Court was proper in denying Appellant’s request to address any alleged ex parte communications by Defendant’s counsel.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, this Court’s April 3, 2013 Order caleulating Appellant’s contempt fine should be AFFIRMED.

Judge GARRETT D. PAGE

Thomas Ball
Martin Romanchick
Steven Cook
Darrin White
Derrick Miller
Glomerys Martinez
Douglas Youmans
Mindy McCready
Aaron Swartz
Brian Benedict
James Malone
James Calvert
Thomas Tarbell
Gregory Eisenhauer
Steve Mercier
Bob Norton
Anthony Feoli
James Miller
David Vandenberg
Andy Statura
Phil Beaupre
David Johnson
Nick Haas
Joe Haas
Joe Gagan
Henry Johnson
Tim Sanborn
Earl Silverman
Ralph Costales
Aimee Schulz
Mary Richardson Kennedy
Kenny McKinley
Randy Orville Brouse
Trevor Goddard
Robert R Steadman
Jim McCarthy
Phillip Marshall
Reinaldo Rivera
Mark Edward Dexel
Derrick K. Miller
Carl Tarzwell, Jr.
James Gunter
Randy Johnson
Darren Bruce White
Dimitrius Underwood
David Guinn
James A. Poore
Kenneth Taylor
Kenneth Ayers
Dale Owen Cook
Tracy Beaulieu Cook
Jennifer Boyce
Bernard Grosso
Jovan Belcher
Kasandra Perkins
Amy Engels
Randall Engels
Dmitriy Kanarikov
Bradley Stone
Nicole Hill Stone
Jo Ann Koder
Patricia Hill
Trish Flick
Aaron Flick
Nina
Robert Newell

Every program, every add in, every download all seems to have invalid certificates. I’ve experienced this consistently for the last 8 years. When your computer has been redirected, and your router hacked numerous times, and you can’t keep ahead of their intrusions, you learn to deal with it.

The frustration is unbearable. And there is nothing you can do about it. Because the people who are terrorizing you ARE the law enforcement people to whom you would report the crime. And they will never stop…. and they don’t care how much proof you have, because they won’t stop until you are dead.