When Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio issued the defective divorce decree, she did NOT have subject matter jurisdiction. She had deliberately neglected her lack of jurisdiction to create what she called her “Unappealable Order”. An order which causes a loss of absolute judicial immunity once the defect is acknowledged and the order stricken ab initio.
A defective and void order which no judge will address because to do so would expose judicial corruption and injustice not just by Carluccio, but by every judge who has been involved in the matter. The judges clearly see what Carluccio has done to their honor and integrity. They must sacrifice their integrity to conceal the lack of integrity of the prior judges. They delay and prevent justice and ignore and terrorize the victim/survivor further.
Requiring more effort, more cost, and lost time. I have no choice, if not corrected, if not addressed, there is no escape, I will be 1) Homeless/Destitute 2) Incarcerated or 3) another Family Court Suicide.
The corruption has caused every immunity to be unavailable. Absolute, Judicial, Legislative, Prosecutorial, Witness, Qualified.
Judges have immunity against errors, even the most malicious and deliberate actions.
The Supreme Court held in Stump v Sparkmanm that judges have absolute immunity from Section 1983 damage actions for their “judicial” acts. Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349 (1978)
Absolute judicial immunity is justified in part because “the judicial process is largely self-correcting: procedural rules, appeals and the possibility of collateral challenges obviate the need for damages actions to prevent unjust results.” Mithchell v Forsthy, 472 US 511, 522 (1985)
THE EXCEPTION: Absolute immunity is restricted to those persons performing judicial or legislative functions.
The Supreme Court held in Stump v. Sparkman that judges have absolute immunity from Section 1983 damage actions for their “judicial” acts. The Court permitted liability only for acts taken “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.”
Because of its focus on judicial acts, judicial immunity attaches to the judicial function, not the judicial office.
All circuits interpret Stump and Bradley to require a clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction in order to lose immunity.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio has deliberately issued a defective order.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio has deliberately issued an order which is void ab initio.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio was promptly notified of the defect in her void order.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio ignored the notification of the defect and retaliated with ANOTHER malicious order.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio ignored further notifications of the defect and the affect when subsequent orders are based on defective and void orders.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio again retaliated with continuances, threw due process and notice to the wind, and continued to issue retaliatory orders while causing irreparable harm to property and possessions.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio ignored the law which caused her void order to be defective. This was not a slight procedural error. Ignoring the LAW causes a clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio defied, prevented and ignored all corrective measures available to her when the court was petitioned to address the defect.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio prevented, delayed and obstructed an Appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania filed timely once reconsideration was refused. Though with a defective and void order even the date it was issued is a nullity.
While awaiting the Appeal filed August 15, 2011 to proceed, there was not much which could be done. A Motion to the Supreme Court is not permitted while the Appeal matter is pending.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio prevented the corrective measures to address her unjust defective and void order – There were outstanding petitions which her series of orders arbitrarily denied and prevented without hearings. There were cancellations of several proceedings BY EMAIL/Praecipe without notice to the parties. There were rescheduling orders issued, which were then cancelled.
YES, I KNEW CAROLYN TORNETTA CARLUCCIO WAS BEING EVIL, MALICIOUS, RETALIATORY, and UNJUST. I tried to keep her informed, however she retaliated with extreme vengeance.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio dismissed petitions requesting her recusal from the matter without discussion.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio deliberately issued defective and void orders while there was a failure to follow Pennsylvania Law and prevented correctionj or resolution. There is a clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction.
While maliciously retaliating by compounding her lack of jurisdiction, the effort to deny, ignore and prevent any corrective measure even when properly petitioned to the court and served on all parties demonstrates a deliberate and intentional indifference towards the clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction. – an abuse of power under color of law with intent to cause damage to property and severe emotional harm.
Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio was attempting to orchestrate a suicide. The only escape from being held responsible and accountable for her crimes.
The non-suicide alternative would affect the integrity of the other members of the judiciary.
Judge Haaz stopped the short list conference and did not schedule any proceeding while the appeal was pending.
Judge Page COMPLETELY IGNORED THE DEFECTIVE AND VOID ORDER. Holding hearings while jurisdiction was in the Superior Court during the pending first appeal, Judge Page faced the choice of
1) addressing the defect and exposing the corrupt and criminal actions of Carolyn Carluccio
OR
2) ordering an absurd payment of over $300,000 for contempt – EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO CONTEMPT.
An Order had been issued verbally and partially written by Carluccio during a convoluted hearing where everything which was scheduled was ignored and a new petition JUST filed was the focus of the proceeding.
As every attempt to hold me in contempt was a false allegation, it was clear that the purpose of the last minute petition was to create an obligation which could be used to accuse of contempt. Another setup where all of the prior efforts had been recognized and avoided. The last minute petition was withdrawn after the proceeding – would never be scheduled. Another void order based on a void order based on a defective and void ab initio order.
The goal of the setup was to have me incarcerated for contempt.
BUT, where I appealed and the matter proceeded went to the Superior Court of Philadelphia, another judiciary was about to be impacted just as the 20 members of the Montgomery County Bench had been forced to sacrifice their integrity for the lack of integrity of the judges who preceeded them.
THE SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIARY WOULD BE AWARE OF THE VERY CLEAR ABSENCE OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND THE POTENTIAL FOR LIABILITY AND DAMAGES.
Three Appeals were in the Superior Court concurrently.
Healy v Healy – The Divorce
Healy v Healy – the Contempt and
Healy v Miller – the Fraudulent Conveyance of the House.
As there was a constitutional issue to be addressed, the Pennsylvania Attorney General was notified of the appeals pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane received a court order from an unidentified court and unidentified judge for unidentified reasons. About the Orders, she said the following:
– “We are not investigating. I cannot investigate.”
– “I am being stopped from performing my duties as Attorney General.”
– “My office is being stopped from certain investigations.”
– “And we are being stopped even from telling why.”
– “My hands are tied and this will be frustrating for you because it is just as frustrating for me.”
– “My hands are tied because there are court orders which don’t allow us to say certain things which I believe the public needs to know.”
– “I knew that I was walking into public corruption. Which again is why I ran.”
– “But I will tell you this. Even I am shocked at the level of public corruption.”
– “I am shocked at how deep it goes.
I am shocked at how powerful it is.
I have never seen anything like this. It’s breathtaking.
It has been described by the people familiar with what is happening as shameful.”
– “But, if this can be done to me as Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of the 5th largest state in the country, i am sickened to think what can and may be done to regular, good people who don’t have the resources that I have to challenge it.”
The Pennsylvania Attorney General was absent from involvement in the Appeals though required by law to address the constitutional issue.
To avoid any accountability and responsibility, the appeals were intercepted and never provided to the judiciary. All paperwork was handled by the Central Legal Staff. No orders were signed by any judges. No ‘decision’ of any motion was supported in law. Where an argument was scheduled before a panel, I was not notified. Memoranda and Opinions clearly neglected the essential issue – the challenge to jurisdiction. Errors in the Docket were not corrected. Documents purported to be written by judges violated each of the judicial canons.
Opposing counsel’s briefs had neglected to address the challenge to jurisdiction. As there was no supporting information or evidence of jurisdiction provided during the lower court hearings, they really had nothing upon which to address or counter the essential issue.
Where the Central Legal Staff is not permitted by Pennsylvania Law to intercept and respond as judges, A Complaint was prepared and filed with the Superior Court, the US Attorney, the Philadelphia District Attorney, the Bucks County District Attorney, the Pennsylvania Attorney General and the US Postal Inspection Service to address the fraudulent actions, the constitutional violations and the interference with the administration of the Courts.
The Superior Court had been notified about the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information as it pertained to the lower court activity.
It was not anticipated that the Superior Court would demonstrate the unconstitutional affect of Rule 1.6. Where the Central Legal Staff could claim Confidentiality pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1.6 Confidentiality, their fraud and constitutional violations demonstrated the unconstitutional Rule 1.6 affect upon the litigant prevented access to the court.
Additionally, as the intrusive technology, wiretaps and surveillance utilized by the County in efforts to create a criminal case against me would have required the action and approval of judges of the Superior Court, they may have held a bias, or felt an overwhelming necessity to keep confidential the volume of harassing and intrusive actions of the County Detectives and Task Force members which had failed.
Where the Superior Court may have wanted to recuse from the matter because of that bias, they were prevented where a recusal without explanation would lead to the discovery.
The Superior Court Judiciary presented a farce. A foolish game to waste time. A continued Denial of Constitutional Rights, the Rule of Law and any Protection under the Law.
A document had been docketed by the Superior Court to which the Court responded without distributing copies to the parties. Upon Motion to Produce the Document, the entry disappeared. It is logical and reasonable to surmise the ‘secret’ Document is one of the Orders issued to Attorney General Kathleen Kane preventing investigation, exposure, discussion and involvement by an unidentified judge in an unidentified court.
| The timing of this secret order corresponds with the date when a special counsel was assigned to investigate emails between the Pennsylvanioa Supreme Court and the Office of the Attorney General. The report indicate a volume of hundreds of emails being exchanged between a Supreme Court Justice and the office of the Attorney General while that Justice was a judge at the Superior Court, and that the emails related to the use of wiretaps and surveillance. |
|
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/resource-58807/file-4191.pdf |
A second ‘secret’ order commanding silence regarding any investigation into the corruption of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas and the 20 judges which have been assigned to the matter of Healy v Healy. When viewed in concert with the Grand Jury under the Supervision of Thomas Carluccio, one can only assume that the husband of Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio would be excused from being compelled to testify regarding the investigation and the information exchanged with the grand jury. The second secret court being issued by the Montgomery County Court of common Pleas to use the grand jury process to conceal information and evidence.
Additionally, the Central Legal Staff farce exposed the same fraudulent actions had occurred in the Eastern District Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals which improperly dismissed the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 where Rule 1.6 permits Legal professional to commit fraud to conceal prior fraud; and while preventing actions to rectify fraud.
I understand the effort being put forth to conceal the corruption caused by Rule 1.6 for the last 30 years. There comes a point in time where the problem must be recognized and the corruption and injustice must end.
I will not accept the further fraudulent manipulations and denial of my Constitutional Rights and equal protection of the Law.
I recognize that the initial Rule 1.6 injustice which triggered my loss of rights and protection of the law occurred in August 2007 – making every petition, proceeding and unjust ruling in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas an epic farce intended to harass, terrorize and annihilate my life and my family. The deliberate act of Rhonda Lee Daniele issuing a secret Court Order which slandered me, was kept concealed from me, and prevented from exposure by the judiciary.
They involved my children in their effort and that alienation caused by their participation is shameful and humiliating. My children have yet to get to the point where they can contact or speak to me. They were used as tools against their parent to cause emotional stress and damage.
It is time to end the injustice and the conspiracy which conceals it. I understand and recognize the massive scope of the national issue. The Department of Justice, the US Congress and every state Attorney General and Governor has been aware of the issue since August 2013. The efforts to restore justice and the US Constitution is moving too slowly and costing people their lives. The organization responsible continues divisive efforts which undermine law enforcement and manipulate the news media.
Had I not been terrorized by an entire judicial bench by injustice and corruption, it would not have been necessary for me to determine why everyone thought it was acceptable and legal to ignore the crimes committed against me.
Rule 1.6 is the needle in the haystack of injustice where the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct are neither ethical, nor moral nor legal, nor constitutional… and as such, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was without proper authority to enact Rule 1.6 into Law. The same issue exists and affects EVERY state.
The American Bar Association – an organization whose members profit from injustice – with local organizations and affiliates existing at every level of state and federal government and judiciary.
The People of the United States have noticed the Injustice, Rule 1.6 unconstitutional corruption and injustice must be addressed.
JUSTICE IS COMING.
Every. Person. Matters.
Like this:
Like Loading...
It’s not the blacks. It’s the lawyers.
How does any recap of Kathleen Kane’s 2014 not mention the two secret court orders from unidentified judges in unidentified courts which prevent her from investigations and prosecutions AND PREVENT HER FROM DISCUSSING IT?
Occam’s Razor applies and explains… It’s Rule 1.6
My kids remember me.
Attack a cop – Lawyers get paid
“But I will tell you this. Even I am shocked at the level of public corruption.”
Tom Corbett, Frank Fina, Seth Williams, Bob Brady, Dave Heckler, Stewart Greenleaf, Bruce Castor, Risa Ferman, Tom Carluccio… 
Who will be the one to end the 
I AM NOT BRADLEY STONE. You will not provoke me to the point of self-destruction. AND GOD KNOWS THE JUDICIARY HAS TRIED SINCE 2007 TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. (** See Footnote **) 
I AM NOT BRADLEY STONE. I WILL NOT PERMIT DISTRICT ATTORNEY RISA FERMAN TO APPEAR ON TELEVISION AND IN EVERY NEWSPAPER SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY TALKING ABOUT A MAN WHO WAS PUSHED TO THE BRINK BY THE CORRUPTION OF THE COURTS AND THE FAILURES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT… and then blamed for breaking.
