A Terroristic Divorce

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION – LAW
Sonya Healy : #2007-12477
v. :
Terance Healy :

PETITION FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE CAROLYN CARLUCCIO

The following is an outline of the malicious actions and impact of Judge Carolyn Carluccio.

Since the case began, and was reassigned and addressed by 8 judges, there has not been a judge who went more willingly into the corruption, ethics violations and conspiracy than Judge Carluccio.

Judge Carluccio embraced her role and acted with an enthusiasm and malice completely devoid of the trust placed in her by the people of Montgomery County.

There has been no justice, no respect and no law in her courtroom.

December 2010

1. Judge Carluccio is assigned the case in early December, one month after the Recusal of Judge Stephen Barrett.

2. There are several petitions awaiting hearings. (Docket #210, #211, #214, #226, #227, #240, #241, #261)

3. Judge Carluccio receives an inappropriate ex parte communication from Angst & Angst.

4. Judge Carluccio, when presented with the lawyers ethical violation, failed to act in accordance with the Code of Judicial Ethics and becomes a party to the ethical violation.

5. Defendant petitioned the court for the ex parte document. (Docket #272) Filed as an Emergency, Judge Carluccio promptly denied the petition without explanation. (Docket #273) THERE WAS NO HEARING ON THE MATTER.

6. Defendant also petition for the ex parte documents which were exchanged with the prior judges in this matter. (Docket #271) THERE WAS NO HEARING ON THE MATTER.

January 2011

7. Judge Carluccio, during her January Short List, refuses to permit the Defendant any opportunity to address the petitions he had filed. Judge Carluccio, indicates she has no time on her schedule for hearings, and Orders hearings for June 1-2, 2011. (Docket #282 regarding #210, #211, #214, #226, #227, #240, #261) Omitted, without explanation, from the scheduling Order is #241 which is regarding ex parte communication between Angst & Angst and Judge Emanuel Bertin.

This was an intentional six month delay in the resolution of the financial and health matters, but the Judge is in control of her schedule. This scheduling tactic had been played out so many times by the Masters and Judges that it was becoming insulting that they would continue the delaying game as if the Defendant actually believed their statements. Defendant could do nothing about the Courts schedule. Every Judge has played this feigned “sorry, there are no openings any sooner’ scheduling game.

February 2011

8. Angst & Angst file an Emergency Petition. (Docket #283)

Strangely, it is not filed electronically. All petitions filed by Angst & Angst since 2008 have been filed electronically.

9. The EMERGENCY Petition is mailed to the Prothonotary and received by the Prothonotary on February 24, 2011.

March 2011

10. The EMERGENCY Petition is not processed by the Prothonotary until March 1, 2011. A delay of one week processing an EMERGENCY Petition.

11. The corresponding Certificate of Service is filed ELECTRONICALLY on March 2, 2011. (Docket #284)

12. On March 3, 2011, Judge Carluccio grants the EMERGENCY and schedules a hearing on March 9, 2011. (Docket #285)

13. Defendant received the Petition on March 4, 2011, and the Scheduling Order on March 5, 2011.

14. This did not permit a great amount of time to prepare and file a response. That was the intent.

It is worth noting that the quick scheduling of the Petition was intentional. Angst & Angst had not filed any petition to which the Defendant could respond with a counterpetition since December 2009. Judge Bertin had ordered a Response and Counterpetition separated in August 2009. In December 2009, Judge Bertin heard the testimony and evidence regarding the petition (the re-filed counter). Judge Bertin ruled that the issues were ‘not cognizable’, offered no explanation as he could not ethically provide legal advice. Judge Bertin dismissed the petition and ordered the Defendant to pay sanctions. NOT COGNIZABLE indicated that since the issues were not directly relating to Family Court issues, the Family Court could not address them. IF HOWEVER, the counterpetition had not be re-filed as ordered by Judge Bertin, it would have been cognizable because it was connected to a Family Court Issue. The Defendant had been anticipating the opportunity to respond and counterpetition might arise again. The Defendant was able to assemble a Response and Counterpetition and file it on March 8, 2011.

15. The Defendant filed the Response and Counterpetition on March 8, 2011. (Docket #286)

16. The Response and Counterpetition documented the injustices of the Court since August 2007. The document was organized, clearly written, and included a Table Of Contents listing the major issues to be presented. It was also not a complete listing, there were more issues to be documented, however, time did not permit everything to be filed before the Emergency Hearing on March 9, 2011.

17. On March 9, 2011, Judge Carluccio was demonstrating a level of corruption, malice and fraud which could not be ignored.

18. The Hearing did not take place because as soon as Judge Carluccio was caught in several lies and intimidation tactics, she ended the proceeding and indicated it would be continued.

19. Judge Carluccio issued an Order which had nothing to do with the EMERGENCY issues before her. (Docket #287)

20. On March 10, 2011, Judge Carluccio issued an Order which wrongly paraphrased and completely misrepresented the proceeding from the day prior.

21. Judge Carluccio ordered an Equitable Distribution Hearing for March 29, 2011.
Equitable Distribution is not supposed to occur until all other petitions have been resolved. Scheduling the ED Hearing before all of the others would make them difficult to pursue. I believe this was their intent.

22. On March 16, 2011, the Defendant filed a Petition for Judge Carluccio to Recuse herself from the case. The title of the document sums the request up succinctly. PETITION FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE CAROLYN TORNETTA CARLUCCIO FOR CONSPIRACY, CORRUPTION, FRAUD, INTIMIDATION, CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS / PROCEDURE AND DENIAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS. (Docket #289)

23. On March 29, 2011, Judge Carluccio denied the petition without any hearing. Judge Carluccio did not recuse or distribute an Order indicating her denial.

24. On March 29, 2011, Defendant began by asking the Court to address the issue of the June 1-2, 2011 protracted hearings.

25. The hearings had been removed from the schedule on the court website without any notice.

26. Emails/Praecipes to Court Administration had been issued and not distributed to the parties. The secret praecipes had rescheduled the hearings for March 29, 2011.

27. Judge Carluccio indicated that scheduling issue was an error.

28. Judge Carluccio reaffirmed the purpose of the March 29th proceeding was Equitable Distribution and NOT the outstanding petitions.

29. Over the course of the Equitable Distribution hearing, Defendant raised the issues relating to the outstanding petitions and was repeatedly reassured by Judge Carluccio that those hearings would occur.

30. At the end of the day, Defendant reminded Judge Carluccio about the unscheduling of the hearings where upon Judge Carluccio issued an Order scheduling the Protracted Hearings for May 5, 2011. (Docket #291)

It is interesting to note that these proceedings had been rescheduled so frequently and for multiple days. Judge Carluccio had no time on her schedule for these matters on January 10 when she pushed them out for six months. Time has been wasted on multiple proceedings where nothing has been heard or resolved. Judge Carluccio orders the 2 days of protracted hearings originally set for June 1-2, 2011 to be held in 1/2 day on May 5, 2011.

April 2011

31. On April 14, 2011, Judge Carluccio issues her next Order (Docket #294) without any proceeding, incorrectly renaming the petitions she is addressing, and ‘disposing’ of the petitions. The Order includes a footnote attributing the listing of misnamed petitions to the response/counterpetition from March 8, 2011.

32. Judge Carluccio refers to her having conducted a lengthy review of the docket, but the Divorce Clerk records indicate the judge did not have the file from the Prothonotary at the time.

33. The file being promptly returned to the Prothonotary on March 30, 2011.

34. At this point in time the docket had almost 300 entries, a review of the docket without the printed copies would have been EXTREMELY time consuming.

35. Defendant also had repeatedly indicated that the hearings had not taken place and the issues were outstanding.

Yes, the defendant does understand. THEY DO NOT WANT TO HAVE THESE HEARINGS. Any hearing on the matters would permit the introduction of evidence of the injustices, extrinsic fraud and the corruption of the judiciary assigned to the matter. Judge Carluccio is revealing her active participation in the obstruction of justice.

36. Bear in mind, the Defendant has no choice but to continue to seek justice from a Court which is determined to act in an improper, unethical and corrupt manner. If the defendant fails to point out these ‘indiscretions’, Defendant might not be permitted to present them to a higher court when the time comes. The Court has acted with intent to prevent any order from being appealed. THE COURT HAS FAILED TO MAKE ANY TIMELY DECISIONS RELATING TO THE CASE.

37. On April 26, 2011, Defendant again petitions for the hearings to be scheduled. (Docket #295)

38. On April 29, 2011, Judge Carluccio DENIED that petition without any proceeding further basing her Order on an additional review of the docket. (Docket #296)

May 2011

39. On May 3, 2011, as the Judge’s April 14th order did not correctly title the petitions which she was ‘disposing’ of, Defendant stopped at the courthouse to check with Court Administration regarding the schedule for Thursday May 5, 2011. Interestingly, the court web site was still listing the hearings as scheduled. The renaming issue also could have created further confusion.

40. Court Administration contacted the Judge who indicated there were no hearings scheduled. When asked by Court Admin, the Judge refused to issue any order confirming the cancellation.

41. Defendant had the impression that the goal was for him to not show up at the hearing. The Judge would legitimately dismiss the petition for a no-show. Once Equitable Distribution has been heard, it is too late to introduce any new petitions, so the petitions could not procedurally be re-filed.

42. On May 4, 2011, Defendant received a copy of a letter from Angst & Angst to Judge Carluccio asking about the schedule for May 5, 2011. Angst & Angst had faxed it to Judge Carluccio on May 3.

That evening, Defendant checked the court web site and there was an Order issued by the Judge on May 3rd, but not docketed until May 4th. Defendant did not have a copy of this order and had not been contacted regarding the schedule.

If Defendant didn’t show up, the petitions could all be cancelled. If Defendant showed up and everyone was there for hearing(s), the tactic would be revealed. Defendant needed to be ready for nine potential hearings. If Defendant showed up and no one was there for the hearing(s), then Angst & Angst had information which Defendant did not receive. Defendant had no choice but to prepare and go to the scheduled hearing, and the Defendant did.

43. On May 5, 2011, Defendant arrived at the Courtroom 5 minutes before the time scheduled.

44. No one was there.

45. Defendant was advised by the Judge’s assistant that the hearing had been cancelled by an order on May 3rd. Defendant was then given a copy of the Order, and left.

46. On the way out of the courthouse Defendant stopped at Court Administration to update them on the last minute Cancellation Order.

47. Defendant and his mother were then surrounded by seven deputies and asked to leave the courthouse. They further indicated that ‘If I did not have business in the courthouse, I should not be there.’

48. When Defendant showed the deputies the scheduling order, they were confused at why they were mislead.

49. Court Admin confirmed the Defendant’s information to the deputies.

50. Deputies indicated they were responding to a false report from the judge that the Defendant threatened her.

The deputies have a job to do. The Defendant understands and respects that. The deputies also know the Defendant because he has been coming into the courthouse regularly since 2007. The deputies know the Defendant is not violent – Defendant is also half their size. The deputies knew they had been given bad information, however they have a job to do. At the Defendant’s suggestion, an agreement was reached. Defendant would stop and request a deputy escort me whenever he had any business in the courthouse.Deputies agreed. That is what has occurred ever since. While it is completely unnecessary, it permits the deputies to do their job responsibilities without compromising their careers. The deputies have to respond to false reports.

51. On May 9, 2011, Defendant had to return to the Prothonotary to provide a document which needed to be re-scanned. The Defendant stopped to visit the divorce file, and was informed that the sign-out sheet was no longer available and now considered an “Internal Use Only” Document.

The sign-out sheet indicates that Judge Carluccio did not have the files or any of the documents during her “lengthy” and “additional review” of the docket to which she refers in her Orders of April 14, 2011 and April 29, 2011.

52. On May 9, 2011, Defendant also docketed several documents which pertain to the case but somehow have not been docketed or have been removed from the docket.

53. On May 9, 2011, Judge Carluccio issued an Order granting a divorce to parties who had neglected to request a divorce, and ordering a malicious and cruel equitable distribution.

54. The errors in the Order prevent it being appealed on a timely basis, and would return it to Judge Carluccio’s courtroom.

55. The Defendant found the errors and petitioned for them to be resolved.

June 2011

56. Judge Carluccio delayed for months while her order made the Defendant homeless, without medical or dental benefits, and permitted the Plaintiff to vandalise and destroy the Defendant’s home (and bill the Defendant for her actions).

July 2011

57. JUDGE CARLUCCIO HAS REFUSED TO HOLD HEARINGS ON THE MATTERS.

58. At a Short List Hearing on July 18, 2011, Judge Carluccio further revealed her malice and cruelty.

59. Judge Carluccio also said out loud and on the record that the Order was indeed her Final Order, and that she no longer had jurisdiction in the case. She then went on to schedule another hearing to punish the defendant for petitioning her court to enforce court orders.

60. Judge Carluccio is currently sitting on the appeal paperwork and preventing the Appeal from being filed.

61. There is 5 years permitted for the Appeal.

62. Judge Carluccio is delaying to permit the sale of Defendant’s home which was ordered on a defective order and after committing considerable extrinsic fraud.

63. Judge Carluccio’s malice and cruelty is boundless.

SUMMARY

64. This is not the case of a sad divorcee. This is the case of a terroristic divorce.

65. A case gone horribly awry because the Plaintiff’s lawyer told her client to commit a federal crime.

66. Once discovered the case became more about the Defendant’s survival, as the lawyer manipulated everyone in a position to help into wrongful actions.

67. Then the lawyer exposed the wrongdoing, and the actions were covered up by the judiciary.

68. Judge Carolyn Carluccio has fallen into the trap which has affected the other judges.

69. Judge Carluccio has acted with clear malice and cruelty to the victim of 6 years of injustice.

70. Judge Carluccio is above the law. The judge can do whatever the judge wants.

71. That is not the justice that the US is fighting for worldwide.

72. Bring the troops home. The justice system is under attack from the very ones who have been trusted to ensure “liberty and justice for all.”

73. Through Judge Carluccio’s own words and actions she has been exposed.

74. She has disgraced the judiciary.

75. The Defendant has also asked that the following JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD Complaints be re-opened and re-investigated as they are directly related.
JCB Complaint# 2009-099 Judge Tilson
JCB Complaint # 2010-447 Judge Daniele
JCB Complaint # 2010-448 Judge Bertin
JCB Complaint # 2010-449 Judge Tilson
JCB Complaint # 2010-450 Judge Del Ricci

76. The actions of Judge Carolyn Carluccio are intended to destroy the Defendant and prevent any further reports of the injustices committed against him.

77. Since becoming a victim of Judge Rhonda Daniele’s secret order, there has been a clearly unjust ruling on EVERY petition filed.

78. As the petitions were seeking enforcement of existing Court Orders, there is no other place to turn than to the court.

79. The victim of the injustice is forced to return to a corrupt court to seek justice.

A HEARING IS REQUESTED.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy

Verification
I verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I inderstand that false statements herein are made subject to the Penalties of P.A. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION – LAW

SONYA HEALY : #2007-12477
:
:
v. :
:
:
TERANCE HEALY :

PETITION REGARDING THE SCHEDULING OF OUTSTANDING PETITIONS

1. Defendant recognizes that the only way to enforce Court Orders is by returning to the Court for enforcement hearings.

2. Defendant understands that as a victim of prior injustices, he is being subjected to further injustice as the Court attempts to deny the injustices occurring in this case since August 2007.

3. The Defendant has no other choice but to continue to petition the Court for justice, and expect justice from those who have prevented and denied it.

4. The Defendant realizes that his testimony on the following matters will reveal crimes, corruption, fraud and unethical activities by various levels of county personnel which have occurred over the course of the matter.

5. The following Petitions which have not yet been heard by the Court.

Defendant requests that hearings be scheduled on the following matters.

Filed August 6, 2010
Plaintiff filed EXCEPTIONS TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CONCILIATOR (2007-12477-210)

Filed August 10, 2010
Defendant filed EXCEPTIONS TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF CONFERENCE OFFICER/MASTER IN SUPPORT (2007-12477-211)

Filed August 12, 2010
Defendant filed EMERGENCY PETITION FOR RELEIF (2007-12477-214)

Filed August 24, 2010
Defendant filed PLAINTIFF”S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER DATED AUGUST 22, 2007 (2007-12477-226)

Filed August 24, 2010
Defendant filed PLAINTIFF”S CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDER IN SUPPORT
(2007-12477-227)

Filed September 14, 2010
Defendant filed PETITION REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS (2007-12477-240)

Filed September 14, 2010
Defendant filed PETITION REGARDING DISCREPANCIES / ERRORS ON INVOICE FOR FEES (2007-12477-241)

Filed December 22, 2010
Defendant filed PETITION FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
(2007-12477-277)

Filed December 22, 2010
Defendant filed PETITION FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT
(2007-12477-272)

Filed February 24, 2011
Plaintiff filed EMERGENCY FAMILY PETITION (2007-12477-283)
Defendant filed RESPONSE AND COUNTERPETITION (2007-12477-286)

Filed March 16, 2011
Defendant filed PETITION FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE CAROLYN TORNETTA CARLUCCIO FOR CONSPIRACY, CORRUPTION, FRAUD, INTIMIDATION, CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS/PROCEDURE AND DENIAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS (2007-12477-289)

Filed April 26, 2011
Defendant filed PETITION TO RESCIND / CANCEL THE ORDER OF APRIL 14, 2011 WHICH VIOLATES PA LAW AND THE US CONSTITUTION AND RESCHEDULE ALL OUTSTANDING PETITIONS (2007-12477-295)

Filed June 6, 2011
Defendant filed PETITION TO VACATE ORDER OF MAY 9, 2011 FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (2007-12477-305)

Filed June 6, 2011
Defendant filed PETITION REQUETING THE SCHEDULING OF UNRESOLVED CLAIMS (2007-12477-307)

Filed June 9, 2011
Defendant filed EMERGENCY PETITION FOR INJUNCTION TO STAY / VACATE THE ORDER OF MAY 9, 2011 FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Filed July 22, 2011
Defendant filed PETITION REQUESTING AN IMMEDIATE STAY/RESCHEDULING REGARDING THE ORDER OF JULY 18, 2011 AS THE INCOMPLETE WRITTEN ORDER PLACES THE DEFENDANT IN JEOPARDY.

Filed August 15, 2011
Defendant filed PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS.

The failure to schedule the PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS further delaying the filing of an Appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed August 30, 2011
Defendant filed PETITION REQUESTING DISTRIBUTION / DOCKETING OF EX PARTE COURT ORDER

Filed August 31, 2011
Defendant filed PETITION REQUESTING DOCUMENTS AND INJUNCTION BLOCKING SALE OF THE HOME UNTIL APPEAL BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HAS BEEN DECIDED

Filed September 1, 2011
Defendant filed EMERGENCY FAMILY PETITION

Whereas, the Defendant respectfully requests that:

This Honorable Court perform the function entrusted by the people of Montgomery County.

This Honorable Court recognize that the lives of the parties have been considerably disrupted by the Court’s prolonged and inexplicable inaction.

This Honorable Court cease further inappropriate and unethical ex parte activities which have caused the Court to prevent any hearings, or testimony, or evidence relating to any matter as that information will demonstrate the gross injustices and direct involvement of the judiciary.

That this Honorable Court schedule and hold hearings on the matters which have been brought to its attention in accordance with the procedures and laws of Montgomery County, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the US Constitution.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy
Defendant
Pro Se

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

SONYA HEALY : 2007-12477
:
:
v. :
:
:
TERANCE HEALY :

PETITION REQUESTING DOCUMENTS
and
INJUNCTION BLOCKING SALE OF THE HOME UNTIL APPEAL BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HAS BEEN DECIDED

1. Defendant respectfully requests copies of all documents executed by Plaintiff relating to the sale of his home at 110 Banbury Avenue, North Wales, PA 19454.

2. Defendant requests to be included in any correspondence, communications and distribution of information regarding the sale of the home.

3. Defendant requests the return of his personal property stored at the
residence.

4. Defendant requests the division of marital assets as Ordered on May 9, 2011.

HISTORY

5. An Order issued on May 9, 2011, directed Sonya Healy to immediately list the home for sale. She did not.

6. The Order of May 9, 2011, provides Sonya Healy with Power of Attorney to execute all necessary documents for the listing and sale of the marital residence.

7. The Order of May 9, 2011 requires the parties to divide the marital property with any disputes being resolved by the Montgomery County Masters Office.

8. On May 17, 2011, Angst & Angst immediately contacted The Montgomery County Masters Office in writing to schedule a hearing. Sonya Healy refused to get together with Defendant to divide assets.

9. On July 18, 2011, in a verbal order, Judge Carolyn Carluccio indicated that any items not removed from the home on the day of closing could be discarded.

10. Sonya Healy has refused to permit Terance Healy access to remove any personal property from the home.

11. Sonya Healy has been disposing of marital assets and personal property belonging to the Defendant.

12. On July 18, 2011, Judge Carluccio issued an unclear written Order which would have placed the Defendant in the position where he could be arrested for attempting to follow the verbal Order of the Court.

13. The transcript which included the judge’s verbal order would not be available for three weeks.

14. This issue was brought to the judge’s attention during the proceeding.

15. This issue was additionally brought to the Court’s attention in a petition filed on July 21, 2011. No hearing has been scheduled.

16. Defendant wrote to the Montgomery County Master in July questioning the delay and requesting the schedule date for the arbitration requested by Angst & Angst in May 2011.

17. The Montgomery County Masters Office scheduled a conference for September 8, 2011.

18. On August 15, 2011, The Defendant filed a Notice Of Appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Copies were distributed to Angst & Angst, and also to Judge Carolyn Carluccio.

19. Angst & Angst wrote a letter to the Montgomery County Masters Office and cancelled the September 8, 2011 arbitration. This was done without contacting the Defendant with regard to the schedule.

20. Defendant wrote to the Montgomery County Master and indicated that the conference should not be cancelled, additionally pointing out the fraudulent, incorrect and misleading information provided in the Angst & Angst letter.

21. The Montgomery County Masters Office cancelled the conference prior to receiving the Defendant’s letter, and has not responded to the letter sent or phone messages left in their voicemail system.

22. On August 22, 2011, Judge Carolyn Carluccio issued an Order acknowledging the Appeal filed by the Defendant on August 15, 2011 and requested information required for her to respond to the Appeal to the Superior Court.

23. Judge Carolyn Carluccio has delayed the forwarding of the Appeal documents to the Superior Court by refusing to schedule a hearing regarding the Defendant’s Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed on August 15, 2011. This hearing is still not scheduled.

24. On August 28, 2011, Defendant witnessed his personal property being removed from the home. Some items being placed in Sonya Healy’s vehicle, and additional items being placed in a black SUV.

25. After Hurricane Irene had passed, Defendant returned and photographed his items which were being placed at the curb for trash pick-up the next morning.

26. On August 28, 2011, Defendant had no way of rescuing his possessions, and advised Sonya Healy that she was violating the Court Orders. Defendant went to the Montgomery Township Police who refused to get involved in a civil matter. Police took no action.

27. Chris Grucella, a neighbor and the Real Estate Agent who is selling the home, was present while the Defendant photographed the items.

28. The Defendant noticed the home was no longer in the active real estate listings. Chris Grucella denied having any information regarding the sale of the house.

29. Defendant wrote to Keller Williams regarding the sale of his home. Emails, letters and phone calls were not returned.

30. Defendant advised Keller Williams regarding the Appeal of the Order under which Sonya Healy was proceeding to sell the home, and provided copies of the Appeal Documents filed on August 15, 2011.

31. Plaintiff has failed to follow any court Orders in this case, including the one which grants her permission to sell the house out from under the defendant.

32. The Plaintiff’s consistent contempt for Court Orders has been inexplicably excused.

33. The Defendant recognizes the injustice committed over the last 6 years, however, there is no remedy for the enforcement of Court Orders except to return to the court for enforcement.

34. The Defendant, a victim of injustice, is forced to return to a court and expect justice.

The Plaintiff is rushing the sale of the home out from under the Defendant, which will additionally permit the Plaintiff an excuse to dispose of all of the Defendant’s possessions – which she has already done.

Judge Carluccio is intentionally delaying the Appeal from proceeding forward and transferred to the Superior Court. The Judge’s delays prevent the Superior Court from issuing an Injunction to Prevent the Irreparable Damage caused by the Order of May 9, 2011.

A Hearing is Requested.

Whereas, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court issue an Order as Follows:

a) Plaintiff shall return all items disputed by the Defendant, and submit to the arbitration as Ordered and requested

b) Plaintiff shall cease dissipation of marital assets.

c) Plaintiff shall permit the defendant to access the home to retreive his bedroom furniture, and other personal items which are not marital.

d) Plaintiff shall provide to the Defendant copies of all documents executed regarding the sale of the home.

e) Plaintiff shall additionally advise her Real Estate Agent(s) to share information regarding the sale of the defendants home with the Defendant.

f) The Court shall advise Keller Williams Real Estate Agent Chris Grucella, and managing Agent Daniel Smith, to provide available information as requested regarding the sale of the Defendant’s home to the Defendant.

d) The Plaintiff shall cease any actions with regard to the sale of the home as a valid Appeal has been filed and is in process. Proceeding with the sale of the home would represent considerable irreparable damage.

e) The Court shall issue an injunction blocking the sale of the home until such time as the Appeal can be heard.

____________________________ ______________________________
Date Terance Healy
Pro Se

This miscarriage of justice exhibits all the hallmarks of a society that tolerates violence by blaming and shaming the survivors — but the real shame belongs with the perpetrators and the prosecutors who allow them to walk off scot-free.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

SONYA HEALY : 2007-12477
:
:
v. :
:
:
TERANCE HEALY :
:

PETITION REQUESTING DISTRIBUTION / DOCKETING OF EX PARTE COURT ORDER

On Sunday, August 28, 2011, the Defendant was informed by Officer Gerald Dougherty of the Montgomery Township Police Department that the police had been at my home on June 9, 2011 assisting the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department in enforcing a Direct Order from Judge Carolyn Carluccio.

The Defendant has not been provided with any copy of the Ex Parte Order.

The Order has not been docketed at the Montgomery County Prothonotary according to The Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Defendant respectfully requests a copy of the Ex Parte Order.

____________________________ ______________________________
Date Terance Healy
Pro Se

Keller Williams      PDF Version
Montgomeryville, PA

Chris,
Following up to my phone messages from Friday and our brief meeting this evening.

Please be advised I will be filing for an injunction to block the sale of my home while the case is under appeal.

Sonya is aware of the defective court orders, the fraud involving the document, and the appeal in process. Sonya should have informed you of the ongoing legal actions involving the property.

Attached is the Appeal paperwork filed on August 15, 2011, and provided to all parties.
#2007-12477-326 Notice Of Appeal
#2007-12477-327 Certificate of Service to Sonya Healy, Angst & Angst
#2007-12477-328 Certificate of Service to Judge Carolyn Carluccio
#2007-12477-330 Request for Transcripts
#2007-12477-333 Acknowledgment by Judge Carluccio of the Commencement of the Appeal
#2007-12477-334 Confirmation by Montgomery County Prothonotary – Notice 236

If you are interested in following the case, you can find these documents and the entire history of the divorce proceedings at www.work2bdone.com/live If you have trouble accessing the web site, please let me know.

Please confirm receipt of this email and the attachments. I will forward copies of the legal documents to your attention if Sonya is unable to provide them to you. As she has likely entered into an agreement with you I am sure she is required to keep you informed of the status of the ongoing legal action.

I would appreciate copies of all of the documents which have been executed by Sonya with regard to the sale of the house where she has used the defective court order to act without my authorization or consent.

Those copies can be emailed back to this address, or sent via US Mail to the following address:
C/O Joan Healy
871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976

I appreciate your prompt response. There is no sense in having this legal battle disrupt the lives of another family who is looking to purchase a home. You are welcome to share all of the above information with your pending buyer(s). The appeal process may take a while. Because of the defects in the order and the extrinsic fraud involved, there is a 5 year statute of limitations during which time the order is appealable.

Sincerely,

Terance Healy

After receiving no acknowledgement to my emails or phone messages, I dropped a copy of the letter and the attachments off at the Keller Williams Office in Montgomeryville, PA. at 2:30PM.

Filed with the Montgomery County Prothonotary on August 30, 2011 #2007-12477-335

Phone Call to Chris Grucella, Dan Smith regarding phone calls and emails.

August 28, 2011
Loveseat at the curb for trash pickup is not marital property.

August 28, 2011
Furniture, non-marital carpets, and various items out with neighbors trash.

Saturday, September 3, 2011
A U-Haul truck is loaded with items from the house.

Sunday, September 4, 2011

My wife’s lawyer told her to commit a crime. Computer and phone surveillance.

When discovered her lawyer hired the same PI the county uses in their Drug Task Force – a PI firm consisting of former FBI agents.

The lawyer at the same time had a judge issue an order which was kept secret from me. The secret order was found in August 2010 – it was used to manipulate every proceeding for 6 years. Simple divorce has gone thru 8 judges.

The PI made false reports to police who acting in violation of law and procedure, had me involuntarily committed. (Cop was also on Drug Task Force).

Police won’t do anything. FBI won’t do anything. County won’t do anything.

The Private Investigator has harassed me and attempted to set me up. I am not a drug dealer.

The Bar Assoc has been no help. No lawyer wants to lose their career up against 8 manipulated judges. The current judge is the president of the county bar assoc.

I am an honest man being destroyed to cover up the crime of a lawyer. They have destroyed me for so long, but the truth is on my side… but no one will hear it.

I pray for my death, yet wake each morning to be victimized further. No one helps. 6 years of pure hell is documented at www.work2bdone.com/live

Petition for an Injunction to Prevent the Sale of 110 Banbury Avenue, North Wales, PA 19454.

Injunctive relief is appropriate because the sale of the home would represent irreparable harm.

The Order which grants Sonya Healy the power of attorney to sell the home without the consent of Terance Healy is invalid as it is based on a defective Order.

With regard to the defective Order, an Appeal has been filed on August 15, 2011 with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and an Notice Of Appeal has been served upon Angst & Angst, and Judge Carolyn Carluccio.

The Appeal was filed in a timely manner.

Wife hires lawyers who tell her to do illegal activity.

Computer and Phone surveillance.

Husband catches wife, she leaves the house.

Husband detects software on computers and contacts police – who indicate they can do nothing.

Wife & Lawyers hire Private Investigator to run interference.

Private Investigator also works with Drug Task Force.

Private Investigator contact Police with false report of threat. (Officer is also on Drug Task Force)

Police throw Husband in Psych Ward – in violation of laws and procedures.

Lawyers make deal with Judge who issues secret Court Order. MAJOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION.

That Court Order would be used to extort and manipulate each subsequent judge assigned to the case into granting impunity to Wife and Lawyers.

Husband is repeatedly harassed and attacked. When reported to police it is ignored.

County Detectives ignore the complaints.

FBI ignores the complaints.

Husband is being framed as a drug dealer, however he is not and won’t fall into that trap. Character.

Husband is being surrounded by drug addicts, who he sees as people who need help and offers what assistance he can provide. Everyone he knows is either a Confidential informant, a private investigator, or a handler trying to distract him.

The Courts refuse to act in accordance with the law and procedure.

Husband has no choice but to continue to return to the Court and expect justice.

This goes on for 5 years… until the story is proven… and documented in court.

The judge denies any hearings because it will reveal the corruption and conspiracy of the previous 5 years.

Then the Judge, in a further act of cruelty, throws husband out of his home to hinder any effort at getting the matter into a Federal Court.

After surviving, 6 years of terror, where every part of my life has been stolen from me a piece at a time, and persevering through the darkest moments you can imagine, and surviving the humiliation of the events that have gone unexplained, I sit and wonder why are they still trying to destroy me?

It’s because no one will help.

Everyone I have turned to for help has been a part of the actions against me, or is so afraid of becoming involved for fear that they too will be attacked.

When will they let me live again?