A Terroristic Divorce

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

SONYA HEALY                                                                                                               : #2007-12477
                                                                                                      
VS.       
      
TERANCE HEALY
   

REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF EX PARTE RULING

I.   REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION

1. Judge Arthur Tilson issued an ex-parte order on June 25, 2008 ordering, decreeing and directing that the Defendant’s son be permitted to leave the United States.

2. The Temporary Ex Parte Order was issued without any proceeding, conference or hearing.

3. The Temporary Ex Parte Order was issued without Terance Healy having any opportunity to respond to the petition.

4. The Temporary Ex Parte Order was issued based on fraudulent information provided by Sonya Healy.

5. The Temporary Ex Parte Order was immediately followed up with another Emergency Petition from Sonya Healy after Terance Healy submitted his response indicating the fraud in the Plaintiff’s initial petition.

6. The subsequent Emergency Petition threatened to have Terance Healy incarcerated should he have any objection.

7. Terance Healy has been under constant terror caused by the Plaintiff and her attorney’s since he discovered in May 2007 that his wife had been planning for divorce for 5 months.

8. Terance Healy is the biological father of Brennan Healy with shared legal custody equal to that of the biological mother.

9. The Ex Parte Order issued by Judge Tilson would not have been upheld according to the Hague Convention because it was not issued following due process.

10. The Ex Parte Order denied Terance Healy his parental rights and completely disregarded his  input in this decision directly affecting his son.

The Defendant requests an explanation for the court’s decision and an indication of what information in the petition filed by Sonya Healy would warrant that he should be denied his right to be a father to his son and not provided any opportunity to respond before the court ruled.

The Defendant requests an explanation of why there was no attempt to contact him regarding the matter before the Ex Parte Order was issued.

The Defendant requests an explanation of why this petition, which had been deemed by Judge DelRicci to be ‘not an emergency’ when filed on June 16, 2007, was deemed an Emergency and the Ex Parte Order issued.

The Defendant requests to be informed of the content and participants of any ex parte communication in this matter which may have influenced the court.

The Defendant would like to understand why his previous effort to obtain information was ignored.

V. SUMMARY

The Defendant has witnessed how his family has been annihilated by the manipulations of the plaintiff’s attorneys which have been remarkably successful at manipulating numerous persons in positions of responsibility and persons with the power of  making determinations and recommendations which directly affect his family.

Once manipulated into a position, their actions are inexplicable.  There has been no explanation offered by anyone involved in this matter as to why the Defendant has been denied contact, communication, or any visitation with his son.

The Defendant avers and maintains his statement that the Plaintiff in this matter has indicated to his son that she has committed several serious criminal acts against his father.  In an attempt to protect his mother from prosecution, defendant’s son has sacrificed his relationship with his father and his extended family.

Without trying to force his son into a situation where he would be responsible for revealing his mother’s criminal activity, the Defendant has attempted to work with authorities on the issue.  However, each authoritiy has inexplicably not performed their professional responsibility or fallen in the trappings of the manipulations.  As such, Defendant’s son is additionally protecting each of those in authority who have allowed themselves to be manipulated into improper action. 

It is a  tremendous psychological burden for a 16 year old forced to sacrifice not only his relationship with his father and his extended family, but to watch those involved repeatedly attack his father personally, professionally, financially and emotionally all the while knowing his father has done nothing to deserve the complete annihilation of his family.  The child is victimized knowing the terror his father has experienced and has reason to be fearful if the power of everyone involved were to be brought down on himself.  There is no possible exit from this situation for the child, or his father.

It is clear that only party considering what is in the best interest of the child in this case has been his father. 
Respectfully Submitted,

 
Terance Healy, Pro Se

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

_______________________________________
Terance Healy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Attachments

1. June 16, 2008 
Defendant’s Emergency Petition For Special Relief

2. June 17, 2008 
Not An Emergency by Judge DelRicci

3. June 25, 2008  
Defendant’s Letter regarding scheduling and dates       
(Judge DelRicci maintained Not an Emergency when contacted by his staff.)

4. June 24, 2008 
Plaintiff’s Emergency Petition for Special Relief in Custody

5. June 25, 2008 
Emergency/Signed Temporary Ex Parte Order for Relief by Judge Tilson

6. June 25, 2008 
Copy of  Temporary Ex Parte Order for Relief

7. June 27, 2008 
Letter advising Judge DelRicci of Robert Angst’s failure to act with regard  to Court Order from May 19 2008.

8. July 1, 2008 
Letter to Judge Tilson with Defendant’s Response to Emergency Petition for Special  Relief

9. July 1, 2008 
Defendant’s Response to Emergency Petition for Special Relief in Custody

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
June 16, 2008 
Defendant’s Emergency Petition For Special Relief
 

 
June 17, 2008 
Not An Emergency by Judge DelRicci
 

 
June 25, 2008  
Defendant’s Letter regarding scheduling and dates       
(Judge DelRicci maintained Not an Emergency when contacted by his staff.)
 

 
June 24, 2008 
Plaintiff’s Emergency Petition for Special Relief in Custody
 

 
June 25, 2008 
Emergency/Signed Temporary Ex Parte Order for Relief
by Judge Tilson
 

 
June 25, 2008 
Copy of  Temporary Ex Parte Order for Relief
 

 
June 27, 2008 
Letter advising Judge DelRicci of Robert Angst’s failure to act with regard to Court Order from May 19 2008.
 

 
July 1, 2008 
Letter to Judge Tilson with Defendant’s Response to Emergency Petition for Special Relief
 

 
July 1, 2008 
Defendant’s Response to Emergency Petition for Special Relief in Custody

Hon. Richard J. Hodgson                                                                                                               December 19, 2008

President Judge

P.O. Box 311

Court House

Norristown, PA  19404

 

Michael Kehs

Court Administrator

One Montgomery Plaza

Suite 412

Norristown, PA  19404

 

Cheryl Leslie

Deputy Court Administrator

P.O. Box 311

Court House

Norristown, PA  19404

 

 

On May 27, 2008, the Prothonotary received a copy of a Conciliation Report signed by Sara Goren.  Her report was not only incredibly biased, the report was incorrect and grossly incomplete.  There is no excuse or explanation possible for her report.  My family has been annihilated by the actions of Ms. Goren and the fraud and repeated delays allowed during the custody process.  I am requesting that you take immediate disciplinary action against Ms. Goren.

 

The omission of so many items from her report defies comprehension because of the volume of issues raised by the father during the conference.  However, it is the omission of EVERY topic presented by the father which clearly indicates inappropriate conduct and fraud.  Her report was clearly written with bias.  Her report completely disregards the best interest of the child.  Her actions clearly defy any explanation.  Her fraud is criminal.

 

I have filed my response to this report with the Prothonotary, copy attached for your reference.  This response is limited to the period of time before May 2008.  Ms. Goren has filed several reports for conferences subsequent to this report.  Those reports additionally fail to reference the items presented at those conferences.  The litany of items omitted from the May report which were again questioned at the subsequent conferences is continually disregarded.   I plan to respond to those reports as soon as time permits, when read in light of the information presented in this response the situation is clear. 

 

I am requesting that you take immediate action to see that Ms. Goren is removed from her position and that appropriate disciplinary actions are taken.  I recognize that any request for consideration of my case would be an ex parte communication.  That is not my intent. 

 

My extended family has been completely annihilated by the action and inaction of the court.  While I do not believe it is too late to resurrect my family, I do know that procedurally those hurdles are still ahead and they are being improperly and illegally manipulated.  Court staff, local police departments, county detectives, the District Attorney’s office.  All of those people relying on a child who has sacrificed his relationship with his father and his extended family, to protect the criminal actions of his mother, while witnessing the irresponsible and illegal actions of those in a position to help who have been manipulated into inappropriate action.

 

I persevere,

 

 

 

Terance Healy

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

SONYA HEALY                                                                                                             : #2007-12477
                                                
VS.                                    
       
TERANCE HEALY
   

REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF EX PARTE RULINGS AND COMMUNICATIONS

I.   REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION

1. Judge Thomas DelRicci issued an ex-parte order on February  6, 2008 denying the Defendant any further Support Conferences with regard to a Temporary Support Order which had been under appeal since September 14, 2007, the date that the temporary order was entered.

2. This Ex-Parte Order which denied the Defendant due process was issued without explanation.

The Defendant requests an explanation for the dismissal of his civil rights which eventually led to considerable personal humiliation and emotional and financial hardship which can be directly related to this denial of due process.

II.   REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION

3. On April 19, 2008, there was the appearance of an ex-parte communication having taken place immediately prior to the hearing with the Plaintiff’s attorney Robert Angst.  

4. Robert Angst had multiple conversations with the attorney representing the State/Support Enforcement

5. The Attorney representing the State/Support Enforcement had direct communication with each of the other defendant’s present in the courtroom that morning.  He never spoke to Terance Healy, the defendant in this case.

6. Prior to the hearing, as the Defendant left the courtroom for a moment, Robert Angst immediately went to the courtroom door and peered out the window. 

7. Mr. Angst then proceeded to go into the court’s chambers. 

8. Mr. Angst did not return to the courtroom until just prior to the hearing, whereupon Judge DelRicci noticed his presence in the courtroom and invited him to join the prosecuting attorney.

The Defendant requests to be informed of the content of this apparent ex parte communication between Robert Angst and court staff.

 

III.   REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION

9. On April 19, 2008, Judge Thomas DelRicci agreed to accept a document from Defendant as testimony during a hearing where the Defendant was representing himself. 

10. Judge DelRicci gave the multi page document a cursory review. 

11. The Judge’s brief review neglected to regard specific facts in the document related to the case which were supported in the document by the relative state law. 

12. The Judge commented that he had been handed a copy of the state law and then ordered the Defendant to jail for six (6) months.

13. Defendant was immediately, and unnecessarily, restrained by multiple officers of the court, shackled and handcuffed and removed from the courtroom.  Defendant was not permitted so much as an opportunity to collect his files.

14. Defendant’s son was in the hallway of the courthouse to watch his shackeled father hauled off to prison.

The Defendant requests an explanation on why his testimony was disregarded in it’s entirety after the Court indicated that it would accept his written testimony.

The Defendant requests an explanation on why he was further terrorized by being ordered to the county prison for an issue regarding a Temporary Order which was currently being appealed, however the appeal process was continued and cancelled by the Court.

IV.   REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION

15. On May 22, 2008, prior to a protracted hearing on support and ‘off the record’, Judge DelRicci apologized to Sonya Healy whom he had found to be in contempt on May 18, 2008 for breaking and entering, robbery and vandalism. 

16. Judge DelRicci indicated he had been contacted by County Detectives and Montgomery Township Police as the Defendant wished to press charges on the matter. 

17. Judge DelRicci instructed County Detectives and Montgomery Township Police to not permit charges to be pressed by Defendant in the matter.

18. Judge DelRicci had found Sonya Healy in contempt on the matter.

19. Sonya Healy had been advised in writing by her attorney to commit the crime for which she was found in contempt.

The Defendant requests an explanation of why he is not permitted to press charges for the criminal activity of Sonya Healy and the dozen or so others who assisted in the crime.

The Defendant requests an explanation of why this court advised the Montgomery Township Police Department to not respond to the Defendant’s request to press charges in this matter.

The Defendant requests an explanation of why Angst & Angst have not been held accountable for advising their client to commit this and other terroristic acts against the Defendant.

V. SUMMARY

The Defendant has witnessed how his family has been annihilated by the manipulations of the plaintiff’s attorneys which have been remarkably successful at manipulating numerous persons in positions of responsibility and persons with the power of  making determinations and recommendations which directly affect his family.

Once manipulated into a position, their actions are inexplicable.  There has been no explanation offered by anyone involved in this matter as to why the Defendant has been denied contact, communication, or any visitation with his son.

The Defendant avers and maintains his statement that the Plaintiff in this matter has indicated to his son that she has committed several serious criminal acts against his father.  In an attempt to protect his mother from prosecution, defendant’s son has sacrificed his relationship with his father and his extended family.

Without trying to force his son into a situation where he would be responsible for revealing his mother’s criminal activity, the Defendant has attempted to work with authorities on the issue.  However, each authoritiy has inexplicably not performed their professional responsibility or fallen in the trappings of the manipulations.  As such, Defendant’s son is additionally protecting each of those in authority who have allowed themselves to be manipulated into improper action. 

It is a  tremendous psychological burden for a 16 year old forced to sacrifice not only his relationship with his father and his extended family, but to watch those involved repeatedly attack his father personally, professionally, financially and emotionally all the while knowing his father has done nothing to deserve the complete annihilation of his family.  The child is victimized knowing the terror his father has experienced and has reason to be fearful if the power of everyone involved were to be brought down on himself.  There is no possible exit from this situation for the child, or his father.

It is clear that only party considering what is in the best interest of the child in this case has been his father. 

Respectfully Submitted,

 
Terance Healy, Pro Se

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

_______________________________________
Terance Healy