A Terroristic Divorce

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

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

CONCISE STATEMENT OF ERRORS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL

1. The Defendant responds timely to the Order of August 22, 2011 issued and signed by the Honorable Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio to file of record a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of On Appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b).

2. The Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal on August 15, 2011 which was accepted and docketed as #2007-12477-326 by the Montgomery County Courthouse Prothonotary.

3. The Order of August 22, 2011 was issued timely within the 14 days required.

4. On August 25, 2011, the Order was accepted and docketed as #2007-12477-334 by the Montgomery County Courthouse Prothonotary.

5. The Defendant timely files this document electronically with the Montgomery County Prothonotary. Time stamped copies to be delivered to Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio on August 15, 2011, with time stamped courtesy copies to Angst & Angst representing the Plaintiff.

ISSUES FOR APPEAL

6. FINAL ORDER: Dated May 9, 2011. Affirmed as Final Order on July 18, 2011.

7. The Order is defective as prerequisites to the entry of a divorce decree have not been satisfied in accordance with Pa. C.S. 3301(c) or (d).

8. The Order is procedurally deficient in regard to the technical requirement that a notice of intention to request entry of 3301(c) divorce decree be served upon the party against whom the decree is to be entered The failure to do so constitutes a procedural deficiency under Pa. R.Civ.P. 1920.42(d)(1).

9. The Order is defective as procedural requirements imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure must be satisfied in order to endow the Court with the authority to enter the decree in divorce.

10. The Order includes a Decree and Order for Equitable Distribution. Unless and until a valid decree in divorce has been entered, there can be no equitable distribution of marital property. The Divorce Decree is invalid, the Decree and Order in Equitable Distribution is void.

11. The Order includes a section titled Findings of Fact which misrepresents the financial testimony and documented evidence/exhibits presented during the hearing on March 29, 2011.

12. The Order includes a section titled Discussion which includes references which were not presented at the hearing on March 29, 2011.

13. The Order fails to address, determine or dispose of economic issues which had been timely filed with the Court by Defendant prior to the Equitable Distribution hearing.

14. The Order neglects to address issues which prior Court Orders indicated would be “resolved via the equitable distribution ruling” – Order dated March 10, 2011; “will be resolved in the forthcoming Equitable Distribution Order.” – Order Dated April 14, 2011;

BIAS

15. On March 16, 2011, Defendant petitioned the Court in good faith requesting the recusal of Judge Carolyn Carluccio.

16. On March 29, 2011, Judge Carolyn Carluccio denied the recusal petition without a hearing, or any proceeding wherein the allegations could be presented to the Court.

17. On September 2, 2011, Defendant again petitioned the Court in good faith requesting the recusal of Judge Carolyn Carluccio.

BIAS – EX PARTE ORDER

18. On August 22, 2007, Judge Rhonda Lee Daniele had issued an Order which was not distributed to the Defendant, nor was it filed and docketed at the Prothonotary.

19. The Order dated August 22, 2007 which remained unknown to the Defendant and which slandered the Defendant was discovered on August 12, 2010.

20. The Order dated August 22, 2007 was issued prior to any proceedings in this matter had been used to manipulate the Court into granting impunity to the Plaintiff permitting her to violate Court orders without fear of repercussion or enforcement.

BIAS – RECUSALS

21. Without being asked, Judge Thomas DelRicci recused on July 6, 2009 on the record admitting to unethical activity, making unsubstantiated allegations and threatening the Defendant with legal action.

22. Judge DelRicci had intentionally delayed custody proceedings for two years while the Defendant was denied any contact with his son without explanation.

23. Judge DelRicci excused the Plaintiff’s failure to follow any Court Orders.

24. Without being asked, Judge Emanuel Bertin recused on September 2, 2010.

25. Judge Bertin offered no explanation for his recusal from the case.

26. Judge Bertin had issued an Order regarding a Response and CounterPetition filed in good faith by the Defendant to be refiled separately as Response and Petition. The separated Petition became “not cognizable” in Family Court as a result of his order and was dismissed after a protracted hearing.

27. Judge Bertin excused the Plaintiff’s failure to follow Court Orders.

28. At the Defendant’s request, Judge Stephen Barrett recused from the case on November 30, 2010.

29. The Order of May 9, 2011 incorrectly refers to the docket indicating the assignment of seven (7) judges.

IMPUNITY

30. The impunity granted to the Plaintiff remains unexplained but it is clearly documented in the interlocutory orders in this matter.

31. The Defendant’s only method to seek enforcement of Court Orders was to petition the Court for enforcement.

32. The Plaintiff violated every court order in this matter. When brought to the attention of the Court, her actions were excused and her violations and contempt continued.

33. The Defendant was constantly brought before the Court to respond to false allegations of the Plaintiff. After protracted hearings, the Plaintiff’s vexatious petitions were denied or dismissed.

34. The Defendant respectfully seeks a review of every interlocutory decision in this matter based on the clear bias of the judiciary and absolute impunity afforded the Plaintiff to violate court orders and state laws.

EXTRINSIC FRAUD

35. During an Emergency hearing on March 9, 2011, Judge Carolyn Carluccio acted with clear intent to prevent the Defendant from testifying in his own defense and denied the Defendant any opportunity for his response to be heard in the courtroom. Judge Carluccio’s statements were clearly extrinsic fraud as she attempted to manipulate and mislead the Defendant with ridiculous suggestions.

36. The Order of March 9, 2011 neglects to indicate that the emergency hearing was never accomplished as it was interrupted upon presentation of the Defendant’s Response to the Plaintiff’s Petition.

37. The Order of April 29, 2011, rules on a petition where no opportunity to present testimony and evidence was provided. Further, the Order indicates the Judge had conducted an “additional review of the docket” where the actual docket contradicts the Judge’s determination that hearings had been held.

38. Defendant has repeatedly attempted to have the ‘disposed of’ hearings scheduled by Judge Carluccio.

39. Pennsylvania Law does not permit a judge to rule based on the pleadings.

39. Judge Carolyn Carluccio is determined to prevent the Defendant from being heard in her courtroom as the testimony, evidence and exhibits will expose the improper, unethical and illegal actions of the judiciary and other courthouse personnel.

40. Judge Carolyn Carluccio has acted carelessly with malice and cruel intent issuing an intentionally defective order which orders the Defendant to be homeless, without medical or dental insurance, without any financial resources, and further ordering his home to be sold out from under him.

41. The Order additionally provides the Plaintiff who abandoned the home in 2007 and failed to provide the financial support ordered by the Court the chance to vandalized the Defendant’s home, while dissipating marital assets in violations of Court Orders.

42. Judge Carolyn Carluccio has intentionally issued vague Orders which place the Defendant in jeopardy. When the issue is brought to the court’s attention, it is ignored.

DELAY THE APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT

43. Judge Carolyn Carluccio has intentionally neglected to schedule a hearing with regard to the Defendant’s Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. This has prevented the Prothonotary from forwarding the Appeal to the Superior Court for action.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy
Defendant
Pro Se

VERIFICATION

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 P.A. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

_______________________________________
Terance Healy