A Terroristic Divorce

My wife has filed fraudulent claims with the LIBERTY MUTUAL insurance company UNDER MY NAME. And they send out the checks, which must be endorsed by both of us.

I was FORCED UNDER DURESS to sign several insurance checks totaling over $10,000 by Judge Carolyn Carluccio, even though there was no petition filed in regard to the insurance checks.

I was surrounded by 7 deputies at the time. Oh, and I haven’t seen a penny from the checks I was forced to endorse.

The SURPRISE petition submitted moments before that proceeding (which was supposed to be on other issues which were all IGNORED) by Angst & Angst about the checks was withdrawn immediately afterward. (There has been tremendous effort to prevent hearings. TOO MUCH FRAUD AND CORRUPTION MIGHT BE EXPOSED.)

The thing is Sonya Healy continues to call Liberty Mutual about HER CLAIMS made in MY NAME. She demands a stop payment on prior checks and the check to be re-issued to her at another address.

Sonya Healy did this for years with the Mortgage statement. Calling their customer service department and having the address changed MONTHLY! For years! She then would drag me into court and force ME to provide the statements. This happened at least annually over the last 7 years. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage could not always provide me the statements, because Sonya Healy also stopped them from being printed.

Liberty Mutual called again yesterday… Sonya Healy asked for a stop payment and a reissue of a check. NO STOP PAYMENT NECESSARY. Here’s why…

Liberty Mutual has been reminded of the fraud and the continued activity in the legal matter. Their Golden Eagle division seems to have caused an incredible silence… which seems to be an indication that Montgomery County may also be associated with the insurance company. Perhaps some liability coverage?

I’ve watched the web traffic when they all talked together and read the same pages on this blog at the same time over the course of an hour. Yes, web statistics can tell you that sort of thing.

So stop with the Stop Payments already. You are costing the insurance company fees. The checks expire after 6 months… or when I shred them whichever comes first.

Eight (8) of the twenty archive boxes with evidence and collateral.

The current workspace. Binders contain JUST the court documents… Over 350 docket entries.

The hard disk which suddenly has no files in the research subdirectories… And the 100s of DVD’s where that data was backed up.

Perhaps this is the information F.S. photographed. On his first and only visit to my house, he took pictures with his phone. Who knew, until later that night when caught with the pictures on his phone. He disappeared. He has not returned phone calls or text messages since.

PDF Version with Exhibits
DOCKET# 2007-12477-365

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

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

EMERGENCY OBJECTION TO THE REASSIGNMENT OF THIS MATTER /
PETITION TO ENFORCE THE SCHEDULING ORDER OF JULY 10, 2012

EMERGENCY

1. The Defendant has been homeless since June 9, 2011.

2. The Defendant is destitute and has been unemployed since March 2007.

3. The failure to address and resolve the matter continues to have a severe personal, professional and financial impact on the Defendant.

4. Two attorney’s, after hearing an overview of the matter, have raised concerns for the Defendant’s safety and well-being. They were not available to take the case, and have been unable to recommend another attorney.

5. Defendant’s last attorney, who withdrew from the matter after only a few weeks, was experiencing death threats which were investigated by Montgomery County Detectives.

6. Defendant, while residing at his mother’s residence has observed people, whom the Defendant believes to be private investigators, conducting surveillance, stalking, intruding the home’s computer network and other technology, and also vandalizing the property.

7. Defendant has been followed while driving on several occasions.

8. Defendant finds the failure of the matter to be resolved according to procedure and law to be intimidating and threatening to his personal safety, and the safety of persons around him.

OBJECTION TO THE REASSIGNMENT OF THE MATTER

9. On July 10, 2012, Judge Richard Haaz issued an order for Court administration to schedule a hearing on this matter. Exhibit A

10. On August 13, 2012, the Defendant sent a letter regarding the failure to schedule the hearing as ordered by Judge Haaz. The letter was sent to Judge Haaz; Michael Kehs, Court Administrator; Cheryl Leslie, Family Court Administrator; and Angst & Angst, who represent the Plaintiff. Exhibit B

11. There has been no response from any of the addressees/recipients to the Defendant’s letter regarding the schedule.

12. On December 13, 2012, Michael Kehs, Court Administrator, issued an Order reassigning the matter, and scheduling a hearing date. Exhibit C

13. Since the commencement of the matter by the Plaintiff, the parties have appeared before ten (10) judges and five (5) masters. In addition, several orders were issued by two (2) additional judges without any proceeding or appearance of the parties.

JUDGE SHOPPING

14. During the July 10, 2012 short list conference, Judge Haaz was surprised to learn of Angst & Angst’s letters to have him removed from the case. Exhibit D

15. On May 16, 2012, Angst & Angst sent a letter to Judge Carluccio requesting that she resume the case. Exhibit D-1

16. On May 16, 2012, Angst & Angst sent a different letter to Court Administration requesting the re-assignment of the matter to Judge Carluccio. Exhibit D-2

17. Angst & Angst failed to file a petition with this court requesting recusal of Judge Haaz, and no objections were filed when Judge Haaz was assigned the matter.

18. Angst & Angst have since made no effort to inquire to the scheduling delay, or to determine the reason for Court Administration’s failure to schedule the hearing ON THEIR PETITION.

19. The December 13, 2012 Order, issued by Michael Kehs, offers NO EXPLANATION regarding what has necessitated, or required, reassignment of the matter from Judge Haaz’ court.

20. Judge Haaz is not included on the distribution of the reassignment order.

21. The Defendant is unaware of the timing, or any explanation, for the re-assignment of the matter from Judge Carluccio which occurred in late 2011.

22. Upon assignment of the matter to Judge Haaz, outstanding petitions which remained to be addressed by the Court were not scheduled by Court Administration.

23. The failure of Court Administration to schedule hearings has additionally prevented the Appeal filed August 15, 2011 from being forwarded to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

UNDECIDED MATTERS

24. It is the policy of the unified judicial system that any matter at any stage of a proceeding be brought to a fair conclusion as promptly as possible, consistent with the character of the matter and the resources of the system. The requirements of this rule further specify and implement this policy in keeping with the Court’s constitutionally mandated responsibility to oversee the prompt and proper disposition of the business of the Pennsylvania courts. (201 Pa. Code Rule 703)

25. The State of Pennsylvania requires every judge to keep a record of each matter that has been submitted to the judge for decision and which remains undecided. Twice annually, this information must be reported to the Administrative office of Pennsylvania Courts.

26. Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court order the Court Administrator, Michael Kehs, to provide copies of all related Administrative Reports prepared and submitted during the six years that this matter has been before the Court.

RESPONSIBILITY

27. The parties in any legal matter have a responsibility to the Court to act in an ethical manner, and to address issues with the Court directly where a situation could result in embarrassment of the judiciary.

28. The failure of the Court to address these issues when presented by the Defendant has resulted in a clear demonstration of bias, extrinsic fraud, and a nested lack of jurisdiction of this Court’s Orders.

29. The Defendant has made every effort to address the issues with the Court according to procedure and law. Those petitions have been ignored and dismissed without proceedings – as any proceeding would expose the judiciary to embarrassment and disrepute.

30. The Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys Robert and Valerie Angst, have used their knowledge and participation in actions which violate ethics, procedure and the Law to leverage decisions in the matter.

31. Angst & Angst have further provided information which intentionally exposes their ethical and procedural violations to the Defendant, which when presented to the Court has further forced the judiciary to action, or deliberate inaction, to conceal the judiciary’s participation in those activities.

32. While it has never been his intention to diminish the judiciary, the Defendant has been left with no choice but to Petition the Court exposing the activity, and then suffer further losses for attempting to address the issues with an unhearing judiciary which has been retaliatory and vindictive.

33. The Defendant has been terrorized by this situation since 2007, and has now been left homeless and destitute while believing in the justice system and that the truth would prevail.

32. The Defendant has no escape from the situation until the judiciary addresses it’s responsibility, and no alternative but to persevere while the injustice grows.

33. Injustice does not end injustice, it extends it.

WHEREAS, The Defendant witnessed the proper, lawful and ethical actions of Judge Haaz during the Short List proceeding on July 10, 2012 and objects to the reassignment of the matter.

Judge Haaz did not avoid issues raised by the Defendant, and immediately addressed intentional tactical failures by Angst & Angst to create a situation where the judge would lack jurisdiction to rule in the matter.

The awareness of that tactic, and it’s failure, had provided Judge Haaz the insight into how this case, and the judiciary, have been manipulated by Angst & Angst.

The Defendant’s Response and Counter Petition ( EXHIBIT E ), filed timely and served upon the Plaintiff, which has been omitted from the caption of the Scheduling Order, lists the immediate issues which need to be addressed in this matter. Those issues include voiding orders issued where the Court lacked jurisdiction, and the failure of the Court to hold hearings on Petitions submitted by the Defendant.

A HEARING IS REQUESTED.

Respectfully Submitted,

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

PDF Version with Exhibits
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION – LAW

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

EMERGENCY OBJECTION TO THE REASSIGNMENT OF THIS MATTER /
PETITION TO ENFORCE THE SCHEDULING ORDER OF JULY 10, 2012

EMERGENCY

1. The Defendant has been homeless since June 9, 2011.

2. The Defendant is destitute and has been unemployed since March 2007.

3. The failure to address and resolve the matter continues to have a severe personal, professional and financial impact on the Defendant.

4. Two attorney’s, after hearing an overview of the matter, have raised concerns for the Defendant’s safety and well-being. They were not available to take the case, and have been unable to recommend another attorney.

5. Defendant’s last attorney, who withdrew from the matter after only a few weeks, was experiencing death threats which were investigated by Montgomery County Detectives.

6. Defendant, while residing at his mother’s residence has observed people, whom the Defendant believes to be private investigators, conducting surveillance, stalking, intruding the home’s computer network and other technology, and also vandalizing the property.

7. Defendant has been followed while driving on several occasions.

8. Defendant finds the failure of the matter to be resolved according to procedure and law to be intimidating and threatening to his personal safety, and the safety of persons around him.

OBJECTION TO THE REASSIGNMENT OF THE MATTER

9. On July 10, 2012, Judge Richard Haaz issued an order for Court administration to schedule a hearing on this matter. Exhibit A

10. On August 13, 2012, the Defendant sent a letter regarding the failure to schedule the hearing as ordered by Judge Haaz. The letter was sent to Judge Haaz; Michael Kehs, Court Administrator; Cheryl Leslie, Family Court Administrator; and Angst & Angst, who represent the Plaintiff. Exhibit B

11. There has been no response from any of the addressees/recipients to the Defendant’s letter regarding the schedule.

12. On December 13, 2012, Michael Kehs, Court Administrator, issued an Order reassigning the matter, and scheduling a hearing date. Exhibit C

13. Since the commencement of the matter by the Plaintiff, the parties have appeared before ten (10) judges and five (5) masters. In addition, several orders were issued by two (2) additional judges without any proceeding or appearance of the parties.

JUDGE SHOPPING

14. During the July 10, 2012 short list conference, Judge Haaz was surprised to learn of Angst & Angst’s letters to have him removed from the case. Exhibit D

15. On May 16, 2012, Angst & Angst sent a letter to Judge Carluccio requesting that she resume the case. Exhibit D-1

16. On May 16, 2012, Angst & Angst sent a different letter to Court Administration requesting the re-assignment of the matter to Judge Carluccio. Exhibit D-2

17. Angst & Angst failed to file a petition with this court requesting recusal of Judge Haaz, and no objections were filed when Judge Haaz was assigned the matter.

18. Angst & Angst have since made no effort to inquire to the scheduling delay, or to determine the reason for Court Administration’s failure to schedule the hearing ON THEIR PETITION.

19. The December 13, 2012 Order, issued by Michael Kehs, offers NO EXPLANATION regarding what has necessitated, or required, reassignment of the matter from Judge Haaz’ court.

20. Judge Haaz is not included on the distribution of the reassignment order.

21. The Defendant is unaware of the timing, or any explanation, for the re-assignment of the matter from Judge Carluccio which occurred in late 2011.

22. Upon assignment of the matter to Judge Haaz, outstanding petitions which remained to be addressed by the Court were not scheduled by Court Administration.

23. The failure of Court Administration to schedule hearings has additionally prevented the Appeal filed August 15, 2011 from being forwarded to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

UNDECIDED MATTERS

24. It is the policy of the unified judicial system that any matter at any stage of a proceeding be brought to a fair conclusion as promptly as possible, consistent with the character of the matter and the resources of the system. The requirements of this rule further specify and implement this policy in keeping with the Court’s constitutionally mandated responsibility to oversee the prompt and proper disposition of the business of the Pennsylvania courts. (201 Pa. Code Rule 703)

25. The State of Pennsylvania requires every judge to keep a record of each matter that has been submitted to the judge for decision and which remains undecided. Twice annually, this information must be reported to the Administrative office of Pennsylvania Courts.

26. Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court order the Court Administrator, Michael Kehs, to provide copies of all related Administrative Reports prepared and submitted during the six years that this matter has been before the Court.

RESPONSIBILITY

27. The parties in any legal matter have a responsibility to the Court to act in an ethical manner, and to address issues with the Court directly where a situation could result in embarrassment of the judiciary.

28. The failure of the Court to address these issues when presented by the Defendant has resulted in a clear demonstration of bias, extrinsic fraud, and a nested lack of jurisdiction of this Court’s Orders.

29. The Defendant has made every effort to address the issues with the Court according to procedure and law. Those petitions have been ignored and dismissed without proceedings – as any proceeding would expose the judiciary to embarrassment and disrepute.

30. The Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys Robert and Valerie Angst, have used their knowledge and participation in actions which violate ethics, procedure and the Law to leverage decisions in the matter.

31. Angst & Angst have further provided information which intentionally exposes their ethical and procedural violations to the Defendant, which when presented to the Court has further forced the judiciary to action, or deliberate inaction, to conceal the judiciary’s participation in those activities.

32. While it has never been his intention to diminish the judiciary, the Defendant has been left with no choice but to Petition the Court exposing the activity, and then suffer further losses for attempting to address the issues with an unhearing judiciary which has been retaliatory and vindictive.

33. The Defendant has been terrorized by this situation since 2007, and has now been left homeless and destitute while believing in the justice system and that the truth would prevail.

32. The Defendant has no escape from the situation until the judiciary addresses it’s responsibility, and no alternative but to persevere while the injustice grows.

33. Injustice does not end injustice, it extends it.

WHEREAS, The Defendant witnessed the proper, lawful and ethical actions of Judge Haaz during the Short List proceeding on July 10, 2012 and objects to the reassignment of the matter.

Judge Haaz did not avoid issues raised by the Defendant, and immediately addressed intentional tactical failures by Angst & Angst to create a situation where the judge would lack jurisdiction to rule in the matter.

The awareness of that tactic, and it’s failure, had provided Judge Haaz the insight into how this case, and the judiciary, have been manipulated by Angst & Angst.

The Defendant’s Response and Counter Petition ( EXHIBIT E ), filed timely and served upon the Plaintiff, which has been omitted from the caption of the Scheduling Order, lists the immediate issues which need to be addressed in this matter. Those issues include voiding orders issued where the Court lacked jurisdiction, and the failure of the Court to hold hearings on Petitions submitted by the Defendant.

A HEARING IS REQUESTED.

Respectfully Submitted,

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

Rule 703. Reports of judges.

(A) Policy Statement.

It is the policy of the unified judicial system that any matter at any stage of a proceeding be brought to a fair conclusion as promptly as possible, consistent with the character of the matter and the resources of the system. The requirements of this rule further specify and implement this policy in keeping with the Court’s constitutionally mandated responsibility to oversee the prompt and proper disposition of the business of the Pennsylvania courts.

(B) General Rule.

(1) Every judge shall keep a record of each matter that has been submitted to the judge for decision and which remains undecided.

(2) Every judge shall compile a semi-annual report stating whether the judge has any matter that has been submitted to the judge for decision and remains undecided for ninety days or more as of the last day of the reporting period. Each report shall include matters listed on prior reports which remain undecided.

(a) Decision includes the grant or denial of a pretrial, post-trial, or post-sentence motion or petition, non-jury verdict or decision, entry of an order or judgment, imposition of a sentence, or the filing of an opinion. A matter is submitted for decision even though briefs, transcripts, or reports have been ordered but have not yet been filed.
(b) Judge means a judge of a court of common pleas or a judge of the Philadelphia Municipal Court, active or senior, commissioned six months or longer.

(3) If there are no matters submitted to the judge which remain undecided for ninety days or more, the report shall so state.
Official Note: Under this rule, judges must take inventory of matters in chambers, evaluate their status, and determine the steps needed for timely disposition. Judges must also take an active role in ensuring the timely preparation of documents, such as notes of testimony or psychiatric reports.

(C) Form and Content of Report.

(1) The report shall be prepared on a form supplied by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts or generated by the computer system of the judge’s court in the same format as the form supplied by the Administrative Office.

(2) The report shall be signed by the judge.

(3) For each matter which remains undecided ninety days or more, the report shall state:

(a) the type, caption, and number of the case;
(b) the nature of the matter;
(c) the date of submission to the judge;
(d) the specific reason(s) for the delay; and
(e) the specific steps taken to remedy the delay.

(D) Filing.

(1) The report covering the preceding period of July 1 through December 31 shall be filed on or before January 20, and the report covering the preceding period of January 1 through June 30 shall be filed on or before July 20.

(2) Whenever January 20 or July 20 falls on Saturday or Sunday, or on any day made a legal holiday by the laws of this Commonwealth or of the United States, the date for filing shall be the next business day.

(3) The judge shall file the original report with the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, and shall file copies of the report with the president judge and the district court administrator of the court on which the judge serves.

(4) Senior judges or active judges serving in more than one judicial district shall file one consolidated report with the Administrative Office, and shall file copies of the consolidated report with the president judge and the district court administrator for each judicial district in which the judge has matters that have been submitted for decision.

(E) Supplemental Statement by President Judge.

(1) A president judge, at the request of the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, shall supplement a judge’s report with a separate statement of any circumstances affecting the matters reported.

(2) Within thirty days of the president judge’s receipt of the request from the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, any supplemental statement shall be filed with the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, the judge who filed the report, and the district court administrator.

(F) Public Inspection.

Copies of all reports and supplemental statements filed pursuant to paragraphs (B) and (E) shall be made available by the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania and the district court administrator for public inspection and copying.

(G) Report to Judicial Conduct Board.

(1) The Court Administrator of Pennsylvania shall immediately notify the Judicial Conduct Board if a judge fails to file a timely report as required by this rule.

(2) The Court Administrator of Pennsylvania shall, where appropriate, forward to the Judicial Conduct Board any report which includes one or more matters which have remained undecided for one year or more.

A PERSONAL NOTE TO MICHAEL KEHS…

While you, and your coworkers, have decided to do your JOB badly and in violation of your oath and Pennsylvania law and Federal law… IT HAS DESTROYED AND AFFECTED EVERY MINUTE OF MY LIFE AND MY FAMILY’S LIVES FOR SEVEN (7) YEARS.

I have no escape until you begin to behave responsibly, and no alternative but to persevere while the corruption grows.

Injustice does not end injustice, it extends it.

– Terance Healy

Up until now, the involvement of Michael Kehs, Montgomery County Court Administrator, has been secondary and incidental. I suppose after my post last Monday, something had to be done… So Michael Kehs acted.

I have received an Order dated December 13, 2012 reassigning the judge in the case.

That same order schedules a hearing for January 17, 2013.

Hmmm, let’s look at it…

1. There was no response to the Letter written to Michael Kehs in August 2012 questioning the Admin’s failure to schedule the hearing as ORDERED by Judge Haaz on July 10, 2012.

2. No response from Judge Haaz.

3. No response from Cheryl Leslie, Family Court Administration.

4. No response from Angst & Angst, and it was THEIR petition which provided the opportunity for a hearing to be scheduled.

5. ALL petitions filed by the Defendant since August 2010 have been IGNORED. (That was when a secret three year old order regarding Custody was discovered.)

6. The lack of action was clear…. attempting to run out an imaginary clock. Imaginary because all paperwork was submittted by myself on time and in the proper form to the proper parties. The clock stopped tolling when the court started delaying all activity.

INTIMIDATION AND THREATS TO PERSONAL SAFETY

7. I have been advised by two lawyers, who would not take my case, that my personal safety is at risk. Specifically stating that I should not feel safe, and that if they wanted me dead they would succeed.

8. I have identified two, possibly three, failed attempts to murder me – arranged by a Private Investigator. They got the wrong target. People were killed, but they did not kill me. Mistaken identity.

9. Private Investigators have followed me, staked out my mother’s home, and have vandalised my mother’s home in the period since the scheduling order has been ignored by Court Administration.

FRAUDULENT REPORTING OF CASES TO SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PENNSYLVANIA COURTS

10. The State of Pennsylvania requires all judges to submit a report to the Court Administrator for the State identifying the reasoning for a matter not being resolved within 90 days.

This matter was filed in May, short list was in July 2012, order issued to Court Admin to schedule the hearing in July, letter from Defendant’s regarding scheduling in August 2012, THERE HAS BEEN NO ACTIVITY REGARDING SCHEDULING.

12. The failure to schedule the hearing would require an explanation to be documented by Judge Haaz and submitted by January 20, 2013. (PA. R.J.A 703)

13. This future reassignment to a New Judge not to occur until January 2, 2013, for no apparent reason, is indicative of deception and concealing the matter from the State Court Administration.

A new level of fraud… Michael Kehs, COURT ADMINISTRATOR, is now committing a fraud against the State of Pennsylvania.

14. Michael Kehs is acting under his official title of Court Administrator to perpetrate a fraud. His involvement in the conspiracy to obstruct and prevent justice is clear.

WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS….
IF THIS HEARING EVER OCCURS, THE CRIMINAL ABUSE OF POWER ACTIONS UNDER COLOR OF LAW BY CAROLYN TORNETTA CARLUCCIO WHERE SHE LACKED JURISDICTION AND KNOWINGLY ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO FURTHER INVOLVE COUNTY RESOURCES IN HER CORRUPT ACTS WILL BE EXPOSED. THE ACTIONS WHERE SHE KNOWINGLY AND ADMITTEDLY LACKED JURISDICTION COMMITTED TO FURTHER TERRORIZE THE DEFENDANT, DESTROY HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND DENY HIS CIVIL RIGHTS WILL BE CLEARLY PRESENTED IN A COURT WHERE THEY CANNOT BE IGNORED.

15. YOU CANNOT ENFORCE AN ORDER WHERE A JUDGE LACKED JURISDICTION.

In the Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio’s court, a person who has committed no crime can lose everything because she needed to conceal the corruption of her predecessor’s in the matter. Her goal was to cause the despair and hopelessness required to drive the defendant to suicide. The only way to make the matter go away.

Instead, a homeless, destitute and terrorized Defendant has persevered for years.

A CATCH 22

15. YOU CANNOT VOID A VOID ORDER UNLESS YOU HAVE A HEARING. This is why there has been no hearings on the matter. They have prevented any opportunity to Void the illegal, unethical, corrupt and malicious orders of Judge Carolyn Carluccio.

16. In simpler terms – obstruction of justice.

If I am wrong, why have they prevented the hearings?
AND
Why have they not sent the appeal filed on August 15, 2011 to the Superior Court.
Clearly – Denial of Due Process AND Obstruction of Justice to Conceal Abuse Of Power Under Color Of law.

DIRECT ACTIONS IN THE CONSPIRACY BY COURT ADMINISTRATION IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY

16. Michael Kehs has come forward and exposed his active participation in the going on 7 years of corrupt and terroristic secret injustices in this matter. And his current activity exposes his involvement in the prior actions, where the failure of the Court Administration to schedule proceedings can no longer be excused.

EMAILS ACCEPTED BY COURT ADMINISTRATION TO SECRETLY CANCEL HEARINGS WITHOUT SCHEDULING ORDERS

17. The Defendant respectfully requests the Court provide ALL EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE between the Judiciary, the judge’s chambers and Court Administration related to this matter.

18. These emails have been interpreted by Court Administration as judicial orders and have secretly prevented scheduling of matters without any documentation provided to the parties.

19. The emails are not private or personal in mature as such should be part of the public record. They will and are and will demonstrate the corruption and fraud and extreme ex parte activity by the judiciary to deny justice and abuses under color of law to strip the Defendant of his dignity, his home, his property and his family.

DO NOT ADVISE THE ACTIVE JUDGE OF THE REASSIGNMENT.

COURT ADMINISTRATION HAS NEGLECTED TO INFORM JUDGE HAAZ OF THEIR ACTIONS. He is not cc’d on the Order.

Previously, Angst & Angst secretly sent their petition behind Judge Haaz’ back along with a letter directly to Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio requesting she resume the matter.

Judge Carluccio was improperly handling Angst & Angst paperwork in the past, this time it resulted in a double filing and duplication on the docket.

I will files these comments along with the issues outlined in the prior post with the Court, and State and Federal Law enforcement authorities.

Perhaps the new working title should be OBJECTION TO THE REASSIGNMENT / REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION AND SCHEDULING DOCUMENTATION / CRIMINAL COMPLAINT TO STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES

Someone may want to tell Judge Haaz of this new little game going on behind his back, eh?

AND WHEN Angst & Angst withdraw their petition today, let’s not ignore my Response and Counter Petition filed timely and served properly upon the parties WHICH I SHALL NOT WITHDRAW.

A PERSONAL NOTE TO MICHAEL KEHS…

While you, and your coworkers, have decided to do your JOB badly and in violation of your oath and Pennsylvania law and Federal law… IT HAS DESTROYED AND AFFECTED EVERY MINUTE OF MY LIFE AND MY FAMILY’S LIVES FOR SEVEN (7) YEARS.

I have no escape until you begin to behave responsibly, and no alternative but to persevere while the corruption grows.

Injustice does not end injustice, it extends it.

– Terance Healy

1. Make False Claims to get Restraining Order. This tactic keeps the other parent away from the children.

2. Use Children as bartering tools. Get whatever you want using the children as a product.

3. Discredit Other parent with lies under oath. Family Court will not punish you for lying under oath.

4. Pretend to be a victim at all times. No matter how vicious you are, ALWAYS be the victim.

5. Try to get your family to lie with you. Lies become truth with more liars.

6. Never ever, be compromising. Be very vindictive. Remember, your motive is to hurt the other parent SO DO WHATEVER YOU CAN to keep the children away from the other parent.

1. Who is an “officer of the court”?

A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

2. What is “fraud on the court”?

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”

3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?

“Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”

Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
“Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”. The judge has acted in the judge’s personal capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be disqualified” under certain circumstances.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

DRAFT

Petition for Explanation / Petition to Enforce Scheduling Order / Criminal Complaint – State & Federal

1. Facts – scheduling order was issued

2. Court Administration has not yet scheduled the hearing.

3. Jurisdiction was established

4. The issues documented in the Response

5. Letter was ignored

6. The wider impact

7. Failure to resolve the matter only prolongs the injustice and further involves more parties.

8. Jurisdiction cannot be granted retroactively.

9. Responsibility to protect the integrity and reputation of the judiciary

10. Necessary for the justice system to function that litigants act responsibly

11. Methods to address issues – request for recusal

12. Recusal Actions

13. Responsibility of the judiary to act instead of protecting the corrupt and unethical judges and their void orders.

14. Retaliatory and harassing actions by Carolyn Carluccio

15. Criminal Complaint against the following individuals for their participation in the obstruction of justice, denial of civil rights, deliberate failure to act in accordance with their oath of office, conspiracy, and other charges as appropriate.

Richard Haaz
Michael Keyes
Cheryl Leslie
Carolyn Carluccio
Rhonda Lee Daniele
Thomas DelRicci
Emanuel Bertin
Patricia Coonahan
Arthur Tilson
Sara Goren
PD
KBR
CT
Eileen Behr – Montgomery County Sheriff
Mark Levy – Montgomery County Prothonotary
Bonnie O’Kane
T (Tony)
C (Casey)
Montgomery County Bar Association
Valerie Angst (aka Valerie Suzanne Rosenbluth, Valerie Rosenbluth Park, Valerie Rosenbluth Angst)
Robert Angst
Others to be named as necessary.

Additionally for failure to contact authorities when compelled to participate in the criminal actions of the judiciary and their employer.