SONYA HEALY                                                                                                             : #2007-12477



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.


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.



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.


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.


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

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: