There has been a ‘wound’ on my head that appeared in August 2007. Oddly, it does not heal even after being treated with medicated shampoos, antibacterial ointment, burn ointment, etc… When I began treating it as a burn, the size of the ‘wound’ was reduced to about the size of a dime. It is still a dry hard patch of skin, and hair doesn’t regrow in the spot.

I had been thinking the wound was the result of minerals in sweat being heated by the ultrasonic radio waves used to monitor the house. The ultrasonic radio waves were noticed in August 2007, and confirmed in December 2007. The ultrasonic harassment has been documented and demonstrated in other articles on this site.  In my opinion, after my dog was drugged during the Robbery in March 2008,  the constant exposure to the ultrasonic waves prevented his recovery and affected the animal’s liver and kidney function, causing the dog to waste away and leading to the dog’s death in October 2008.

AND THEN, Monday January 11, 2010, on CSI:Miami. I was stunned to see a device used in their storyline – a subcutaneous GPS being used by a mother to track her daughter. I knew that GPS devices came in a variety of sizes, but had no idea they could be this small… and implanted without the target being aware.

Here’s a few pictures from the show…

Picture #1 – the GPS device in an evidence vial

Picture #2 – The GPS device pictured with a scale to indicate it’s size. The device is smaller than a grain of rice.

Picture #3 – The CSI style closeup of the device and syringe as it is implanted under the target’s skin.

Crazy, right? Consider the following…
– These devices have been around for a few years already.
– These GPS devices are widely used in countries where kidnapping risks are high. Parents inject their children to enable faster recovery should the child be kidnapped.
– The devices are coated with a material which hardens the skin at the implanted location to prevent the device from floating/migrating to another part of the body.

– On at least 2 occasions while housecleaning I found what I believed at the time to be small car fuses that someone may have dropped. The only other person in the house at the time strangely denied ownership. ( I still have them. )
– I have found a topical local anesthetic on the floor and the two people in the house at the time strangely denied ownership though it had to be one of theirs. It was an item I have never purchased and IT WAS ON THE FLOOR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM. ( I still have the tube. )
– I have discovered bruises on both forearms on at least 3 occasions which are not the part of any bump or injury I can recall. The bruises resembled a handprint – when a hand was placed over the bruise as if it was holding my arm down to restrain me, it matched up with the thumb and heel of an adult sized hand.

I was reminded by a friend, that she saw the bruises which appeared in July 2009. After a sudden, mysterious, and unexplained exit of a house guest caught in a series of lies. When calmly presented with questions about his story, at around 1:30AM, he decided to leave immediately. The tone and attitude of his parting words suggested he somehow knew my wife directly. “You’re a nice guy, and you do not deserve what’s happening to you. I wish I could help, but… your wife is an absolute bitch.” And he disappeared… and has since avoided any communications or contact.

The FBI does not tag people they may be investigating. Not even terrorist suspects get tagged.
Local Police and County Detectives would not use this type of device and their investigations rarely exceed a few weeks.
But, how about a private investigator who is attempting to cover up the illegal activities described on this web site and avoid Federal, State and local prosecution?


When I filed my first petition which could possibly be considered a counterstrike, it was dismissed. The judge indicated it was not cognizable and could offer no further explanation indicating he could not provide me with legal advice.

Was it cognizable when first submitted as a counter petition? Which the judge asked me to resubmit as a separate petition.

After resubmitted, was it cognizable at the Short List conference where the document was not reviewed at all?

Was it cognizable as it was scheduled and rescheduled on the court calendar?

Was it cognizable at the Hearing to which I was ordered to appear?
Which had not been on the judge’s schedule?
AND TO WHICH THE OPPOSING PARTY AND HER LAWYERS DID NOT APPEAR? How did they know it wasn’t REALLY scheduled for then? And whoever informed Angst & Angst that it wasn’t actually on the Judge’s schedule, took NO ACTION to inform everyone involved.
[ Big surprise, someone in court administration is issuing incorrect paperwork. ]

Was it first scheduled for a date when it would have been cognizable? Then moved to a Family court date?

Cognizable? It was dismissed because it wasn’t cognizable, BUT NOT BECAUSE IT HAD NO MERIT. They had no defense. Yet, won fees… because it wasn’t cognizable.

Why did it take from August to December to find out it was not cognizable? How does one determine if the petition is scheduled under the judge’s Family Court schedule (with limited cognizance) or on his Civil Court schedule to which she would have been found guilty on all counts?


The use of false testimony from witnesses and informants, in addition to the practice of preying on suspects, stealing their money and covering up police crimes with false arrests and search warrants, led to the arrests of five cops in Philadelphia.

The city of Philadelphia had to release almost 500 prisoners and subsequently paid $4 million to settle civil rights lawsuits because of improper police conduct.


(Excerpts from www.TalkLeft.com)

Confidential Informants Used Heavily in Philadelphia

TalkLeft has often discussed the damage that informants do to individuals and families, to law enforcement agencies, to privacy rights, and to the criminal justice system and the society that depends upon it to operate fairly. The Inquirer reports allegations in the context of a larger issue of crime policy: law enforcement’s nearly unregulated reliance upon police informants.

Despite the work done by informants, the head of the city’s police union said many officers regard them with contempt.

So why would a dutiful officer who is skeptical of informant credibility rely upon informants at all? It’s better to put informants at risk than to risk the lives of undercover cops. Of course, officers will minimize the risk to informants, but are “looking at the welfare of the police officer first.”

If risky activities are so important, shouldn’t the trained professionals who get paid to assume the risks associated with law enforcement make them, rather than recruiting frightened and desperate and often drug addicted individuals who are pressured to take risks they would ordinarily avoid?


In December 2007, I filed for a Protection from Abuse order. It included 4 pages of allegations. I stand by all of those allegations still.

Valerie Angst has not appeared with her client since that time as her direct involvement is included in the allegations of criminal activity. Her husband Robert Angst has appeared ever since.

How do they explain that? A lawyer covering her ass.

This case is not about divorce. It’s about covering up crimes which a lawyer instructed her client to commit.


Immediately after her meeting with Valerie Angst in January 2007, Sonya Healy went to Verizon and picked up a phone which she kept secret.

She used this phone to immediately call her son Colin. Colin then called her back. It is perfectly logical that Sonya would call Colin whom she had already told about her plans to divorce. (I have those phone records. I have the phone number from that phone.)

That phone was used for contacting everyone setting up the computer surveillance, and the phone surveillance, and troubleshooting anything which went wrong with the surveillance. That phone would contain calls to all of the people she had working with her on her divorce.

When she provided her phone records as part of discovery for a contempt hearing, there were NO CALLS TO HER LAWYER AT ANY TIME. She was always using the secret phone to contact her lawyers. AND SHE WAS IN CONTEMPT OF THE DISCOVERY ORDER TO PROVIDE ALL PHONE RECORDS.

That secret phone is the phone she misplaced which scared her into moving out of the marital residence. She thought I had found it.

It was the first of many phones she has used. I have a few of the other numbers as well. Including the number of a phone purchased for her by her sister in Alexandria Virginia.

And Sonya Healy discussed her divorce plans with alot of people before I discovered her secret bank accounts… She had a 5 month headstart, during which time she manipulated money and destroyed my business with her computer hack. Affecting not only my finances, but the day to day business of my clients whose internet sites were affected and storefronts had to be shutdown because of the security issue she caused.


Keep in mind, that they have full control of communication, by phone or computer.

The phone software permits them complete control of anyone getting in touch with you or texting you.

The computer software permits them to control your email. What gets out. What gets in. AND they can prevent you from finding anything on the web based on a single word appearing on the web page.

You cannot effectively communicate, and you explain this and have not lost your audience. Next, you have the chaos working against you. And when you explain the chaos, you have the corruption and fraud working against you. And most can’t imagine how you survived the parts of the story they have heard. They haven’t heard the full story. You haven’t even gotten to the emotional aspects.

Why haven’t you killed yourself yet? You are not supposed to survive this far. I’ve got one weapon they can’t ever possess. I’ve got the truth. And while the truth can’t be heard above the chaos and unfounded lies in a courtroom. “The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” has not been heard in Montgomery County Courts.

The truth is all over this web site.THE TRUTH HAS KEPT ME ALIVE… even when I am overwhelmed with despair.


I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under god with liberty and justice for all?

Apparently not. No Justice.

When will Sonya Healy, and her attorneys , Valerie Rosenbluth Angst and Robert Angst (of Angst & Angst) be prosecuted for what they have caused?
And when will everyone who has aided them face prosecution for the terroristic actions against me.

I am one man who has been terrorized for over 3 years. Their crimes are obvious. When will there be justice?


It is unfathomable that the divorce is now starting it’s 4th year. Who would have imagined? And why is it taking so long? How many more people will they throw under the bus with their manipulations?

Why is she (are they) permitted to commit crimes and not be prosecuted?

And while I hold out hope for resolution, it would be absolutely foolish to believe that Equitable Distribution will be handled any differently than Support and Custody.

– The Support Master carelessly entered a Support Order using financial data which was known to be completely inaccurate. Ignoring that they spent more in legal fees seeking Child Support, their goal of ‘hindering you financially’ was successful. It was only after 8 months that the figures were resolved in the appeal. Your credit and financial situation was annihilated, AND, the added bonus of you being humiliated and thrown in jail.

– The Custody Master was completely corrupt. She continued sessions for personal emergencies which she could not recall. She suggested delaying a court date for 3 weeks for absolutely no reason, and then filed reports which did not contain anything which was discussed in the sessions. AND, delayed scheduling the court date for 3 weeks anyway. Sara Goren was completely incompetent and her actions were criminal. When you responded to her fraudulent report, you were told that the court would not reconsider the credibility determinations of the Master. BUT, SHE COMPLETELY IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE CHILD WAS USED IN A BURGLARY OF THE HOME. THERE WERE PICTURES. THERE WERE CONTEMPT RULINGS. IT WAS UNDENIABLE. YET, THE EVENT FAILED TO MAKE HER REPORT ALONG WITH ANYTHING ELSE WHICH WAS SAID IN THE MEETING.

It is overwhelmingly apparent that there is an incredible conspiracy preventing justice in this case. But why?

When will Law Enforcement get involved and provide ‘equal protection under the law’? It’s obvious that I have no protection from their criminal actions. I also have no recourse while police, county detectives, and the FBI refuse to get involved in any of the reported crimes. WHY?


This is a copy of the transcript of Judge DelRicci’s recusal from the case. I have annotated it with comments and questions. Another posting contains a copy of the transcript without the annotations.


Monday, July 6, 2009
Commencing at 10:00 a.m.

Courtroom G
Montgomery County Courthouse
Norristown, Pennsylvania

Before: the Honorable Thomas M. Del Ricci, Judge

Parties appeared as follows:
Terance Healy, pro se

Healy vs. Healy

THE COURT: The first matter on our docket for today is an announcement of an Order in the matter of Sonya Healy versus Terance Healy. In the divorce file, it is docketed at 07-12477. And the purpose of this proceeding is just to make an announcement of an Order and an explanation for the Order that I feel is appropriately made on the record.

On the record? Judge Del Ricci usually issued court orders in Short List conferences without the benefit of any formal hearing; without any presentation of facts; without any review of evidence; and without any transcript being recorded by a Court Reporter. His determinations were delivered often without even a review of the statements in the petitions or responses.

The transcript will reflect that I have advised the parties that this was going to occur today and I note the presence of Mr. Healy in the audience, as well as young Mr. Healy in the audience as well. Mrs. Healy and her attorneys have obviously chosen not to attend and their attendance was not compulsory.

In a letter dated June 24, 2009, Judge Del Ricci advised the parties that he would be recusing himself from the case on July 6, 2009, adding a period of 2 more weeks where nothing would occur regarding the pending Custody situation.
– The Judge’s Recusal announcement lasted 8 minutes.
– The Custody Modification had been filed on December 26, 2007.
– Custody would become a moot point on August 7, 2009, the minor child’s 18th birthday.

Judge Del Ricci indicates that he recognizes my son. He doesn’t speculate, or ask for confirmation. Colin has not been inside any courtroom for any ‘official’ proceeding. When have they met before?

By way of background, this Court has presided over this case for approximately 18 months. During that period of time, we have addressed a variety of issues including support, support enforcement, custody and civil contempt among others. We have been firm and, most importantly, have attempted to be fair in conducting all of those proceedings. A review of our rulings shows that we have issued rulings in favor and against both parties as the law required in each instance.

The law requires the Court to follow due process which was ignored on several occasions. Judge Del Ricci refused to respond to requests for an explanation of the applicable rule of law for several situations. The specifics are in the Request for Recusal .

As far as scheduling hearings, that was at all times handled by court administration. I do not place matters on my docket. It is important to note that all matters involving this case as with every other case were scheduled in accordance with procedures that were issued and published and adopted by this Court 18 months ago when I took over Judge Dickman’s docket. The only involvement I have with scheduling is to grant or deny continuance requests, and when a matter is placed on the Court’s protracted list over the two-week protracted cycle, I call those cases into court in the order in which they are listed. All other scheduling matters are handled in accordance with those procedures and directed by the Office of Court Administration in the family division.

Judge Del Ricci has issued Orders that direct Court Administration to delay scheduling of subsequent proceedings for periods of weeks or months.
– January 2009, an order was issued as punishment to the Defendant for not delivering discovery documents prior to the Court date even though that date had been scheduled with less than 24 hours notice AND where the Discovery Order failed to indicate a date for delivery.
Judge Del Ricci has ordered Court Administration to cancel procedural meetings scheduled with the Support Enforcement office, FURTHER ordering Court Administration to schedule ANY Support Enforcement matters before him.
– not following the law
– denying the Defendant the standard procedural meeting with Support Enforcement Officers to work out payment issues.
– without review or consideration of the history of the matter
Child Support was immediately appealed (September 2007) and the Appeal date scheduled even before the Support Order was printed. The Support Master was not concerned about the veracity of information provided. There was no concern about getting it right, or the effort which would be required to correct the misinformation, or the exaggerated financial obligation being placed on the Defendant.
– The appeal had been continued repeatedly at the request of the Plaintiff (See Stupid Lawyer Tricks),
– The appeal was cancelled and rescheduled for Judge Del Ricci’s court no less than 6 times between February 2008 and April 2008,
– The meeting evolving into a ‘surprise’ Contempt Hearing (April 2008) occurring one month BEFORE the rescheduled date for the Appeal (May 2008),
– Humiliating the Defendant with immediately sentencing him to 6 months in jail for Contempt,
– Having the Defendant shackled by deputies while announcing his ruling,
– Taken from the courtroom passing his children who were in the hallway,
– Only to find out during the protracted hearing on the Appeal (May 2008), that he had acted on a Temporary Support Order which had never been fully executed by a Judge.
The Court Docket clearly lists and confirms each of these Court Orders and events.

I bring all of this up because of information that I have come across recently that has affected my ability to continue to preside over this case. Let me begin by saying I will probably use the wrong computer terms when describing what I’m about to describe, but that’s not because of any intent on my part, it’s because of a lack of knowledge of the correct terms. Several weeks ago my daughter while surfing the web and utilizing a search engine called Bing, she came across an article, posting or blogs, I don’t know the correct term, written by Mr. Healy.

The Microsoft BING Search engine was newly announced by Microsoft in June 2009. Even in late July 2009, the Defendant’s web site had not yet been included by the search engine and as such could not have appeared in the search engines results. With BING being a new concept/site, Judge Del Ricci could not really utilize his ‘lack of knowledge’ preface to excuse his phrasing. Had Judge Del Ricci indicated using the Google search engine, it could be more broadly interpreted as a generic reference to search engines. At that time, BING could not generally be interpreted as generic reference.

It is reasonable to consider that the family members of a judge, who has been serving on the bench for over 11 years, would have been instructed to never discuss the judge’s active cases with him as it could create a conflict?
A judge who realizes he is reading about one of his cases, in a newspaper or online, would stop reading upon the realization he was reading ex parte information which could create a bias and require him to recuse himself?
Judge DelRicci was aware of the existence of the Defendant’s web site as some of the site’s contents had already been the subject of a petition filed by the Plaintiff in April 2008.

Internet blogging provides anyone the opportunity of creating an identity. How does the judge know the article or posting which has ‘affected his ability to preside over this case’ was written by Mr. Healy? The judge is making his decision based on a document which he BELIEVES to have been written by Mr. Healy without any authentication that his information is correct.

Now I am not adverse to criticism. Needless to say, these blogs were hardly flattering, but I am not adverse to criticism; it is part of the job. I have what I consider to be somewhat broad shoulders and, if I did not, I could not continue ion this position because being a judge requires you to make difficult decisions and you are not going to make the parties that appear in front of you happy at all times. So one must expect to be reasonably criticized and perhaps even somewhat unfairly criticized. But when the materials that I reviewed on that day went beyond the scope of any fair criticism of this individual judge or of the Court, the words imply that the Court was guilty of wrongful conduct. It was an indictment that struck at the very integrity of the Court and our system of justice. These words were not merely opinion, clearly Mr. Healy and any person is entitled to hold, express and publish their opinions. That is a right that has been guaranteed since shortly after the founding of this country and we do not take exception to that. But when opinions are interlaced with statements purported to be facts that are not only untrue, but indeed, libelous, we go beyond that which can be supported under any First Amendment right.

The Defendant maintains that the information he presents on his web site is factual and can be corroborated by court documents and many other collateral references.

The judge is failing to provide any specific information which would permit authentication. There can only be two reasons for this.
(1) He knows his information cannot be authenticated to the Defendant
(2) He knows that questioning a specific item would provide the opportunity to respond/confirm.

The judge fails to identify the article which has so unreasonably criticized him to the point where he needs to recuse himself.
The judge fails to provide any information which authenticates the author of the document to which he is referring.

Perhaps trying to shame, further humiliate, distract, or possibly just antagonize, the Defendant’s son filed a complaint of libel and defamation seeking $ 8000.00 in compensation with the Magisterial District Court (February 2009).
Judge David A. Keightly ruled on the matter (April 2009) entering a judgment in favor of the Defendant, and additionally against the Plaintiff for fees in the amount of $ 0.00. The Defendant did not file a counter suit seeking to financially hurt his misdirected son.

During that hearing, Judge Keightly expressed doubt that Judge Del Ricci would hear the custody case… and he was correct.

Now having been confronted with this situation, I took pause to determine how to approach it.

THREE MONTH DELAY IN SCHEDULING: After the March 6, 2009 hearing, another custody contempt issue was added to the growing list of custody petitions.
Court Administration failed to schedule the custody matter on the protracted hearing list until on June 3, 2009, it was scheduled for July 13, 2009. Why did it take 3 months to get listed on Judge Del Ricci’s protracted schedule?

I took no immediate action to avoid acting irrationally or with any specter of emotion. I took the time to discuss the matter with a fellow jurist whose opinions I hold in high respect. I have also discussed the matter with the administrative judge of the family court division. I was not unmindful and specifically addressed the sensitive scheduling issues that relate to this case in particular due to prior continuance requests by Mr. Healy that were granted by this Court.

There has only ever been one continuance requested by Mr. Healy.

After placed at #2 on the list for protracted hearings for February 23, 2009, Robert Angst requested his personal schedule be accommodated.
The Defendant’s mother, an essential witness to the financial issues and many of the custody issues was scheduled for emergency surgery for Wednesday of that week.
The court accommodated Robert Angst’s schedule, pushing the date back by one day and in the process creating the conflict for the Defendant’s witness.
The Defendant had no option but to request a continuance of his now 15 month old custody case, which was granted.
Consolidated with the custody case, Robert Angst was unwilling to continue the Plaintiff’s contempt case and wished to proceed and presented arguments for proceeding.
Judge Del Ricci explained to the Plaintiff that the Defendant‘s primary witness was actually at that moment having emergency surgery and was unavailable for the custody hearing, for which he had granted a continuance only moments before.
The witness was equally unavailable for the contempt hearing.
Robert Angst persisted in refusing to continue the contempt hearing.
Appalled by the uncompromising and unreasonable behavior of the Plaintiff, Judge Del Ricci continued the contempt hearing.

And the delay that was part of a complaint that was addressed in the postings. I also consulted with private counsel regarding my rights to seek civil redress against the publisher, as well as to discuss my obligations as a jurist. All of this discussion and thought process led me to a single conclusion that was concurred with by all of those with whom I had consulted. It is a course of proceeding that I undertake reluctantly, not because it is incorrect course of proceeding, but because it goes against my nature not to avoid that which is unpleasant or difficult and to put aside any personal feelings or opinions that I may hold and to judge a case fairly based upon the evidence and the merits of the position advanced by each party. It is what I have attempted to do as a judge since I have been honored with this office over the past 11 years.

I am recusing myself from presiding over further proceedings in this case. Though I believe I can be fair, the fact that consideration has been given to taking action together with all of the other circumstances raises at least a specter of a lack of impartiality. Any appearance of impropriety or potential unfairness must be avoided because that can only harm the Court and I will not be party to that.

Appearance of impropriety or potential unfairness? See the Petition Requesting Recusal

As stated previously, I discussed this matter with the administrative judge of the family court division of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. She has been made aware of this Court’s concern regarding the timing of this hearing. I did not specifically direct and I do not specifically direct any scheduling date. Again, to do so would be getting involved in something that I am recusing myself from getting involved with. Accordingly, I leave that decision up to the Office of Court Administration which is their province.

I am directing therefore that an Order be issued at this point recusing myself from further proceedings and directing that the court administration reassign this matter to another judge in the family division. That Order will be docketed today.

Thank You
(at 10:08 a.m., proceedings were concluded.)

After the case was re-assigned, Judge Bertin responded to an issue raised by the Defendant indicating that the Defendant had wanted Judge Del Ricci to recuse himself.
BUT, how could the Judge Del Ricci have known that?
Judge Del Ricci did not recuse himself in response to the Defendant’s UNFILED Request for Recusal.

A person using illegally installed computer surveillance could have provided the judge with the document which about to be filed.

The Defendant edited the Request for Recusal of Judge Del Ricci for over a month. At one time, the document was in excess of 100 pages with notes and citations.
On June 24, 2009, all that remained was proofreading and printing.
On June 25, 2009, inexplicably, the document would not print even after several hours of troubleshooting both the computer and printer.
On June 26, 2009, I received the letter indicating Judge Del Ricci had decided to recuse himself, and would do so on July 6, 2009.
There was no longer any need to file the completed document.

Judge Del Ricci recusing himself effectively prevents you from filing the Request for Recusal detailing inappropriate actions which would potentially embarrass the judge and the court.

Judge Del Ricci announcing his recusal intent further delayed the custody hearing for another 2 weeks until he would officially recuse himself.

Judge Del Ricci indicates YOU caused him to have to recuse himself, but fails to specify what YOU did to cause this action. This prevents you from being able to refute the judge‘s statement. You cannot prove it as fact, or deny it as false.

Judge Del Ricci‘s recusal includes intimidating threats of filing his own lawsuit against you.
A lawsuit would have to be considerably more specific requiring him to prove the information is untrue and requiring authentication of the author… that might reveal the actions of another person
Angst & Angst weren’t there for the recusal, they were busy filing an EMERGENCY petition which was a reworked version of that 60+ page misleading petition that successfully delayed the custody hearing for 2 years.
– Will anyone else notice that they either withdrew each count, or deferred the issue until Equitable Distribution, so they can double their return on the chaos, and won’t be sworn in.
– The Equitable Distribution Master’s head is going to be spinning when served up some of that Angst & Angst chaos. The lies are very effective in that environment.

They do NOT want the real pension paperwork. It would only serve to highlight how they charged more for legal fees than you will receive over the first 10 years of that pension.
They prefer the imaginary document with the fictional numbers
last time the Support Master accepted their information… that worked so well… they had you thrown in jail before you could correct the figures at the appeal.

It hasn’t been about divorce since Sonya met with Angst & Angst in early January 2007 and picked up that first secret phone at Verizon. The secret phone has information which ties everything and everyone together. She moved out of the house when she thought I had found it.

After the criminal activity began, it was about avoiding detection and prosecution by any means without concern for the impact on the children, the family or the friends who were recruited, or manipulated, into participating in the conspiracy.

Review the docket and the case. I have been indicating, since June 2007, that my computers and phones have been repeatedly hacked and attacked The allegations were clearly documented in a Protection From Abuse order filed on December 26, 2007. I stand by the list of allegations which are as accurate now as they were in 2007.
%d bloggers like this: