2011
02.24

Within 20 minutes of my earlier post about this topic, the noise went away allowing me to get an hours sleep.

Then, I spoke to a friend about a web site and she lied… she lied alot. Why? I have known all along they would be back to clear their programs from the web. Seems there is alot of people going to a great effort to prevent me getting the information which reveals the identity of the private investigator.

I have only posted about 1/3 of the issues to the TERRORISTIC DIVORCE web site… there is so much more.

2011
02.24

Sonic Nausea has returned hard since 2/15. No sleep for the last 2 days. Having severe stomach cramps. Agonizing pain and no rest whatsoever. Their counterattack is unmistakeable.

2011
02.23

Powershell Update??? Are they installing their surveillance program or removing it. I just hope they make it so that I can get things done instead of watching the delays and erros they have caused continue.

2011
02.21

1. Judge Rhonda Daniele issued an order on August 22, 2007 which removed my children from my life. There was no hearing. The order was never distributed. The order was never docketed.

A clear civil rights violation.

The “secret’ order affected every proceeding in the case.

Sonya Healy used the ‘secret” order to frequently mislead law enforcement including when she burglarized my home.

Angst & Angst used the order and frequent ex parte communication to extort rulings in their favor from the masters and judges assigned to the case.

2. Montgomery Township Police have been protecting the identity of the person, or persons, responsible for illegal surveillance software on my computers and phones since August 2007.

Police were manipulated into improperly having me involuntarily committed without cause or reason, and without following proper procedure or law.

Police have refused to act in regard to any complaint since August 2007.

3. The constant terror and harassment of the situation occurring since January 2007 has no resolution.

Judges are acting to conceal the actions of Judge Daniele and the subsequent judges on the case.

Police refuse to act on any crime committed against me.

Computers and phones remain hacked and as such undermine effective communications to any law enforcement group which might be able to help.

On February 10, 2011, I went to Montgomery Township Police to file a civil rights complaint against Judge Rhonda Daniele. Officer Benner verified the information I presented and explained that he could not file a complaint against a judge as it would affect his ability to do his work. He offered to take a report instead.

I understood the officer’s position. It was the same position that lawyers have been considering when they refused to accept the case.

There is no resolution to this case until the ones who have terrorized and harassed me are prosecuted. There is no walking away. They will continue to hack my computers and phones. They will continue to prevent me from finding employment. I have been destroyed professionally, financially, personally and emotionally. There is no hope for any future until they are prosecuted and prevented from further actions. I live each day in fear of their next attack.

My children remain prevented from any relationship with me as they are forced to maintain the secrets of everyone involved.

2011
02.20

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

SONYA HEALY : #2007-12477

v. :

TERANCE HEALY :

REQUEST FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE R. STEPHEN BARRETT

Defendant respectfully requests the recusal of Judge R. Stephen Barrett and the reassignment of the case to another Family Court judge for the following reasons:

Judge Barrett began the hearing about 30 minutes after the scheduled time.

Judge Barrett was neither patient, dignified or courteous to the defendant during the proceeding.

Judge Barrett was unrelenting in his constant admonishment of the Defendant each time the Defendant attempted to speak in his court.

While not permitting the Defendant to speak, Judge Barrett granted the Plaintiff’s attorney, Valerie Angst, the opportunity
– to misrepresent the basis of the Defendant’s petitions,
– to misdirect the statements presented in the Defendant’s petitions,
– to misinform the Court of the case history,
– to speculate regarding the recusal of Judge Emanuel Bertin

Any, and every, attempt by the Defendant, the petitioner, to speak during this conference was treated by Judge Barrett as an interruption to the proceeding which was then elaborated upon and admonished.

Even while responding to a direct question, the Defendant’s response was treated as an interruption to the proceeding.

Judge Barrett conjured an atmosphere of constant interruption. Each statement by the Defendant was either
– precluded by a statement he was interrupting,
– or was interrupted by an accusation that he was interrupting,
– or followed up by a rebuke that he was interrupting,
– or threatened and intimidated with charges of contempt.

Any sign of frustration, or emotion, by the Defendant in response to these tactics was quickly elevated to exaggerated levels by the judge and followed with threats of contempt.

Tactics, such as these, to mischaracterize the Defendant had been used previously during proceedings with Judge DelRicci.
– – – – – – – –

It should be noted that a few minutes prior to the scheduled hearing time of 10:00AM, Judge Del Ricci entered and exited the courtroom from chambers. This was perceived as Judge DelRicci seeking to speak with Judge Barrett, who began the short list conference at approximately 10:30AM.

Judge DelRicci presided over the case from December 2007 through July 2009. His statement on July 6, 2009 regarding his recusal confesses the impropriety with which he handled the case.
– – – – – – – –

The Defendant was prepared to present his case on each of his submitted petitions, and was adequately prepared to address the Plaintiff’s responses which indicated that each of the documents referenced could “speak for themselves.“

Judge Barrett issued orders scheduling the matters for hearings in April 2011, and February 2011, with briefs to be filed one month prior to the hearing date. The judge indicated that those were the earliest possible dates on his schedule.

A review of the schedule for Judge Barrett which is available online through the Court web site contradicts that scheduling information which was offered in court.

Scheduling History
On September 22, 2010, responding to the Plaintiff’s continuance request, Judge Barrett issued an Order scheduling the following petitions for Short List Hearing on October 7, 2010 at 10:00AM.

Filed by Plaintiff:
Exceptions to the Recommendation of Conference Conciliator (1 page) filed 8/6/2010

Filed by Defendant:
Exceptions to the Conference Officer/Master in Support (4 pages) filed 8/10/2010
Emergency Petition for Relief (3 pages) filed 8/12/2010
Failure to Comply with Court Order dated August 22, 2007 (3 pages) filed 8/24/2010
Contempt of Court Order in Support (3 pages) filed 8/24/2010
Petition Regarding Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Communications (2 pages) filed 9/14/2010
Petition Regarding Discrepancies/Errors on Invoice for Fees (4 pages) filed 9/14/2010
Plaintiff electronically filed responses on October 5, 2010 at 12:35PM to:
Petition Regarding Discrepancies/Errors on Invoice for Fees
Petition Regarding Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Communications

Plaintiff electronically filed responses on October 6, 2010 at 10:49AM to
Contempt of Court Order in Support
Failure to Comply with Court Order dated August 22, 2007

Plaintiff provided copies of responses and counter-petitions to the Defendant immediately prior to the Short List Hearing.

Plaintiff’s responses to the statements in the Defendant’s petitions indicate no prior recollection of their statements in the case, only indicating that the Court Orders and other documents speak for themselves.

Plaintiff has sought to delay resolution of any matter relating to this case. A continuance request, which was granted to the Plaintiff, indicates the unavailability of her counsel for the hearing on October 5, 2010. Yet, the Plaintiff’s response documents regarding two petitions indicate they were filed electronically on that date at mid-day. Two additional responses were electronically filed the next morning on October 6, 2010.

Judges are expected to be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants subject to their direction and control while providing litigants the full right to be heard. Judge Barrett showed no respect to the Defendant making it clear that he had no intention of permitting the Defendant to speak at this conference. The Petitioner/ Defendant, can hardly believe the judge will behave differently towards the Defendant during any other type of further proceeding.

Prompt disposition of the court’s business requires judges to devote adequate time to their duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to insist that court officials, litigants and their lawyers cooperate with them to that end.

Defendant respectfully requests that Judge Barrett recuse himself and advise the Court Administration offices to assign another Family Court judge, or another court, as appropriate.

Respectfully Submitted,

____________________________________
Terance Healy, Pro Se
Defendant

2011
02.20

Terance Healy December 19, 2010
110 Banbury Avenue
North Wales, PA 19454
Docket# 2007-12477

Judge Carluccio,

My sincere thanks for your prompt attention and action to the case reassignment and the outstanding emergency issue you addressed.

The letter of December 13, 2010 from Valerie Angst included a paragraph containing incorrect references, speculation and distorted timelines. Please permit me to clarify and recap the outstanding issues on the case. (See Attached ‘Regarding second paragraph‘)

Sonya Healy has NOT provided the identification card for the Dental Benefit which had been approved by the court and ordered on December 14, 2007. Domestic Relations# 123109384

Sonya Healy had already complied with your Order of December 9, 2010. The medical card to which Valerie Angst refers was received in September 2010 after repeated attempts to obtain the medical and dental insurance identification cards. The medical card was a partial response intended to suggest their compliance. The dental insurance coverage information has never been provided. Coverage remains an emergency as my teeth began cracking and falling out in March of 2010. The pain has prevented me from being able to eat or drink for days at a time.

The Plaintiff, and her attorneys, have NEVER complied with any of the Orders of the Court since the origination of this case. The impunity granted to the plaintiff regarding enforcement of any order in this case is evident, yet it remains unexplained. The frequency of ex parte issues with regard to the plaintiff and her attorneys demonstrate their actions to manipulate and influence the court. It has been their direct actions or the results of their activities which has revealed the ex parte contact in each documented instance. I do not make these statements haphazardly or secretly. (See attached Ex Parte Listing)

While on the surface the case appears to be a divorce, when her lawyers inspired her to commit a crime, they put their careers on the line along with their client’s security. The lengths they will go to cover up their illegal actions, and avoid prosecution, know no boundaries.

Respectfully,

Terance Healy cc: Angst & Angst

Regarding the second paragraph from the Angst & Angst letter dated December 13, 2010.

1. There was no document titled Emergency Motion for Medical Cards filed by Defendant on August 12, 2010. The following Petitions and Orders relate to this issue.

– Plaintiff filed Exceptions to the Recommendation of the Conciliator on August 6, 2010 by filing only a cover sheet. (Docket# 2007-12477-210)

– Defendant filed an Emergency Appeal in Support (APL) on August 10, 2010 listing 8 issues which need to be addressed. (Docket# 2007-12477-211)

– Judge Bertin directed the Emergency Appeal to be listed along with the Plaintiff’s Exceptions. (Docket# 2007-12477-213)

– Defendant filed an Emergency Petition for Relief (Re: Medical Benefits) on August 12, 2010 singling out the insurance documents issue as he had been experiencing severe pain. (Docket# 2007-12477-214)

– Judge Coonahan indicated that the Emergency Petition could await the return of Judge Bertin. (Docket#2007-12477-218)

– Judge Bertin directed the issue be consolidated with the Exceptions which were now already on his schedule for September 22, 2010. (Docket# 2007-12477-224)

– Defendant filed Plaintiff’s Contempt of Court Order in Support dated August 24, 2010 on the medical and dental insurance card matter. (Docket# 2007-12477-227)

– Judge Bertin recused himself from the case on September 2, 2010.
(Docket# 2007-12477-234)

– Defendant received a medical insurance card from the Plaintiff’s attorney on September 2, 2010.

2. The Defendant has never denied receiving the medical insurance card on September 2, 2010.

3. The Defendant indicated to Court Administration that the Emergency Issue remained outstanding.
– This was brought to their attention prior to the assignment of any judge to the case.
– Judge Bertin had planned to address the issue in a timely manner on September 22, 2010, before he recused himself.
– Judge Barrett planned to address the issue on October 5, 2010, which was continued upon Plaintiff’s request to October 7, 2010.
– Judge Barrett decided to have a hearing on the matter in February 2011.
– Judge Barrett recused himself on November 30, 2010 and the issue remained unaddressed.

4. Why does it require over half a year of litigation for the Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s Order to provide medical and dental insurance?

5. Defendant filed an In Forma Pauperis petition on December 7, 2010.
-Those types of petitions go immediately before the signing judge for the day. It was brought before Judge Bertin who indicated he could not rule on the matter. It was then brought to Judge Wall.
– At the time, Judge Wall could potentially have been assigned this case.
– Judge Wall asked for more information about what necessitated the petition. I informed Judge Wall that as the case was currently without a Judge any further information could be considered ex parte should she be assigned the case.
– I researched the information and presented it to Judge Wall on December 14, 2010.
– The petition was denied by Judge Wall on December 14, 2010 indicating the “request was too general in nature” and “costs excessive to taxpayers.“

The Following Petitions remain to be addressed:

1. Plaintiff filed Exceptions to the Recommendation of the Conciliator
(Docket# 2007-12477-210 filed August 6, 2010)

2. Defendant filed Exceptions to the Recommendation of Conference Officer/Master in Support
(Docket# 2007-12477-211 filed August 10, 2010)

3. Defendant filed Emergency Petition for Relief (Re: Medical Benefits)
(Docket# 2007-12477-214 filed August 12, 2010)

4. Defendant filed Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply With Court Order Dated August 22, 2007
(Docket# 2007-12477-226 filed August 24, 2010)
Response and CounterPetition
(Docket# 2007-12477-250 filed October 6, 2010)

5. Defendant filed Plaintiff’s Contempt of Court Order in Support
(Docket# 2007-12477-227 filed August 24, 2010)
Response and CounterPetition
(Docket# 2007-12477-249 filed October 6, 2010)

6. Defendant filed Petition Regarding Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Communications
(Docket# 2007-12477-240 filed September 14, 2010)
Response and CounterPetition
(Docket# 2007-12477-248 filed October 5, 2010)

7. Defendant filed Petition Regarding Discrepancies/Errors on Invoice For Fees
(Docket# 2007-12477-241 filed September 14, 2010)
Response and CounterPetition
(Docket# 2007-12477-247 filed October 5, 2010)

8. Defendant filed Exceptions to Recommendation of Conference Officer/Master in Equitable Distribution
(Docket# 2007-12477-261 filed November 8, 2010)

2011
02.20

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

SONYA HEALY : #2007-12477

v. :

TERANCE HEALY :

MOTION FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

1. On December 20, 2010, while delivering a response to Angst & Angst’s letter to Judge Carluccio, the Defendant requested a copy of the letter from a member of Judge Carluccio’s staff. The request was not granted.

2. The Defendant then provided his copy of the letter and asked the staff member to compare the letter received by the Judge with the one he had received.

3. The staff member agreed to confirm the documents were the same indicating the Defendant could call back later in the day for the information.

4. Around 3:45 PM, the Defendant contacted the judge‘s staff member by phone. She immediately indicated that she “did not want to get involved“. She further indicated that she would neither confirm or deny the letter was the same.

5. Attorney’s for the Plaintiff have indicated in documents submitted to the court that they have engaged in various forms of ex parte communication with previous judge’ assigned to this case. A petition is currently before the court filed September 14, 2010 and titled PETITION REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.

6. Additionally, the Defendant has documented the following ex parte issues with the court.

Request For Explanation of Ex Parte Rulings and Communications – Documents and requests an explanation from Judge DelRicci of events on February 6, 2008 – Child Support Short List; April 19, 2008 – Child Support Enforcement; May 22, 2008 – Immediately prior to a Protracted Child Support Hearing. (Docketed# 2007-12477-113)

Request for Explanation of Ex Parte Ruling – Documents and requests an explanation from Judge Tilson regarding his Temporary Ex Parte Order that my son be permitted to leave the country. No Hearing or Conference was held at the time, or within the time period indicated by state law regarding ex parte orders. (Docketed# 2007-12477-114)

Response to Conciliation Report – At a conference on May 19, 2008, Plaintiff was not represented by her attorney and she barely spoke, the Conciliation Report from Sara Goren reflects ONLY the Plaintiff’s distortions. Over 8 pages of topics presented by the Defendant were not included in the report. Most notably that Plaintiff used the minor child as part of a team that broke into and burglarized and vandalized the Defendant’s home in violation of Orders and Agreements. (Docketed# 2007-12477-112)

Motion for Reconsideration of Witness/Testimony – Sara Goren had presented and recommended a Custody Agreement which included 3 sentences, instead of the boiler plate document normally used which is 5 pages in length. A Motion was filed for her testimony in a Petition for Contempt against the Plaintiff. Judge Bertin denied the motion.
(Docketed# 2007-12477-155)

Notice of Discovery of Ex Parte Orders dated August 22, 2007 – Documenting the discovery of an Order issued by Judge Rhonda Daniele, never docketed or distributed to Defendant. The Order secretly removed the Defendant’s parental rights without benefit of any proceeding in violation of the Defendant’s civil rights. Additionally, it provided the Plaintiff a method by which the Court and law enforcement personnel could be influenced into ruling against the Defendant. (Docketed# 2007-12477-221)

Petition Regarding Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Communications – Plaintiff’s attorneys submit an invoice in regard to a hearing where Defendant was ordered to pay fees, inadvertently indicating ex parte communication with Judge Bertin. (Docketed# 2007-12477-240)

Petition Regarding Discrepancies/Errors on Invoice for Fees – Plaintiff’s attorneys submit an invoice in regard to a hearing where Defendant was ordered to pay fees, inadvertently billing for ex parte communication with Judge Bertin and revealing their dilatory actions and negligent misrepresentation. (Docketed# 2007-12477-241)

Request For Recusal of Judge R. Stephen Barrett – Defendant requests that Judge Barrett recuse himself after a hearing on October 7, 2010. (Docketed# 2007-12477-262)

WHEREAS, The Defendant requests a copy of all correspondence that the court has received regarding the case, or which in any way refers to the case or the parties to the case.

The Defendant requests the court provide copies of all documents regarding the case, or which in any way refers to the case, or the parties to the case, or their children, including but not limited to all correspondence, courtesy copies of pleadings, amicus briefs and documents from friends of the court which have been mailed, hand-delivered, transmitted electronically via email or fax, or received directly via fax.

Where multiple copies have been received in various formats, all duplicates shall be provided and include electronic date/time stamp information.

Any document not being provided shall be listed by the title, date and author of the document along with a statement indicating the nature of the document and the reason it is not being provided.

Additionally, ALL documents will be filed with the Prothonotary so they are available for review by any interested parties involved in the case.

Respectfully Submitted,

Terance Healy
Defendant
Pro Se

2011
02.20

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

SONYA HEALY : #2007-12477

v. :

TERANCE HEALY :

MOTION FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT

1. On December 20, 2010, while delivering a response to Angst & Angst’s letter to Judge Carluccio, the Defendant requested a copy of the letter from a member of Judge Carluccio’s staff. The request was not granted.

2. The Defendant then provided his copy of the letter and asked the staff member to compare the letter received by the Judge with the one he had received.

3. The staff member agreed to confirm the documents were the same indicating the Defendant could call back later in the day for the information.

4. Around 3:45 PM, the Defendant contacted the judge‘s staff member by phone. She immediately indicated that she “did not want to get involved“. She further indicated that she would neither confirm or deny the letter was the same.

5. Attorney’s for the Plaintiff have indicated in documents submitted to the court that they have engaged in various forms of ex parte communication with previous judge’ assigned to this case. A petition is currently before the court filed September 14, 2010 and titled PETITION REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.

6. Additionally, the Defendant has documented the following ex parte issues with the court.

Request For Explanation of Ex Parte Rulings and Communications – Documents and requests an explanation from Judge DelRicci of events on February 6, 2008 – Child Support Short List; April 19, 2008 – Child Support Enforcement; May 22, 2008 – Immediately prior to a Protracted Child Support Hearing. (Docketed# 2007-12477-113)

Request for Explanation of Ex Parte Ruling – Documents and requests an explanation from Judge Tilson regarding his Temporary Ex Parte Order that my son be permitted to leave the country. No Hearing or Conference was held at the time, or within the time period indicated by state law regarding ex parte orders. (Docketed# 2007-12477-114)

Response to Conciliation Report – At a conference on May 19, 2008, Plaintiff was not represented by her attorney and she barely spoke, the Conciliation Report from Sara Goren reflects ONLY the Plaintiff’s distortions. Over 8 pages of topics presented by the Defendant were not included in the report. Most notably that Plaintiff used the minor child as part of a team that broke into and burglarized and vandalized the Defendant’s home in violation of Orders and Agreements. (Docketed# 2007-12477-112)

Motion for Reconsideration of Witness/Testimony – Sara Goren had presented and recommended a Custody Agreement which included 3 sentences, instead of the boiler plate document normally used which is 5 pages in length. A Motion was filed for her testimony in a Petition for Contempt against the Plaintiff. Judge Bertin denied the motion.
(Docketed# 2007-12477-155)

Notice of Discovery of Ex Parte Orders dated August 22, 2007 – Documenting the discovery of an Order issued by Judge Rhonda Daniele, never docketed or distributed to Defendant. The Order secretly removed the Defendant’s parental rights without benefit of any proceeding in violation of the Defendant’s civil rights. Additionally, it provided the Plaintiff a method by which the Court and law enforcement personnel could be influenced into ruling against the Defendant. (Docketed# 2007-12477-221)

Petition Regarding Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Communications – Plaintiff’s attorneys submit an invoice in regard to a hearing where Defendant was ordered to pay fees, inadvertently indicating ex parte communication with Judge Bertin. (Docketed# 2007-12477-240)

Petition Regarding Discrepancies/Errors on Invoice for Fees – Plaintiff’s attorneys submit an invoice in regard to a hearing where Defendant was ordered to pay fees, inadvertently billing for ex parte communication with Judge Bertin and revealing their dilatory actions and negligent misrepresentation. (Docketed# 2007-12477-241)

Request For Recusal of Judge R. Stephen Barrett – Defendant requests that Judge Barrett recuse himself after a hearing on October 7, 2010. (Docketed# 2007-12477-262)

WHEREAS, The Defendant requests a copy of any letter from Angst & Angst that Judge Carluccio has received regarding the case, or which in any way refers to the case or the parties to the case which has been mailed, hand-delivered, transmitted electronically via email or fax, or received directly via fax.

Where multiple copies have been received in various formats, all duplicates shall be provided and include date/time stamp information.

Respectfully Submitted,

Terance Healy
Defendant
Pro Se

%d bloggers like this: