SONYA HEALY : #2007-12477

v. :



The Defendant, Terance Healy, requests the immediate Recusal of Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio based on the following information and events:


1. Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio has failed to provide the Rule of Law relating to her denial of the Defendant’s Request for the Production of Ex Parte Document (#2007-12477-272) filed December 22, 2010.

2. Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio has failed to address or schedule any proceeding regarding the Defendant’s Request for the Production of Ex Parte Documents (#2007-12477-271).

3. Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio has intentionally and repeatedly failed to act in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and additionally ignored the Judicial Code of Ethics by conspiring to conceal ex parte correspondence with the plaintiff’s lawyers, Angst & Angst.


4. Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio conspired to rush a hearing requested by Plaintiff with the intention that the Defendant would not have adequate time to prepare a response or counterpetition.

5. Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio has permitted the fraudulent manipulation of date stamps on the documents regarding the ‘rushed’ hearing on March 9, 2011 at 9AM.

6. Defendant advised Peggy Reiter, the Judge’s aide, when she contacted him by telephone about the Emergency Hearing that the one hour allocated by the Judge for the hearing was not going to be adequate.

7. Peggy Reiter indicated that one hour was all the time the judge had for this “emergency” matter.


8. On March 9, 2011, the “emergency” hearing commenced over 20 minutes late.

9. Defendant was called to testify.

10. During his testimony, the Defendant asked if the Judge had reviewed the Response and Counterpetition filed by the Defendant with the Prothonotary.

11. Judge Carluccio stated that she has read the Defendant’s Response and Counterpetition and motioned as if it was with the documents on her desktop.

12. When advised that the Defendant’s Response and Counterpetition was 129 pages and clearly not included with her paperwork, Judge Carluccio indicated that she did not have time for any Response and Counterpetition.

13. Defendant provided Judge Carluccio with a copy of the Defendant’s Response and Counterpetition.

14. Judge Carluccio again insisted she did not have time to read the document.

15. Judge Carluccio indicated during the hearing that she is not interested in what has happened in the past.

16. Judge Carluccio proceeded to make ridiculous statements regarding the validity of statements on court orders.
For Example, Judge Carluccio indicated that on a Court Order, ONLY THE ITEMS WHICH ARE CIRCLED ARE VALID.

NOTE: On the Orders issued by Judge Carluccio, NONE of the statements are circled.
– Order dated March 9, 2011
– Order dated March 10, 2011

17. Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio rebuked the Defendant incorrectly indicating that nine petitions brought before her in January 2011 were completed. The list includes several EMERGENCY petitions submitted by Defendant.
Those Petitions include:
* Exceptions to the Recommendation of Conference Conciliator (1 page) filed 8/6/2010
(# 2007-12477-210)

* 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
* Exceptions To The Recommendation of Conference Officer/Master in Equitable Distribution filed 11/8/2010
Motion for the Production of Documents filed 12/22/2010

Request Rule of Law regarding Dismissal:
Motion for the Production of Document filed 12/22/2010

18. Judge Carluccio had continued the proceedings for all of the *‘d petitions listed above to June 1-2, 2011.

Those petitions exposing the Plaintiff’s Contempt and Failure to Comply with Court Orders affect the immediate health and financial state of the Defendant.

19. Judge Carluccio continually criticized the Defendant for presenting the Plaintiff’s criminal and contemptable actions because they had happened in the past disregarding that the Plaintiff had violated the Agreement causing it to be void.
For example, when Plaintiff (and a team of others including a former township police officer, who is now Constable,) broke into, burglarized and vandalized the marital home and additionally poisoned the family dog who died 6 months later because it had happened in the past.

20. Judge Carluccio continued to insist that she did not have time for the hearing.


21. On March 3, 2011, The Defendant was ordered to appear at this ‘emergency’ hearing. (#2007-12477-285)

22. The Defendant attempted to explain that more time would be required to respond and prepare. The Court staff, Peggy Reiter, told him the date and time were already set and ordered by Judge Carluccio.

23. The Defendant filed a Response and Counterpetition before the hearing.

24. The Defendant appeared in Court prepared and organized in spite of the rushed schedule.

25. Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio was determined not to view any evidence of the break-in, burglary and vandalism which VOIDED the Agreement under discussion because of Plaintiff’s MATERIAL BREACH of the Agreement.

26. The Judge’s scheduling issue was used to deny the defendant the opportunity to formally present any exhibits, evidence or witnesses.

27. Judge Carluccio continued to attempt to convince the Defendant that because she failed to allocate appropriate time for the hearing, the Defendant was not permitted to present any defense or counterpetition.

28. Judge Carluccio made incorrect statements regarding the difference between an Agreement, an Agreed Order, and a Court Order in an attempt to intimidate the Defendant.

29. Defendant explained to the Judge that the reason Angst & Angst had worked with the Judge’s staff and manipulated the Court’s schedule to ‘rush’ the hearing was because Angst & Angst had successfully conspired with Judge Emanuel Bertin and prevented their prosecution regarding the same information at an earlier hearing.


30. Defendant’s Reponse and Counterpetition was separated by Order of Judge Emanuel Bertin in August 25, 2009. (#2007-12477-158)

31. At the hearing in December 2009, Judge Bertin was presented with the facts in the counter petition document proving the defendant’s case.

32. Judge Bertin apologetically determined the separated petition was NOT COGNIZABLE and refused to explain further. Family Court vs. Criminal Court.

33. Defendant was further ordered to pay the Plaintiff’s fees.

34. Angst & Angst revealed the Ex Parte communications with Judge Emanuel Bertin in their Invoices for Fees submitted as an Exhibit during the third Equitable Distribution Hearing in August 2010.

35. On September 2, 2010, Judge Emanuel Bertin recused himself from the case without offering any explanation.


36. Angst & Angst have filed no petitions since December 2009 because it would provide the Defendant an opportunity to respond and re-introduce the counterpetition which would be COGNIZABLE.

37. Angst & Angst filed the same misrepresentations for this hearing that as they had several times before.

38. Defendant worked for three days to prepare the Response and Counterpetition.

39. Defendant filed the Response and Counterpetition with the Prothonotary the day before the hearing.

40. Defendant acknowledged in his Reponse and CounterPetition that he was not permitted adequate time to entirely complete the document.

41. Defendant did manage to file 129 pages of indexed, organized, clear and concise statements. (24 pages of Response and Counterpetition, 105 pages of Exhibits).

42. Defendant is not able to afford the Transcript of the Hearing before Judge Emanuel Bertin which would eliminate any necessity for a re-hearing on the counter petition.


43. Defendant’s Request to proceed In Forma Pauperis was denied by the Honorable Judge Kelly Wall on December 14, 2010 because the costs for transcripts would be too excessive.

44. Judge Wall indicated that the transcripts could be ordered by the Judge hearing any related matter.


45. Throughout the entire hearing, Peggy Reiter, continued to punctuate every statement made by the Defendant with a very distracting SSHHing sound.

46. Peggy Reiter, by her words and actions in December 2010, demonstrated awareness of the Ex Parte documents exchanged between Angst & Angst and Judge Carluccio.

47. Peggy Reiter has pronounced her determination to prevent disclosure of the ex parte documents to the Defendant.

48. Peggy Reiter has additionally acted to prevent any hearing on the ex parte matter by not scheduling any proceeding regarding the Defendant’s petitions on the matter.

49. On March 9, 2011, after the ‘hearing’, Peggy Reiter became rude, disrespectful and belligerent when asked about the failure to schedule any proceeding on the matter.


50. The Orders issued by Judge Carluccio on March 9, 2011 and March 10, 2011 suggest that a full hearing took place on March 9, 2011. Defendant was not permitted to present any part of his case during that proceeding which was ended by Judge Carluccio when she indicated she did not have time on her schedule for the matter.

51. The Orders issued by Judge Carluccio on March 9, 2011 and March 10, 2011 fail to address any issue presented in the petition, response or counterpetition. The issues being:

– Plaintiff’s Petition
1. Civil Contempt
2. Counsel Fees, Costs and Expenses

– Defendant’s Response and Counterpetition
1. Plaintiff’s Fraud
2. Plaintiff’s intentional Misrepresentation
3. Plaintiff’s Admitted Ex Parte Communication with Judges
4. Plaintiff’s Failure to Sign their Petition
5. Plaintiff’s Material Breach of the Agreed Order of September 6, 2007
– Robbery, Break-In, vandalism, Poisoning
– Plaintiff Presents False Documents to Police
– Judge DelRicci Conceals Document at Hearing
– Plaintiff Lies during Discovery Hearing
– Civil Rights Violation by Judge Rhonda Daniele

6. Plaintiff’s Other Breaches of agreed Order of September 6, 2007
– Police Reports
– Fraudulent Letters

7. Plaintiff’s Fraud and Harassment

8. Ex Parte Communication between Angst & Angst and Judge Bertin . .
9. Counterpetition For Relief from Harassment Fraud and Barratry
Count I Conspiracy / Fraud
Count II Fraud
Count III Conspiracy Fraud
Count IV Financial Hardship
Count V Harassment
Count VI Contempt Dissipation of Assets
Count VII Harassment / Intentional Delay of Documents
Count VIII Harassment / Intentional Delay of Documents
Count IX Harassment / Persistent Requests for Non-Existent Items
Count X Costs Related to Legal Research

52. The Order issued by Judge Carluccio on March 10, 2011 orders another rushed hearing on equitable distribution. It would seem that the Defendant’s suggestion that more than a few hours would be required to present the excessive fraud of the Plaintiff and the true and correct information affected scheduling.

53. After 4 sessions before Bruce Goldenberg, the Defendant began presenting his side of the case including the plaintiff’s fraudulent and irrelevant documents, pointing out the ex parte evidence in the plaintiff’s exhibits… at that time Bruce Goldenberg realized the matter would have to be decided before a judge and ended the proceeding.


54. Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio is the current President of the Montgomery County Bar Association.

55. As President of the Montgomery County Bar Association, Judge Carluccio would see the negative impact on the reputation of all lawyers in the county if she were to admonish, sanction or prosecute Angst & Angst for their ethical and criminal violations as presented in this case.

56. Through the history of the case, the Montgomery County Bar Association has never responded to repeated calls from the Defendant requesting a recommendation for a lawyer to represent him.

57. The recently discovered “secret” Civil Rights Violation by Judge Rhonda Daniele, head of the Family Court Division, can be related to the impunity granted to the Plaintiff with regard to following ANY court order in this case.

58. As a judge in the Family Division of the Court, Judge Carolynn Tornetta Carluccio would see the negative impact on the reputation of the Judges on the court if she were to take any action which would further expose the impropriety of the judges who have heard arguments and petitions in this case.

59. The Defendant has waited for 4 years, during which time he has been destroyed professionally, financially, personally and emotionally by the unethical, corrupt and illegal actions of the Judges of the Court, the Masters of the Court, and the plaintiff’s lawyers.

60. The Defendant respectfully requests permission to present his case. However, it would seem that Judge Carluccio’s schedule will not allow for that information to be presented.


61. Impunity – the impossibility, de jure or de facto, of bringing the perpetrators of violations to account – whether in criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings – since they are not subject to any inquiry that might lead to their being accused, arrested, tried and if found guilty, sentenced to appropriate penalties, and to making reparations to their victims.

62. Impunity arises from a failure to meet obligations to investigate violations,

– to take appropriate measures in respect of the perpetrators, particularly in the area of justice, by ensuring that those suspected of criminal responsibility are prosecuted, tried and duly punished;

– to provide victims with effective remedies and to ensure that they receive reparation for the injuries suffered;

– to ensure the inalienable right to know the truth about violations;

– and to take other necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of violations.


Defendant requests the immediate recusal of judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio,


Defendant requests the explanation for the impunity granted to the plaintiff.


Defendant requests an investigation into the repeated Civil Rights Violations in this case.

The Plaintiff’s crimes are exposed, it is time to prosecute.

Respectfully Submitted,

Terance Healy, Pro Se


I verify that the statements made in this document are treue 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: