2011
04.27

A Linux machine using Safari searched for Ed Weideman this morning.

So many people have expressed a strong desire to see Ed prosecuted for his part in the case. A former Montgomery Township Police Officer who looks so damn guilty as he hides when I see him in local stores.

Apparently I was the only one who thought he was a friend. Until, it was revealed he had a part in the surveillance, and the connection to the police, and then of course he helped burglarize and vandalize my home and kill my dog.

Here ya go Ed… something for you to find on your next search. Google Yourself!

2011
04.27

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

SONYA HEALY : #2007-12477

v. :

TERANCE HEALY :

PETITION TO RESCIND/CANCEL THE ORDER OF APRIL 14, 2011 WHICH VIOLATES PENNSYLVANIA LAW AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
AND RESCHEDULE ALL OUTSTANDING PETITIONS

1. The Order issued on April 14, 2011, copy attached, is in violation of Pennsylvania Law.

RULE 1920.41 NO DEFAULT JUDGMENT
No judgment may be entered by default or on the pleadings.

2. The Order issued on April 14, 2011 is in violation of the United States Constitution, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

3. The Order issued on April 14, 2011 is in violation of the United States Constitution, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241, Conspiracy Against Rights.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241
CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

4. The Order issued on April 14, 2011 neglects to address the matter of the Defendant’s Response and Counterclaim filed on March 8, 2011.

5. Defendant has not been permitted to opportunity to present the response and Counterclaim.

6 Defendant’s Response and Counterclaim includes allegations and corresponding documents to support the allegations which include the following:

A. Civil Rights Violations of the Judges and Masters

B. Ethics Issues and Violations by the Judges and Masters

C. Ethics Issues and Violations of Valerie Angst and Robert Angst of Angst & Angst

D. Plaintiff’s Perjury

E. Plaintiff’s Unsworn Falsification to Authorities

F. Plaintiff’s False Reports to Law Enforcement Authorities
– Falsely incriminating another
– Fictitious Reports

G. Plaintiff‘s Falsification and Intimidation

H. Plaintiff’s False Swearing

I. Plaintiff’s False Alarms to agencies of Public Safety

J. Tampering with Public Records or Information
– Domestic Relations Office
– Montgomery County Prothonotary

7. Judge Carluccio has issued the Order of April 14, 2011 to prevent the entry of any exhibit or testimony which will expose the corrupt actions of the prior judges on this case.

8. Judge Carluccio is extending the impunity granted inexplicably to the Plaintiff which permits repeated violation of Court Order and the Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

9. The impunity granted to the Plaintiff has prevented any justice in this case and permitted the continued harassment and terror of the Defendant for over 5 years.

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.

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.

10. At a hearing in Equitable Distribution on March 29, 2011, it was repeatedly presented that the Court had numerous outstanding petitions with financial issues which needed to be addressed prior to a Hearing in Equitable Distribution.

11. Judge Carluccio repeatedly assured the Defendant that those hearings would be held and rescheduled some of them from June 2011 to May 5, 2011.

12. The outstanding petitions were noted each time an issue disputed in the petitions arose during the Equitable Distribution Hearing.

13. Judge Carluccio repeated indications on March 29, 2011 that the Hearing was on Equitable Distribution and any exhibits and evidence regarding the outstanding petitions would be addressed at their respective hearings.

14. There has not been any hearing on the outstanding petitions where the Defendant has been provided any opportunity to present his evidence and testimony.

15. Each Short List has denied the Defendant any opportunity to speak, instead allowing the Plaintiff’s Attorney, Valerie Angst to completely misrepresent the issues and purpose of the petitions, even where she has failed to file any response to the document.

16. Judge Carolyn Carluccio ordered a Hearing in Equitable Distribution for March 29, 2011 with the full knowledge that there were numerous outstanding financial issues which required resolution and attention of the Court.

17. The Court schedule available on-line through www.Montcopa.org indicated a number of other outstanding petitions were to be addressed by the Court on that date.

18. On March 29, 2011, The Defendant was required to sign in as a Pro Se party.

19. The document provided for sign-in was incorrectly titled, indicating the matter being addressed was the Plaintiff’s Emergency Family Petition dated February 24, 2011.

20. Judge Carluccio began the hearing by indicating that we were there for the Hearing in Equitable Distribution, and the outstanding petitions would NOT be presented or discussed during that proceeding and those matters would be handled at their respective hearings.

21. On April 14, 2011, The Order of Judge Carluccio ONLY lists the petitions filed by the Defendant and incorrectly indicates they have been resolved, dismissed, addressed, or the Court does not have jurisdiction.

22. The April 14, 2011 Order neglects to address ANY of the Plaintiff‘s Petitions, Responses or Counterpetitions, which include:

– The Plaintiff filed Exceptions to the Recommendation of the Conciliator dated August 6, 2011.

– The Plaintiff’s Counterpetition to the Defendant filed Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Court Order Dated August 22, 2007.

– The Plaintiff’s Counterpetition to the Defendant filed Plaintiff’s Contempt of Court Order in Support.

– The Plaintiff’s Counterpetition to the Defendant filed Petition Regarding the Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Communications.

– The Plaintiff’s Counterpetition to the Defendant filed Petition Regarding Discrepancies / Errors on Invoice for Fees.

23. Plaintiff has not withdrawn any of the above-listed Counterpetitions.

24. Defendant has not withdrawn any Petition or Counterpetition.

Rule 232. Counterclaim. Termination of Plaintiff’s Action.
(a) A discontinuance or nonsuit shall not affect the right of the defendant to proceed with a counterclaim theretofore filed.

(b) A counterclaim may not be terminated, in whole or in part, by the defendant, except by discontinuance or voluntary nonsuit, and subject to conditions similar to those applicable to the plaintiff.

25. The Following Petitions remain to be addressed by the Court.

Plaintiff filed Exceptions to the Recommendation of the Conciliator
(Docket# 2007-12477-210 filed August 6, 2010)
Defendant filed Exceptions to the Recommendation of Conference Officer/Master in Support
(Docket# 2007-12477-211 filed August 10, 2010)

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

Defendant filed Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Court Order Dated August 22, 2007
(Docket# 2007-12477-226 filed August 24, 2010)
Plaintiff Response and Counterpetition
(Docket# 2007-12477-249 filed October 6, 2010)

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

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)

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)

Defendant filed Petition for the Production of Documents
(Docket# 2007-12477-271 filed December 22, 2010)

Defendant filed Petition for the Production of Document
(Docket# 2007-12477-272 filed December 22, 2010 as EMERGENCY)

Plaintiff’s Emergency Family Petition
(Docket# 2007-12477-283 filed February 24, 2011 as EMERGENCY)
Defendant Response and Counterpetition
(Docket# 2007-12477-286 filed March 8, 2011)

Defendant filed Petition for the Recusal of Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio for Conspiracy, Corruption, Fraud, Intimidation, Conflict of Interest, Denial of Due Process/Procedure, and Denial of Civil Rights
(Docket# 2007-12477-289 filed March 16, 2011)

26. The Defendant reaffirms the allegations and statements in the Petition file on March 16, 2011 requesting the recusal of Judge Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio from the matter, copy attached.

WHEREAS, The Defendant requests the Honorable Court take appropriate action as follows:

1. Rescind/Cancel the April 14, 2011 Order of Judge Carolyn Carluccio; and

2. The Court promptly schedule the Defendant’s outstanding petitions before the appropriate Court; and

3. The Court cease any preparation of an Equitable Distribution Order relating to the case until the outstanding petitions have been resolved, as issuance of any such order will only serve to create further chaos in the matter; and

4. The Court deny any further jurisdiction with regard to the entire matter based upon allegations and evidence of multiple civil rights violations relating to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Constitution of the United States;

5. The Court deny any further jurisdiction with regard to the entire matter based upon its inability to address issues before the court due to collateral estoppel and coordinate jurisdiction.

6. The Court immediately act to transfer the matter to Court of Common Pleas in another county; or recommend and arrange escalation of the matter for hearings before a higher court.

Respectfully Submitted,

Terance Healy
Pro Se

%d bloggers like this: