The Non Annotated version is available here.


SONYA L. HEALY : NO. 07-12477
vs. :

Dft’s Petition to Vacate Order of May 9, 2011, filed June 6, 2011
Dft’s Petition to Schedule Unresolved Claims, filed June 6, 2011
Dft’s Emergency Petition for Injunction, filed June 9, 2011
Plf’s Response to Dft’s Petitions and Counterpetition for Sanctions

Monday, July 18, 2011
Commencing at 3:12 p.m.

Courtroom 11

Montgomery County Courthouse
Norristown, Pennsylvania

VALERIE ANGST, ESQUIRE for the Plaintiff
TERANCE Healy, Pro Se Defendant

OK, Folks, Here’s where they begin their insanity. I am forced to participate in these events to survive their Terroristic Divorce tactics. I only do what is necessary to protect myself or my rights, nothing ever done out of malice or hostility.

THE COURT: Good afternoon. Okay, we’re here on a short list matter in the case of Sonya Healy v. Terance Healy. And the matters that are before us on this short list are Defendant Terance Healy’s petition to vacate the order of May 9, 2011, which was filed on June 6 of 2011; Defendant Terance Healy’s petition to schedule unresolved claims filed June 6 of 2011; Defendant Terance Healy’s emergency petition for injunction filed June 9 of 2011; and Plaintiff Sonya Healy’s response to Terance Healy’s petitions and counterpetition for sanctions.
Is that the parties’ understandings?

MS. ANGST: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. HEALY: Your Honor, I wasn’t aware that the scheduling issue was a part of this hearing, but I’m fine with that.

THE COURT: I can take it off, Mr. Healy, if you want to.

MR. HEALY: No, that’s fine. That’s fine.

Definitely Fine. The Intentional Failure to Schedule and hold hearings would be the major Consideration for the Appeal. Appeals are based on Procedural Failures, they are not granted on errors in judgement. It is necessary to get the Judge to clearly indicate what was involved in the proceeding. It is always good to get it on the record, with emphasis when necessary.

THE COURT: Now, generally — I’m going to start out by putting this on the record. I want to get this out right away.
Generally with a short list, I do it in the back and I don’t do it on the record, because the point of a short list is trying to get the parties to a point where we understand where everybody’s positions are. If there is any chance of coming to a resolution, I try to do that and I work with the parties; if there is not, then I schedule a trial date.
Mr. Healy, the reason I’m putting this on the record, frankly, is for several reasons, and they’re because of you. Because I want to make sure that you hear everything that I say loud and clear, that you do not change my words or transpose them or say that I say and do things which I do not do.
I’m doing this, frankly, for my own protection, as well as each of yours.

If the Judge is acting according to the Rule of Law and following procedure, why does she feel she needs some protection? I have requested ON THE RECORD Short List Conferences. Judge DelRicci taught me that by example.

I want to go through these matters and see what we have left, after looking at them.
I’m going to turn to you first, Mr. Healy, since they are primarily your petitions.

Mr Healy, “turn to you first” means we’ll hear from Valerie Angst instead.

Your first petition, to vacate the order of May 9 for lack of jurisdiction.
The problem here — and I guess, really, what I ought to do is, Ms. Angst, I’ll let you respond to that first.

Valerie Angst is going to RESPOND without any testimony being heard to which she can RESPOND.

MS. ANGST: Okay. We’re talking about his petition to vacate the order of May 9?


MS. ANGST: He raises several issues in the petition, the first of which is he says you could not have entered a Divorce Decree because there was never a praecipe to transmit filed with the Court to request the Divorce Decree. So, according to Mr. Healy’s petition, he’s saying neither party requested the Divorce Decree, so you couldn’t enter one.

Well, that’s incorrect.

Incorrect? Why? How? According to what Law? Let’s talk in generalizations, while alluding to things because the specifics would indicate his petition is correct. The statement of Law in the Petition is also correct. The citations in the petition are correct and have been upheld on appeal.

In accordance with Pennsylvania Civil Procedure, we filed our praecipe to transmit back — I have the docket entries. But, we did file one, he acknowledges in his petition that one was filed. And it requested that a grounds order be issued and that the matters move forward for resolution of the economic claims.

They filed a praecipe which specifically requested any Divorce Decree be deferred until all hearings had occurred. They did this in July 2009 on the day they re-filed a previous petition which has never been withdrawn. It was a 60+ page petition which was later dismissed. They never filed a praecipe to request the Divorce Decree.

That’s exactly what happened. It moved through the process. It eventually got to you.

The Manipulation of Judge Bertin. When Judge Bertin heard the evidence regarding the Petition he ordered split from my Response and CounterPetition in July 2009. He realized he was manipulated by Angst & Ansgt. He was annoyed and decided to move things on to Equitable Distribution. He ruled that my petition, though accurate, was not cognizable in Family Court. It would have been cognizable had it not been separated by his earlier order. Then he had no choice but to order me to pay their fees. The Angst’s actually billed me for the inappropriate and unethical conversations and letters exchanged with Judge Bertin. Angst & Angst have thrown every Judge under the bus when they are through with them. “It eventually got to you.” translates into dragging the Equitable Distributionm hearings before the Master out for over a year. A period which unfortunately provided the Defendant the time to find secret Court Orders, and file petitions seeking the Court to enforce it’s orders or explain the impunity granted to the Plaintiff. Those would be the hearings that never took place. More on those later.

We had our hearing, I believe March 29, and you issued your order on May 9. That is the procedure.
As a result of that praecipe filed way back when, the Divorce Decree was finally entered on May 9 of 2011.

March 29 Hearing was restricted to Equitable Distribution ONLY. But just prior to the hearing, the defendant noticed there were secret emails cancelling the June hearings on the 9 petitions. This was immediately called to the attention of Judge Carluccio at the beginning of the March 29th hearing, she assured me that was a mistake; that the hearings would occur; that we were there ONLY for Equitable Distribution – as was in her written Scheduling Order; and at the end of the day she issued an Order Rescheduling those erroneously cancelled hearings for May 5, 2011. (BECAUSE I CAUGHT THEM CANCELLING THOSE HEARINGS WHICH WILL EXPOSE THE CORRUPTION AND CONSPIRACY.)

Mr. Healy doesn’t understand that part of Civil Procedure.

Of course, THAT part, doesn’t refer to any part of Civil Procedure.

THE COURT: Well, I think that this even goes beyond that. We had the hearing — we had it in March?

WE HAD THE HEARING. WE HAD IT IN MARCH. A little obvious, but prepare yourself we’re gonna pretend that HEARING was EVERY hearing. OK? Even though everyone said it wasn’t and rescheduled everything at the end of that hearing when we got caught cancelling the hearings without notifying the parties.
If on March 29, they had indicated that we were going to have the hearings (like their secret praecipes [emails] indicated), I was prepared to present my case on all 9 petitions. I had been prepared since Judge Coonahan in August, Judge Bertin in August and September, Judge Barrett in October and Judge Carluccio in January. Remember this when THEY accuse ME of delaying things later on.


THE COURT: Because, Mr. Healy, you were complaining that ED was taking so long, it was taking forever to get through the system. So, to accommodate you, I actually moved up your hearing to be sooner. So the reason it was held when it was held was because of you; you wanted it sooner, I made it sooner.

Mr Healy, your comment about the multiple hearings before the Equitable Distribution Master which delayed the divorce for over a year was a ‘complaint’. How dare you complain because they ran you out of money and tried to throw you out of your home while preventing any resolution of any financial matter and failing to pay 3 years of back-APL. After Mrs Angst filled 4 long sessions with misinformation, in under fifteen minutes it was YOU who began presenting the true and correct information that caused the Master to determine that the matter would need to go before a judge.

Now, the order of May 9 is actually a final order.

Now that it has been Re-Affirmed it is finally appealable. Judge Carluccio has this knack for what are referred to as her ‘unappealable orders”.

If you wanted to appeal that order, you had to do it within 30 days. You didn’t appeal it in that 30-day time frame.
So, the bottom line, you say I lack jurisdiction, you’re exactly right.
As I sit here today, in July, I have no jurisdiction, I can’t do anything about this, even if I wanted to do something about it, because you missed your appeal period. So, I can’t do anything about this, I have no jurisdiction, so this petition is moot. It’s just, there is no jurisdiction. So I can’t do anything about that petition.

Which canon of the Code of Ethical Conduct precludes a Judge from providing legal advice? Does it apply to incorrect or misleading legal advice also? It seems that I have made Judge Carluccio sad because I forced her to make me homeless while she delayed any appeal for 6 more weeks. The Nouveau Homeless should definitely try to stay on top of their legal cases.
FLASHBACK “Turn to you first’ means ignore you completely. Rule. Move On.

How about the emergency petition for injunction to stay and vacate the order of May 9, for lack of jurisdiction?

MR. HEALY: Excuse me, Your Honor. If I may speak with regard to the petition to vacate? The document that was filed —
THE COURT: The one that I just raised?
THE COURT: Yes. This is —
MR. HEALY: I didn’t get an opportunity to speak to it.
THE COURT: Oh, the one that I just told you there is no —
MR. HEALY: The one that —
THE COURT: I’m sorry. Let’s go back to that, yes. My problem is, I can’t do anything, even if I wanted to do something. You’re too late.

Ooo, You’re too late. Yea, I said “turn to you first” and then ignored you. OK, try to speak, Mrs Angst & I will interrupt you constantly.

MR. HEALY: Your Honor, I filed this document on June 6. That was within the 30-day period.
THE COURT: But it’s not —
MR. HEALY: Unfortunately, the Court wasn’t able to hear it within an expedient period of time. I then refiled a similar document on June 9, which again was within the 30-day period. I attempted to get it resolved within the 30-day period. The fact that the Court’s schedule could not allow for that is why we’re here today. Additionally —
THE COURT: All right. All right. Let’s go back. Okay, you raise a point that we can look at it, but I still can’t do anything today. I can’t do anything today. I have no jurisdiction over it.
And the other part, once a grounds decree is ordered, the divorce is granted. I mean, we went ahead with the ED, the divorce is done.

Let’s Go Back… Mr Healy, You foolishly believed my lies in this courtroom and my Scheduling Orders which I only issued because you caught me. What can I tell you? You have been victimized by ANOTHER Judge.

This is just — you’re not fully appreciating the rules that are in place here, and that’s what makes this very difficult for me to explain to you why I can’t touch this.

The Rules are not written and we are making them up as fast as you point out our fraud and lies. So it is difficult for me to tell you anything.

MR. HEALY: Your Honor, I fully understand what you’re saying and the information that you’re relaying to me. I’m also — I’ve read Pennsylvania law.

I’ve read the law that says — with regard to the 3301. And I’ve read the appeals on the case that have involved other cases similar to this, where the

3301 has not been filed properly, the Divorce Decree is invalid, therefore, it invalidates any equitable distribution —

THE COURT: Let me ask you this: Why was the 3301 invalid?

FINALLY, I am being asked to address the first petition. Watch for the real-time pause button designed to prevent any complete sentence, AND cause the transcript to indicate an erroneous sentence fragments. We’ve played these games before. Come On… I’ve been schooled through 8 judges.

MR. HEALY: Because it was never filed. When Robert Angst —
THE COURT: What’s your evidence of that?
MR. HEALY: The document filed by Robert Angst in July of 2009 specifically requests that no Divorce Decree be issued until there is a hearing on all unresolved claims. There have —
MS. ANGST: That’s correct.
MR. HEALY: — not been hearings on unresolved claims.
THE COURT: Well, that’s what we did in the May —
MS. ANGST: March.
MR. HEALY: Ms. —
THE COURT: — the March 29 — or whatever that date was — hearing. We handled —
MR. HEALY: The March 29 hearing was —
THE COURT: — all your unresolved claims.
MR. HEALY: The March 29 hearing was not with regard to unresolved claims. That was with regard to equitable distribution, and at which point in time you further scheduled hearings on unresolved claims.
THE COURT: What hearings did I schedule at that point in time?

The ones you secretly cancelled by praecipe [email].

MR. HEALY: The hearings you scheduled? Just a second.
MS. ANGST: I don’t believe that any hearings were scheduled on March 29.
MR. HEALY: I’ll give you the date and time on the docket. One second, please. Docket Reference No. 2077-12477-291.
THE COURT: I don’t know what that means. What are you referring to?

I know not of this Docket you refer to. explain this foreign term by which you refer to all court documents. Could it be the same one which I refer to in my Orders that falsely indicated your hearings all took place? That Docket? The one I really didn’t review, where you found the paperwork indicating I never even looked at your file. That Docket?

MR. HEALY: That is the reference, as far as the prothonotary file. It’s an order from you issued March 29, 2011, regarding cross APL exceptions, regular and emergency petition for dental insurance, defendant’s petition regarding ex parte communications filed 9/14/2010.

THE COURT: Did I schedule another hearing on that order? Is that what you’re telling me?

Tell me more about this Docket. I have been a judge for years and a lawyer for many years prior. I wish to god someone had told me of this docket sooner. What an amazing way to organize legal cases.

MR. HEALY: Yes, Your Honor. You continued those hearings to be rescheduled for a one-half-day protracted on Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 9 a.m. in this courtroom.

THE COURT: And what happened on May 5?

MR. HEALY: Prior to May 5 — I appeared on May 5 for the hearings, and I was advised by your staff that the hearings had been cancelled the day before.

THE COURT: Oh, because we had handled them all, all of those issues. The reason that was cancelled was because those issues have all been resolved.
If I go through each of your list — if I look on to your next petition of unresolved claims, as I go down that —

Handled in this sense means acted illegally to prevent you from exposing the judicial corruption and conspiracy of the last 5 years.

MR. HEALY: With all due respect, Your Honor, there was no hearings on those matters.
THE COURT: You did get notice of this unresolved claims, anyway. I was just looking at the notice that was sent out to you. The unresolved claims, if you go through each one of them, tell me what was not resolved.
MR. HEALY: Well, it was not —
THE COURT: You’re going to say all of these were not resolved?
MR. HEALY: Correct, Your Honor.

If permitted to speak, I’d say it. But then it would be ‘HEARD’.

THE COURT: Okay. Let’s go down them.

Valerie, prepare to interject randomness on my mark.

MS. ANGST: Your Honor, are you referring to the order of April — I’m sorry.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, if you need to see a copy —
MS. ANGST: April 14, 2011?
THE COURT: That wasn’t what I was referring to, but let me take a look at it.
MR. HEALY: I thought we were discussing March 29, the order indicating that there were hearings to be scheduled. I also have a letter from Mrs. Angst concurring that she believed there were hearings outstanding, and that was dated May 2 of 2011, where she also —

at this interruption let’s note ANOTHER ex parte communication between Valerie Angst & a Judge.

THE COURT: What happened was after that March hearing, on April 14, I went down through the ones that you say were unresolved, and I go through each of them to explain why they are not unresolved.
I do that explicitly, going through each and every one of them, and it tells you where and when they were resolved.

Explicitly must somehow mean something other than “fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal”. There is nothing explicit except the intent to obstruct justice opn these matters by secretly and unlawfully cancelling the hearings which have waited for close to a year.

So none of these issues are outstanding anymore, Mr. Healy. They have all been resolved by the dates and the orders indicated on my April 14, 2011 order.

Magically resolved without any hearing. Hey, Valerie was right, You don’t understand that part of Civil Procedure… because we are ignoring civil procedure completely.

MR. HEALY: Your April 14 order? Do you have the docket reference number for that, Your Honor?
THE COURT: April 14 was the date of the order, that’s how I use it. I don’t use docket reference numbers, I can’t help you there.

I wish I knew more about this Docket reference system to which you refer.

MR. HEALY: All right. Just one second, please.
MR. HEALY: 294. Thank you. Your Honor, the April 14 order simply indicates that you would resolve alimony in the upcoming — or in the forthcoming equitable distribution order.
You refer to the emergency petition for relief filed 8/12/2010 as resolved by an order dated December 9, 2010.

It wasn’t. Judge Carluccio scheduled a protracted hearing during the Short list on January 10, 2011 for June 1-2, 2011. Yea, our schedule is busy for 6 months. The best we can do, until you file a document revealing corruption, THEN WE CAN FIND TIME FOR REAL HEARINGS AND IMAGINARY ONES.

With regard to the failure to comply with the court order dated August 22, 2007, you indicate that that will be resolved in the equitable order.
Your equitable distribution order does not refer to these issues. However, that is not necessarily relevant —
THE COURT: I think that they directly deal with these issues, in my ED order. It’s all been dealt with, Mr. Healy.


What’s happened is there have been so many petitions filed — all by you, practically — and so much information that has been twisted and turned, that it becomes very difficult sometimes to look through this rationally and reasonably. And that is what I tried to do in the orders I’ve issued. I’ve try to make it as clear and concise as I could, so that you were able to follow it.

The Judge has done such a wonderful and considerate job of making sure I can follow it, that she is incapable of following it. And she did it without the DOCKET.

MR. HEALY: Your Honor —
THE COURT: And everything has been dealt with. If you can give me an issue that’s outstanding, Mr. Healy, I am more than happy to deal with it. But, as I go through the docket, there is nothing remaining except for Mrs. Healy’s sanctions, the only thing I see that has not been addressed.

Give me an issue. I will demonstrate how I am more than happy to deal with it by ignoring it to your face and on the record.

MR. HEALY: Your Honor, starting with the exceptions to the conference master in support. How has that been resolved in the equitable distribution order?

That basically is a petition filed with the Court indicating —

This petition seeks to correct the date of the DRO enforcement of APL to the date it was filed. It seems that the DRO lost the file, and the electronic version of it indicates that it was filed correctly in July 2007, but somehow (?) the record was deleted. The database still contains the trace record that it did exist at one time in July 2007. BUT whoever deleted, or attempted to delete the record would face criminal charges for their actions, AND you could be awarded 3 years of back APL (about $15,000).

THE COURT: Where is that?
MR. HEALY: The very first entry on your April 14 order says that alimony will be resolved in the forthcoming equitable distribution —
THE COURT: And it was dealt with in the ED order.
MR. HEALY: That petition —
THE COURT: That’s resolved.
MR. HEALY: That petition did not have to do with alimony, it had to do with alimony pendente lite that dated back to July, 2007.
THE COURT: Mr. Healy, alimony, APL, it’s all the same. It was dealt with in the order.
MR. HEALY: And how was it dealt with, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Look at the order, Mr. Healy. It’s dealt with. It’s all dealt with, Mr. Healy.

The Judge cannot answer. She will engage herself in conversation about one thing after another to disguise that she didn’t have the hearing.

MR. HEALY: Your Honor, I was not permitted a hearing on that matter —
THE COURT: You sat —
MR. HEALY: — where I could —
THE COURT: — in my courtroom, Mr. Healy, and I said to you, Any more issues that you want to deal with, let’s talk about them now. You got out everything you needed to get out, Mr. Healy. I gave you more than your share of time. What happened was you became obsessed with things that were irrelevant and not advancing the ball in your case, so I had to control a little bit of it because it was irrelevant information. With respect to each of the petitions that you had, anything that was relevant, I allowed to you testify to. I actually allowed you to go way beyond the limits of what is relevant and rational. Because I wanted to make sure, Mr. Healy — and I think I talked to you at the last hearing — I want you to understand what’s happening here.

I think it is very clear what is happening here.

Believe me, I didn’t want to do what I did in that last order, and I know that’s what has you so upset.


But we talked one-on-one about what you were going to do if you kept that house, how you were going to pay the next mortgage payment. And you sat in my courtroom and you said, I can’t pay it,
I don’t have the money. So I couldn’t — you admitted, right here, you could not take control of that house.

You don’t have the money because you borrowed from your mother until her retirement was gone; we have not enforced any court order requiring your wife to make any APL payment, we deleted the records, she ignored our orders for medical and dental insurance, you lost your teeth. We are not having any hearing which would require remuneration of any kind SO YOU CAN’T AFFORD THAT HOUSE. (Oh, do not try to make the Judge feel sorry about the order requiring you to pay for EVERYTHING at the house out of YOUR proceeds when we sell it out from under you.)

MR. HEALY: Your Honor, I don’t believe I ever made that statement.
THE COURT: I’m pretty sure you did. So, anyway —
MR. HEALY: Again, you’re paraphrasing what had occurred —
THE COURT: Well, I’m sure I am paraphrasing, but the bottom line was you said you couldn’t pay for it. You had all these ideas on how to refinance, but your credit is so bad, you couldn’t refinance.

I’m not paraphrasing dumbass, I am making it up.

MR. HEALY: Your Honor. Your Honor, if I —
THE COURT: You’re not in a position —
MR. HEALY: If I may —
THE COURT: — to do it.
MR. HEALY: If I may ask for the rule of law which allows you to go in and to cancel a hearing on nine issues that I waited —
THE COURT: Mr. Healy —
MR. HEALY: — for nine months for?
THE COURT: — they’re moot. That’s it. You don’t need to know anything more than that. They were all moot, they’ve all been dealt with, and I’m not going to deal with this anymore.

They are all moot, because they reveal the corruption of this Court all instigated by the Head of Family Court Judge Rhonda DANIELE. (and we are not going to tell you who those young girls are that attend each proceeding and take notes)

I’m going to enter an order saying that you cannot file any more motions about issues that have been dealt with. If you have new issues, absolutely file your petition, but I cannot deal with the same issues three, four, five times, when they’ve been dealt with. That’s not what the Court of Law is meant for, that’s not what the justice system is meant for. This becomes a complete waste of time and money.

This has become completely insane. My 9 Petitions are each for different issues and items. Angst & Angst have recycled their petitions through each judge we have been before. Each time it has been dismissed, yet they continue to re-file.

And now they’re asking for attorney’s fees because you’re wasting their time and money, and frankly, I don’t blame them. That’s what’s happening. You’ve got to put an end to this.

YOU have to stop because Angst & Angst have me over a barrel personally and with my boss and coworkers.

It’s not getting you anywhere. Mr. Healy, we’ve talked before about you need to move on with your life. The only way to do this is to put this behind you.

Really, Mr Healy put this behind you. OK, Let’s schedule the next hearing requested by Angst & Angst six months out.

MR. HEALY: Your Honor, alls I am asking for from this Court is the law to be followed and justice to be served. The law has not been followed. I have been denied my rights to hearings, they have been delayed.
Judge Bertin did not consider these matters moot.
Judge Barrett did not consider the matters moot.
THE COURT: Judge Carluccio considers these matters moot, Mr. Healy —
MR. HEALY: Judge Carluccio —
THE COURT: — and this is the judge that you’re stuck with, I’m sorry to tell you.
MR. HEALY: Judge Carluccio considered the matters important enough to schedule for hearings in June when she read them in January. She then further considered them important enough to be rescheduled several times.
THE COURT: Because I dealt with them all, Mr. Healy. I rescheduled them because I wanted to make sure you got your day in court.

I wanted to make sure you got your day in Court, then realized if that happens you will testify and present evidence of the corruption and conspircay involved in the last 5 years. SO DEF NOT GONNA LET THAT DAY IN COURT THING HAPPEN. NO WAY.

I listened to you. I dealt with each and every issue. I issued an extensive opinion in this matter dealing with every single thing. I have spent more time on this case than — I have 200 other matters sitting there, begging for my attention, and I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time on a matter which should really have never taken no time whatsoever, Mr. Healy. I don’t know what more this Court can do for you, I don’t think there is anything.

If you came up with a legitimate issue, I am more than happy to deal it.

I would happily ignoring it like I have done with all the others.

But you have not done so. All you’ve done is rehash old issues which are resolved. And I can’t bring it up — once I made a decision on them, they’re done. If you didn’t appeal them within their time frame, I no longer have the ability to do anything about them, they’re behind us now. We need to move on, into the future. Look at those as in the past, now we need to move on.

Divorce is about the future. OK. Well, your future is crap because this court trampled your rights and committed so many heinous injustices. But you didn’t kill yourself. Bring us a future issue instead, you can’t dwell on our violations of the past.

MR. HEALY: Your Honor, those issues are not — I believe that they’re interlocutory until there is a final order.
THE COURT: Those issues are —
MR. HEALY: Maybe —
THE COURT: They are final orders.
MR. HEALY: Maybe I am mispronouncing —
THE COURT: My order was a final order.
MR. HEALY: And my request for your reconsideration then confirms that, and we’ll move with the appeal from that point, then, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I think you’re a little late for an appeal, Mr. Healy.

Did you trick me into saying the Order was FINAL. If it is FINAL, you can appeal it.

Okay. Are there any other matters here?
I think I dealt with his three, correct?

OK, we ‘dealt’ with his three. Wow, the tremendous respect warms you doesn’t it? Get ready because this party is heading for some unexpected crazy sort of drinking game. Here’s the rules: Rapid fire round. No topic will be discussed for more than a few seconds. When any party says any truthful statement, the next person MUST change the topic to absolutely anything. This segment is going EVERYWHERE and will involve the courtroom audience.

MR. HEALY: With regard to their response? Is that what we’re moving on to?
THE COURT: Yeah, I think that’s what I have next. That’s all I have left, I believe.
MS. ANGST: We filed two counterpetitions. One is basically for sanctions for Mr. Healy’s filing of the frivolous petition. Almost two years ago, Judge Bertin did warn Mr. Healy that if he doesn’t understand the law and he’s not an attorney, that he should hire an attorney, but that he is responsible to understand Pennsylvania Law and Civil Procedure and to follow them like anybody else.

Never happened. Valerie threw Judge Bertin under the bus when she billed me for their ex parte contact. But the content of that contact and the costs for that part of my sanctions were not heard by the court because it would expose the corruption.

Clearly, the motion he filed — the petitions he filed that resulted in today’s hearing were baseless. He didn’t understand just even basic civil procedure of how the case moves, and insisted that because we didn’t file a second praecipe, which is not anywhere required by law, that you could not enter a Divorce Decree.

Not certain where I INSISTED this. When Valerie is speaking she is incapable of truth.

You know, any lawyer, had he consulted them, would have simply set him straight.

the ones I consulted seemed to be all too aware of Angst & Angst tactics and wanted nothing to do with the case. They had too much self respect to charge a client who was being railroaded by corruption.

Because he chooses to represent himself and not to retain legal help, my client should not be penalized. She has been drug through this divorce on so many different filings and so many different motions, and he has been sanctioned before.

Valerie loves the unrelated compound sentence structure. Simplified. Because they have failed to follow EVERY Court Order, it has been necessary to Petition the Court for enforcement of every Court Order.

And he was warned, seriously warned, in a lengthy order by Judge Bertin, that these types of filings were going to result in sanctions.

In those Orders, judge bertin did NOT throw me out of my home. As such, Angst & Angst threw him “under a bus”.

And my client finally has a final hearing, we finally get a final order, and Mr. Healy files again.
You know, she has incurred so much expense, she is incurring expenses now to get the house ready for sale, she’s paying the mortgage on the house, paying her own apartment rent, she’s inundated with expenses, and now we have to come back to Court for this hearing. So we really feel that sanctions are warranted, and that if Mr. Healy isn’t sanctioned, we will have a new petition every few weeks.

Of course, THEY will, they have already failed to follow the Order which I believe is invalid. Of Course, it will be necessary to bring it before the Court. Where they will once again demnstrate their impunity to disregard EVERY Court Order. Just because they have impunity, doesn’t mean that I am excused from the requirement to request the Order to be enforced. The only way to have a Court Order enforced, is to petition the Court.

MR. HEALY: Your Honor?
MS. ANGST: Secondly —
THE COURT: We’ll let her finish.
MR. HEALY: In the interest of saving time —

Because Valerie Angst will rattle on spewing misinformation and poorly formed sentences for hours until someone stipulates to shut her up.

THE COURT: Okay. Why don’t we let him respond to that.
MR. HEALY: I would like a protracted hearing on this matter, and I would like to request the following 18 items, with regard to discovery, in response to Mrs. Angst’s counterpetition.
THE COURT: This is for sanctions. I’m not sure you’re even entitled to discovery on sanctions.

NOT SURE. REALLY? Is this her first hearing?

MR. HEALY: The documents that Mrs. Angst refers to in her petition are nonexistent. So, if she can —
THE COURT: Which documents might that be?

The Nonexistent documents are the ones she refers to in her petition. A truth. SUBJECT CHANGE.

MS. ANGST: You’re on to the second petition, which I haven’t addressed yet. Is that what you’re talking about, the 401(k) documents?
MR. HEALY: I’ve only received one response from you, and I believe it was 47 paragraphs —
MS. ANGST: Correct.
MR. HEALY: — which granted — with some duplications. However, I’ve come up with 18 items of discovery, documents that I would like to be provided.
THE COURT: Can you give me an idea of what you’re looking for?

Of Course I was prepared for the Hearing. I needed to be able to have the list of Discovery Documents so that they could act improperly with regard to it.

MR. HEALY: May I give you this document, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yeah, you can hand it up. Are there copies?
MR. HEALY: Yes, Your Honor, there are.

Otherwise handing a Judge a document would be Ex Parte Communication, and an ethical violation. Judge Del Ricci demonstrated that when He and Bob Angst passed documents between each other and left me out in May 2008. That Document, found years later, was the Secret Order of August 22, 2007 signed by Judge Rhonda Daniele.

THE COURT: These are all on the docket.

Now she is knows of this Docket.

MS. ANGST: None of them are discoverable items.
THE COURT: No. But they’re things you can get on your own.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, these are all items that I can’t obtain on my own, because I don’t have the certificate of service for the 3301(d) that Mrs. Angst claims was filed. I also don’t have the hearing scheduling order regarding the petition filed on February 24, indicating that there was a hearing for that matter on March 29, because that item doesn’t exist.

Nonexistent items are maybe on another Docket.

THE COURT: But how is any of this relevant to the motion for sanctions? None of this is relevant to the motion for sanctions.
MR. HEALY: This is the counterpetition with regard to the document Mrs. Angst filed.
THE COURT: I believe she’s asking for sanctions because you dragged her back in court today for matters that are moot and irrelevant. That’s what she’s asking for.
MR. HEALY: Correct.
THE COURT: So tell me how any of these are relevant to that.

EVERYTHING. Why do you think I assemble the list and referenced their paragraphs?

MR. HEALY: No. 28 would be relevant — or No. 8, in reference to her No. 28, for a listing of — the list of frivolous actions that she believes were filed by me. Instead of just making the statement, I’d like to know what the actions were.
MS. ANGST: Well, there were —
MR. HEALY: Because they don’t exist.
MS. ANGST: There was an order —
MR. HEALY: And, to be perfectly —
THE COURT: Let her answer.


MS. ANGST: There was an order by Judge Bertin where you were sanctioned and warned —
MR. HEALY: I’m sorry.
MS. ANGST: — that if you continued to file —
MR. HEALY: We’re referring to No. 28.
THE COURT: No, it would be No. 8 on your list.
MR. HEALY: No. 8 on my list, referring to your No. 28, which says, “Defendant has taken every action possible to delay and prolong this divorce process and has filed numerous frivolous petitions raising irrelevant issues, causing plaintiff to incur exorbitant attorney’s fees to defend these matters.”
MS. ANGST: Well, Mr. —
MR. HEALY: I would like proof of that statement.


MS. ANGST: Mr. Healy, were you sanctioned on two motions by Judge Bertin?
MR. HEALY: I believe we were waiting the — one of the hearings that we have not had, was with regard to those sanctions. And that was not —
MS. ANGST: There were two orders where Judge Bertin ordered sanctions against you for filing frivolous pleadings, correct?
MR. HEALY: Your Honor —


MS. ANGST: He didn’t state the amount of the sanctions.
MR. HEALY: — I’m requesting a protracted hearing on this matter and these items in discovery.
THE COURT: Well, what I will do is —
MR. HEALY: And for you to grant the discovery —
THE COURT: — I can schedule a hearing on her sanctions petition, but I will not grant this request for discovery because, number one, they’re not discoverable; number two, they’re not relevant to her petition for sanctions; number three, to the extent that some of these exist, they’re right in your docket, you can pull them up yourself. Okay?

Just because her petition for Sanctions referes to the items does apparently not makle them relevant. They are already in this Docket that the judge knew nothing about 30 minutes ago. NOW IT CONTAINS THE ANSWERS TO EVERYTHING.

MR. HEALY: That’s fine, Your Honor. But I would prefer a full protracted hearing on this matter.

THE COURT: Well, it’s going to be short, and do you know what, you’re going to incur further — you have the potential of incurring further sanctions by forcing this to trial. I want you to understand that.

It’s gonna be short because we are not going to let you talk at all. And I’m gonna intimidate you more by saying it will cost you more money you don’t have.

Does that makes sense to you?

She’s joking right. She wants me to acknowledge that she is threatening me with more sanctions because she has already decided without any hearing that she will rule against me. I have to believe the truth may get heard even in her corrupted courtroom.

MR. HEALY: Yes, Your Honor, it does.
THE COURT: Because you’re now going to increase her attorney’s fees on something, to me, is a pretty black and white issue.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, I’m simply requesting —
THE COURT: I will —
MR. HEALY: — a protracted hearing on the matter.
THE COURT: — schedule it for a hearing. I will —
MR. HEALY: As is my right.
THE COURT: — schedule it. All right. Was there another request that —


MS. ANGST: Yes. The other issue is, Your Honor, you ordered my client to transfer a certain amount from her 401(k) to a retirement account for Mr. Healy.

The Order does not say that but Valerie wants to think it does.

My client has taken every action to have that done. She has gone through a — used an intermediate broker, BFC Financial, who has set up — who has done everything to get the 401(k) funds from her prior 401(k). They have moved them into a traditional IRA for Mrs. Healy. And now they’re ready to move the correct amount over into an account for Mr. Healy.
MS. ANGST: She sent me a copy of correspondence which she sent to Mr. Healy on May 16, 2011, with proper forms for him to fill out so that the transfer can be accomplished.
THE COURT: Do you have the forms with you?
MS. ANGST: I do.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you know what? Can you hand those over to Mr. Healy in court, in front of me?
MS. ANGST: Sure.
THE COURT: Maybe the sheriffs can hand those over for you.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, if I may ask the relevance to this?
THE COURT: Do you want your money or not, Mr. Healy? I mean, the relevance —
MR. HEALY: I’m sorry, Your Honor. What do you mean by, “Do I want my money?”
THE COURT: The 401(k) —
MR. HEALY: That seems like a casual statement regarding an order. It was —
THE COURT: Excuse me?
MR. HEALY: The order, “Do I want my money or not” doesn’t seem like a proper response to me asking the relevance of this.
THE COURT: The relevance —
MR. HEALY: There was no order that indicated that I had to agree to have my money — or have any money transferred into any —
THE COURT: Do you not want this money? I mean, the bottom line was, this was something that was a benefit to you. She was going to transfer money into your name so you have this money at your disposal, but you’re not cooperating to allow this to happen.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor —
THE COURT: That order was for your benefit, Mr. Healy. If you don’t want it, I can change the order — well, I probably can’t change the order, it’s a final order.

Come on, Sign the paperwork and the money can disappear from your account overnight back into her account. Remember, this is about your FUTURE. In this portion of the hearing, we’re trying to destroy your future.

MR. HEALY: Your Honor.
THE COURT: I mean, if you don’t want do it, you know what? It’s on him. We have it in open court. He can fill out these documents. If he doesn’t, I’m not going to hold her in contempt of the court order.

ROFL – Not going to hold her in contempt for me not signing a peice of paper. She has not been held in contempt for any of a long list of crimes. Now they are just being ridiculous acting like contempt is a possibility. I’d have to file a petition for that to happen, and she hads already indicated she has no jurisdiction.

MS. ANGST: Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay? So we can leave the documents for him. Mr. Healy, if you would like —
MR. HEALY: Thank you.
THE COURT: — to receive the money — which I think, really, it’s in your interest to get — fill out those forms, please, and get them back to Ms. Angst as soon as possible. Okay. Next, Ms. Angst?
MS. ANGST: Or he can send them directly to the financial advisor whose’s on the letterhead there.
THE COURT: Does he have the information he needs to do that?
MS. ANGST: He does. He’s actually called her and discussed with her why he’s not cooperating.

MR. HEALY: We’re still waiting for the arbitrator to respond to the letter from Mrs. Angst from the beginning of May.

OK, this is NOT me changing the subject. We had decided to discuss this when we met with the arbitrator for BINDING ARBITRATION. Which hasnt been scheduled still.

THE COURT: Can I just ask —
MR. HEALY: I’m not —
THE COURT: — why are you fighting this?

can;t we take your home, make you homeless, charge you for the house while you are not permitted to even visit it, prevent you from sleeping in your own bed, denying you access to your office – where you worked from home – so homeless = officeless. AND YOU ARE FIGHTING THIS. Why? When they are causing this and delaying even still, why are YOU fighting this?

MR. HEALY: I’m not arbitrating. Within days of your order being issued, Mrs. Angst wrote a letter to Bruce Goldenberg, the master, with regard to separating property.
MS. ANGST: Distribution of —
MR. HEALY: They have —
MS. ANGST: — this order.
MR. HEALY: — refused to separate property. I’ve been evicted from my home —
THE COURT: Well, wait, wait, wait.
MR. HEALY: — and they —
THE COURT: We’re getting on different issues.
MR. HEALY: — there is no property —
THE COURT: This is the problem. Let’s get back to our issue, here.
MR. HEALY: But, Your Honor —
THE COURT: What does that have to do with transferring the 401(k) plans?
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, it has to do with clean hands doctrine. If they’re —
THE COURT: Oh, Mr. Healy —
MR. HEALY: — going to accuse me —
THE COURT: — you throw that around —
MR. HEALY: If they’re going to accuse me of being in contempt of your order, which I am not, then they have to have clean hands in that matter. And they don’t.


THE COURT: Anything else, Ms. Angst?


MS. ANGST: Yes. My client’s been undergoing lots of repairs to the house so that it could be listed. It is finally listed. Some of the repairs that were necessary were actually covered by the homeowner’s insurance. She has received three checks from the homeowner’s insurance to pay for some of those repairs. What’s the total of the three checks again?
MRS. Healy: It’s 2,500, plus an additional $258.
MS. ANGST: And five cents.

OK, she asked the value of the checks as if she didn;t know them, BUT she knew about the nickel.

MS. ANGST: So there are three checks total, but they are made payable to Mrs. Healy and Mr. Healy. And in order for Mrs. Healy to cash these checks, we need Mr. Healy to sign them.

I agreed to sign them when we met for Arbitration, which is still not scheduled.

We understand that, according to your order of May 9, 2011, any money she paid for repairs would be divided equally between them, and we would obviously agree that it would be less any of the repairs covered by the insurance. So, any insurance money would be deducted before.
THE COURT: Okay. Do we know what the bottom line is, here?
MS. ANGST: For the repairs? To date.
MRS. HEALY: Pretty close. I would have to add it up, but it’s just shy of $12,000. And then we have insurance checks of approximately 2,700 and something.
THE COURT: So you still owe a great deal?
MRS. HEALY: Yeah. That I’ve paid out to get the house ready for sale. The house is up for sale, as of Saturday. It took me 37 days to get it ready, painting and electrical.

37? 37 + 30 = 67. 67 Days is not immediately which was ordered. of course it cost me $2600 a month plus expenses, so immediately doesnt matter to her at all. AND WHO WOULD ENFORCE IT ANYWAY?

THE COURT: That’s good. So you want him to sign this over, and then what are you going to do with the —
MS. ANGST: She will subtract the amount of the insurance reimbursement from the total amount of repairs, to be subtracted from the proceeds before they are divided.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay. I understand.
All right. Mr. Healy, let’s get that done in court today. What we’re going to do is make sure that you’re each going to get credited for the right amount. We need to get these checks cashed.

We’re gonna give you credit. And give her cash.

MR. HEALY: Your Honor, I’m willing to do that once we’ve met with the arbitrator.
THE COURT: No, no, no. I’m asking you to do that today, in court. I’m not waiting for an arbitrator. I don’t even know what you’re talking about, an arbitrator.

The Binding Arbitration was part of her Order. We’ve been talking about the Order for about an hour. Are we dealing with the onset of Alzheimers?

MR. HEALY: Your Honor?
THE COURT: I don’t know what that issue is, it’s nothing to do with me.


I’m going to ask that today, in court, you just take these checks, you sign the back of those checks.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, are you ordering me to sign those checks?
THE COURT: Yes, I am ordering you to sign these checks.
MR. HEALY: Will there be a written order in that effect?
THE COURT: There will not be a written order. It’s on the record. I’m asking that you do this. This is just to allow Mrs. Healy to proceed with selling this house. These funds, they’re going to be accounted for. This is what you need to do, in order to accomplish the ultimate goal of getting you both out of this house and on with your lives.

The Ultimate Goal? Well she succeeded in making me homeless already. I am in this courtroom discussing random things which haven’t been petitioned. I am being Orderd to do things that are not under the jurisdiction of this Court. So much for getting on with our lives.

MR. HEALY: Your Honor?
THE COURT: Mr. Healy, I’m going to ask that you sign these checks here, in front of me.


If not, I can hold you in contempt of court. And I have gentlemen here that are more than willing to escort you downstairs until you sign them.

No Contempt Petition. No Contempt Hearing. No Prior Notice of the Topic. Judge Threatens to Jail Me. Prior to this hearing I knew the Judge would be trying to use any opportunity to jail me It would delay the appeal. It would be emotionally devastating for my mother to witness and for me to live through. No surprise. It’s your courtroom, if you Order it I will do it.

MR. HEALY: Your Honor, I am willing to sign the checks, on your order, as you’ve set on the record today.
THE COURT: Well, I hereby order and decree, this 18th day of July, 2011, that Mr. Terance Healy sign his portion of the insurance checks.


MR. HEALY: Your Honor, may I get copies of these checks?
MS. ANGST: Yes. We have them.
MR. HEALY: And an explanation for the reason behind them?

I do not wish to be a party to her fraudulent insurance claims. And one of them I am suspecting was previously submitted to Liberty Mutual and paid. So the Judge just ordered me to participate in my wife’s latest insurance fraud.

THE COURT: You can have everything —
MR. HEALY: Because I’m unaware of the claims —
THE COURT: Yes, I will make sure you get copies. Mrs. Healy, if you could do that?
MR. HEALY: Can that be so ordered, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Absolutely. Mrs. Healy will comply by providing — we’ll do copies in court today for you, and that there will be an explanation as to what the reimbursements are for, for your reference. You should have that.

Have not seen the Claims yet.

THE COURT CLERK: Your Honor, we’re not clear. Does he want a copy of the front and back of the checks?
THE COURT: I want to have them, in court. I want to make sure we see, in court, we have it on the record that he is receiving —
THE COURT CLERK: We can make them on the same page?
THE COURT: Yes. He is receiving front and back of all these checks. The Court is going to make copies for you, Mr. Healy.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, I don’t know whether it’s worth noting, I am signing those with prejudice. I don’t wish to sign those checks at this time;
however —
THE COURT: I understand, Mr. Healy.
MR. HEALY: However, based on your order, I am doing so.
THE COURT: Thank you. I appreciate that. What else do we have?

There’s too many lies and too much crazy to follow. They basically try to set me up to appear at the house without any paperwork indicating it has been ordered. This means they can have me arrested for violating the invalid order which will be appealed. THIS IS MY LIFE. FOR FIVE YEARS. SETUPS. LIES. THREATS. CONS. MY LIFE.
This ends the annotations for now.

MS. ANGST: The last issue is that Your Honor did order that if personal property was unable to be resolved between the parties, that it would go to binding arbitration with the equitable distribution master.
We did send a letter requesting that be scheduled; we haven’t had any response at this time.
And the only concern is that Mr. Healy did remove a majority of the personal property from the marital residence, there are a few remaining items in the marital residence, most of which Mrs. Healy is not interested in. If the house sells, we want to be able to dispose of the items.
THE COURT: Do you have any problem with the remaining items being disposed, Mr. Healy? Is there anything in there you wanted?
MR. HEALY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What did you want?
MR. HEALY: Would you like an itemized list? If so, I can provide it to the Court at a future time.
THE COURT: What’s in the house? You can have everything in the house, I think.
MS. ANGST: There is a few items —
MRS. HEALY: I want five —
MS. ANGST: — that she’s keeping.
MRS. HEALY: I want five things that he took.
MS. ANGST: That he took.
MRS. HEALY: If he would give me five things, then he can —
THE COURT: Why don’t we do an exchange? What are the five things that you want?
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, if I may? When I was forced out of the house on June 9 of this year, I had barely one day’s notice that this order —
THE COURT: That’s not true at all, Mr. Healy.
MR. HEALY: — that the order —
THE COURT: Right now, I’m going to stop you.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, may I please finish my sentence?
THE COURT: I gave you way more time than I should have —
MR. HEALY: May I —
THE COURT: — given you, notice.
MR. HEALY: May I please finish my sentence? May I please?
THE COURT: Yeah, go ahead.
MR. HEALY: I had barely a full day’s notice that this order was going to be enforced by the local police. It is the first time that a local police have

enforced any Court Order, any contempt, anything. Even though there was no hearing on the contempt. The police made it quite clear that I would be

removed from the house. So I left the house. I left most of my clothes, my bedroom furniture, furniture that belonged to other people —
THE COURT: Mr. Healy, I will make sure you get that stuff back.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor —
THE COURT: Okay? Anything that’s yours —
MR. HEALY: — immediately upon you issuing your order in May of this year, Mrs. Angst wrote a letter to Bruce Goldenberg indicating that they had no

intentions of splitting property. They made it quite clear, without even making an attempt —
THE COURT: Do you have a copy of that letter?
MR. HEALY: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Can you show that to the Court?
MR. HEALY: One second.
THE COURT: I would be curious to see that.
MR. HEALY: Unless Mrs. Angst has it to give to you.
THE COURT: Ms. Angst, let me ask you, did you say you were never going to split any of the property?
MS. ANGST: No, Your Honor. I simply said in accordance with the order of May 9, could you please schedule this matter for a personal property binding

arbitration with you.
MR. HEALY: Without even attempting to contact me, she immediately scheduled with Bruce Goldenberg —
MS. ANGST: Mrs. Healy made attempts —
MR. HEALY: — her indication —
MS. ANGST: — to contact him directly.
THE COURT: Wait. Wait. You cannot speak at the same time.
MR. HEALY: Her indication was, immediately — I think it was Thursday of that week —
THE COURT: So there is no letter that says what you said?
MR. HEALY: There is a letter, Your Honor. I’ll find it. Mrs. Angst is talking about the letter that she wrote to Mr. Goldenberg.
MS. ANGST: Mrs. Healy did make attempts. She would love not to pay further attorney’s fees. And she did make attempts to contact Mr. Healy and just talk

about what he would take with him. She got no response.
MRS. Healy: No response.
MS. ANGST: And so then said to me, “Go ahead and send the letter asking for binding arbitration.” I have no intention of going to the binding

arbitration with her, she’s going to go herself, if we ever get a hearing date. And if we don’t get one before the house is sold, then —
MRS. Healy: I don’t want to pay to store.
MS. ANGST: — we don’t want to have to store anything. We would rather just have him —
MR. HEALY: Your Honor —
MS. ANGST: Obviously, since he didn’t take it — he took most of the furniture. The only thing he left was some of the bedroom furniture and his

clothes, which his brother came back and got 25 bags of his clothes. So, the remaining furniture — there is some small items —
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, it’s not —
THE COURT: What I’ll say is —
MR. HEALY: Can I just —
THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Healy. Wait a second. Mrs. Healy, what I’m going to order is take what it is that’s yours out of there, and what’s left on

the day of settlement, if he hasn’t retrieved it at that point in time, you may sell it or get rid of it.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, I don’t have access to the house. I am —
THE COURT: On the —
MR. HEALY: I was ordered to vacate —
THE COURT: Mrs. Angst will give you access to retrieve personal items.
MS. ANGST: If he contacts us regarding certain things he would like from the marital residence, we would love to be able to ask for certain things of

Mrs. Healy’s that he took that we would like back.
MS. ANGST: So we are more than willing to have that discussion.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor?
THE COURT: Tell me what it is that he took that’s hers.
MRS. HEALY: There is five things that I would love to have.
MRS. HEALY: One is, it’s an antique crosscut saw that was my father’s that was to go to my children.
MRS. HEALY: He specifically knew that. And the text message I got back from Terance is he took it to remember my father by. It’s a crosscut saw.
MS. ANGST: The second item is I’m asking, because of what he all he took, I’d like to have all of the dishes.
MRS. HEALY: Because, with the dishes — some, yes, are marital property, including our China, but a lot of it was given to me by my grandparents, my

mother, and so forth. So he took hundreds of CDs, electronics, all of the good dining room, the living room furniture, all of the good furniture out of

the family room is all gone. So all I ask in return is — I don’t — he can keep it, I don’t want any of that. I just would like to have all of the

dishes back.
THE COURT: Okay. Third?
MRS. Healy: Third item — bear with me a second.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor?
MRS. Healy: So I want the dishes, the crosscut saw. We had three very nice dell’Acqua paintings. He’s taken all three; I’m asking for just one back,

which is of the Olympics. He can keep the ones from Paris. And, you know, I’ll even take the fourth item off. There was a green chair there, an
oversized green chair, and he took the ottoman with it. I would have liked that. But I don’t even need that.
And then he took all the family photo albums and pictures, and I was asking for half of those. And those, we would easily make copies of.
And that’s it.
THE COURT: Okay. That doesn’t sound unreasonable to me.
MRS. Healy: And then —
MR. HEALY: Your Honor —
MRS. HEALY: — I’d like to keep what’s in the house and return to him — I would really like to return to him his office, all of his collectibles that

are in the office, I’d be more than willing to give him all of that back. He’s got a significant amount of CD inventory, when he did these online

businesses. I would love to give him all of that back. So I have no problem with his office and the CDs. But, as far as I’m concerned, of 30 days, when

he took, like I said, the formal dining room, the formal living room, all of this, everything else that’s left — which is predominantly the basement,

toys, and some extra dishes and things like that, and then the garage, I’ll just keep it and take care of it.
THE COURT: Mr. Healy, this doesn’t sound unreasonable.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, it’s not unreasonable; however, they have refused to allow me access to the house.
THE COURT: Okay. But —
MR. HEALY: And she refused to separate the stuff.
THE COURT: Well, what if I order that you get access to the house? What if I —
MR. HEALY: I would appreciate that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: — enter an order? Okay.
MR. HEALY: I would appreciate unfettered access to the house —
THE COURT: well, it’s not going to be unfettered, it’s going to be with a police escort, okay? And it’s going to be during a time and date agreed upon

by Mrs. Healy. It’s got to be that way. But I’ll order you can get in there. But, the thing is, getting access to the house —
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, for five —
THE COURT: — you can get your office collectibles and CDs —
MR. HEALY: For five years, I maintained that house and kept —
THE COURT: Mr. Healy, we’re not going to go back —
MR. HEALY: — and I kept her —
THE COURT: — over old evidence.
Mr. Healy, we’re not going to go back into that again, okay? I’ve heard all that before. You’ve taken —
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, with all due respect —
THE COURT: — from what I hear —
MR. HEALY: — you haven’t heard that.
THE COURT: Mr. Healy, I know all about it. You’ve gone through it I don’t know how many times, in front of me, and I’m sure in front of several other

judges. Is it true you took the formal dining room and all the furniture in there?
MR. HEALY: I did take the formal dining room.
THE COURT: How about the formal living room and all of that furniture?
MR. HEALY: I did not take all of the formal living room, Your Honor.
MS. ANGST: He left a love seat behind.
THE COURT: Okay. All but the love seat?
MRS. HEALY: Yeah. The arm was chewed by —
THE COURT: Is that true, Mr. Healy?
MR. HEALY: I took an end table, a coffee table —
THE COURT: I’m just asking, is it true, everything but the love seat, you took?
MR. HEALY: No, Your Honor, not everything.
THE COURT: Okay. You took most of what was in the formal living room?
MR. HEALY: I took most of the dining room and formal living room, yes.
THE COURT: Now, what else did he take?
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, those were the marital property to be split. Mrs.Healy —
THE COURT: Yeah, but it wasn’t split, was it?
MR. HEALY: Mrs. Healy —
THE COURT: To be split. Was it split, Mr. Healy?
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, with all due respect —
THE COURT: Excuse me. I’m asking you a question. You just said to me it was marital property to be split, and yet, you took it all.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor —
THE COURT: Now you’re not letting her get back her father’s saw?
MR. HEALY: Your Honor —
THE COURT: Mr. Healy, no. I’m asking you a question. It was to be split.
MR. HEALY: Her father’s saw was —
THE COURT: Did you split it with her?
MR. HEALY: Sonya’s father’s saw was —
THE COURT: I asked you —
MR. HEALY: — a gift to me.
THE COURT: — a question, Mr. Healy.
MR. HEALY: I have attempted to split property with her on numerous occasions.
MR. HEALY: They have —
THE COURT: The answer is no.
MR. HEALY: — filed over 26 petitions with regard to property, in the 300 petitions that are on the file. They have filed —
THE COURT: Yeah. And that means 26 are hers. And out of 300, how many are yours?
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, most of them are my replies. Again —
THE COURT: Oh, Mr. Healy.
MR. HEALY: — order what you may.
THE COURT: I have to —
MR. HEALY: And let’s move on —
THE COURT: — tell you something —
MR. HEALY: — with a final order, Your Honor, because this is going to go to appeal. I apologize for that. And, if there was a hearing on the matter, we

could get to the bottom.
THE COURT: We’re going to have a hearing on the sanctions. That’s it.
MR. HEALY: Well, I’d like a hearing on Mrs. Angst’s allegations, because they’re not true, they’re unfounded, and they’re baseless.
THE COURT: Well, that seems to be your baseline.
MR. HEALY: And they’re vexatious.
THE COURT: I wish — you know what? For your sake, if you would just consult an attorney, it would make your life so much easier. I have to tell you

that. You’re wasting so much of this Court’s time and so much of Mrs. Healy’s and Ms. Angst’s time.
MR. HEALY: I apologize, Your Honor —
THE COURT: I can’t even begin —
MR. HEALY: — if you believethat.
THE COURT: — to explain it to you. Are you going to agree to give her her father’s saw?
MR. HEALY: Her father’s saw was a gift to me.
THE COURT: It was a yes/no question. Will you return her father’s saw to her?
MR. HEALY: If it means that much to her, yes.
THE COURT: Thank you —
MR. HEALY: For my —
THE COURT: — very much.
MR. HEALY: — children’s sake.
THE COURT: How about —
MR. HEALY: If she’s —
THE COURT: How about —
MR. HEALY: Your Honor —
THE COURT: Excuse me. I’m asking questions. I don’t need to hear another word from you. How about her dishes — all the dishes, the marital property,

whatever they are. Can you return to her all of the dishes? Do you care about the dishes?
MR. HEALY: I’d like to know what the purpose of me not getting any dishes is.
THE COURT: The same purpose as with her not getting any of the formal dining room and most of the living room. Okay? She’s giving you this major

MR. HEALY: Your honor?
THE COURT: All she’s asking for —
MR. HEALY: Your Honor?
THE COURT: — are a few items —
MR. HEALY: Your Honor?
THE COURT: — Mr. Healy.
MR. HEALY: On October 20, 2007, Sonya came and picked up half of the kitchenware, half of the dishes, and half of the items.
THE COURT: All she’s asking for —
MR. HEALY: She then proceeded to file 8 to 20 more petitions, requesting the same items that she’s already taken.
THE COURT: Eight to twenty —
MR. HEALY: Which are catalogued.
THE COURT: — more petitions? Do we have that, Mrs. Angst?
MS. ANGST: No, Your Honor. I don’t know what —
THE COURT: I’ve never seen them.
MS. ANGST: — he’s referring to.
THE COURT: I don’t know what —
MS. ANGST: We’ve never —
THE COURT: — you’re talking about.
MS. ANGST: — filed a petition —
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, if we’d have a hearing, I could document it. I could prove it to you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: We don’t need to. I’ve got the docket. I am the court. If she filed a petition, it would be here. I don’t understand where
you’re coming from.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, you don’t understand where I’m coming from, because you haven’t had a hearing on the matters. We’ll leave it at that. I don’t

want to make it a personal — I did hand you the letter, showing that Mrs. Angst was not cooperating. Judge Bertin had additionally, in 2009, ordered a

day where Sonya could come and split up items at the house. She refused to do that. She refused to follow that order. Judge Bertin didn’t hold her in

contempt, because he was hoping to make that an option.
THE COURT: This letter doesn’t say what you said it said. You said she refused to work — it doesn’t say that.
MR. HEALY: The letter was issued within days of your order, indicating that she didn’t plan to comply with the order.
THE COURT: That’s not what it says.
MR. HEALY: It’s immediately requesting —
MS. ANGST: Yeah, but —
MR. HEALY: — arbitration.
THE COURT: The theory is that you’re not complying with the order, I think.
MR. HEALY: But how can I comply with the order when they’ve already requested before they even asked, Your Honor?
MS. ANGST: My client —
MR. HEALY: The order was issued —
MS. ANGST: — made attempts to ask directly.
MR. HEALY: The order was issued on May 9. Two hours after I received this letter in the mail, I got a text message from my wife saying, Why don’t we

just get together and split things?
MS. ANGST: Exactly.
MR. HEALY: To which I replied, “Why did your attorney already file paperwork?” Mrs. Angst has done this repeatedly, for the last five years.
THE COURT: Wait a minute. You just said here, in court, that she said let’s split things, let’s get together and work it out.
MR. HEALY: She said that after requesting the arbitration, Your Honor.
THE COURT: But that’s a different issue.
MR. HEALY: Her intent was quite clear. She didn’t want to do it —
THE COURT: Mr. Healy —
MR. HEALY: She wanted to bring it back into court —
THE COURT: — see, this is where your lack of having an attorney puts you at a disadvantage.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, there is a reason I don’t have an attorney, and that’s not a matter for this Court today. However, if you’d like —
THE COURT: You know, it would have been cheaper for you to have hired somebody than it’s going to be to pay your sanctions, I’m going to
tell you right now. Sadly. How about the dell’Acqua painting, the one with the Olympics? You can keep two, just give her one.
MR. HEALY: I believe —
THE COURT: That gives you more than 50 percent.
MR. HEALY: That’s fine, Your Honor. Is there anything that I can get back from her that she’s taken from me?
THE COURT: Well, let me finish these, please. How about the pictures, all the photo albums? Are you willing to —
MR. HEALY: I have not removed all of the photo albums from the house, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The ones that you have, are you willing to share half of them with her?
MR. HEALY: Of course, Your Honor. Those are our family memories.
THE COURT: How about the green ottoman that goes with the chair?
MR. HEALY: Again, fine.
THE COURT: Okay. Wonderful. So he’s agreeing to give back, on the record, in court today, those five items that you requested.
MR. HEALY: Excuse me, Your Honor.
MR. HEALY: I am opposed to the word “give back,” because it was —
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HEALY: I removed —
THE COURT: What word should —
MR. HEALY: — my property from the house.
THE COURT: What word should I use?
MR. HEALY: “Return to the house.”
THE COURT: Okay. He’s willing to return to the house the five items that Mrs. Healy requested.
Now — and then you can get all of — everything in your office. If you want anything in the basement, you can get all of that, you can get all of your

MRS. Healy: The basement, I would like to — I mean, a lot of that is my children’s things.
THE COURT: Oh, okay. I’m sorry.
MRS. Healy: So, I mean, definitely all his office, and anything that was not — that’s his. There was a couple things in there, and it’s mostly

documents. I guess I could even give him, like, purchase of the house, and things like that. But anything that’s his business-related and his keepsakes.

He had a lot of collections.
THE COURT: Yeah, I think he should get all his collections back —
MRS. Healy: I’ll give him —
THE COURT: — all his collectibles, absolutely.
MRS. HEALY: — all his collections, I have no issue with that. I have that all packed up, actually, it’s ready to go. And his inventory from his online

business. It’s ready — I could deliver that —
THE COURT: How do you want to do that? How do you want to arrange for the transport of these things?
MRS. Healy: I could put that out on the porch. It’s all neatly boxed. I could put that out on —
MS. ANGST: You know what, you’re having showings, aren’t you?
MR. HEALY: Your Honor?
MRS. HEALY: I am having showings.
MS. ANGST: Why don’t you take it to his mother’s residence? Could you do that?
MRS. HEALY: If John would be willing — he’s got a big van — to come over? I’d
be more than willing to put it in John’s —
MR. HEALY: Your Honor?
THE COURT: John? Are you his brother?
MR. HEALY: Excuse me.
DEPUTY SHERIFF: Sir, not when she’s talking, okay?
MR. HEALY: I understand.
THE COURT: It just makes it hard, because the court reporter can’t get us all down.
MR. HEALY: Okay. I don’t understand why, if she’s now negotiating with my brother’s van —
THE COURT: Well, I think what we’re trying to do — we’re just trying to —
MR. HEALY: We’re trying —
THE COURT: Mr. Healy, what we’re trying to do is resolve this in an amicable way.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor?
THE COURT: Your brother is good enough to just say yes, I have a van, I’m willing to work with you. Let’s work with this, okay? This is stuff to be

returned to you. I thought —
MR. HEALY: Your Honor?
THE COURT: — you wanted these items.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, with all due respect, I would appreciate the opportunity for any of the hearings that I have requested.
THE COURT: You have had every hearing you’re entitled to, with the exception of a
hearing on sanctions.
MR. HEALY: Then can —
THE COURT: I will schedule that
today before we leave.
MR. HEALY: — we simply move on,
Your Honor?
THE COURT: I’m sorry?
MR. HEALY: The items that she has packed for me, I don’t know what they are.
THE COURT: If you don’t want them, throw them away.
MR. HEALY: That is not —
MRS. HEALY: Throw them away. I don’t care.
MR. HEALY: That is not distribution of assets. I should be able to list out the items that I believe are mine, which is what I planned for arbitration.
THE COURT: Well, let me ask you another question.
MR. HEALY: And also get discovery of what the items I left in the house.
THE COURT: Can I ask you a question?
MR. HEALY: That she hasn’t removed.
THE COURT: It doesn’t sound like there is a whole bunch of items she’s keeping out of all of this. Are there certain things she’s got you think you’re

entitled to? I hate to have you guys go through arbitration at this point —
THE COURT: — if we can resolve it today. And I want to resolve this for you so you can move on. Mr. Healy, your intent over the last five, eight years

— How long has it been, Ms. Angst?
MS. ANGST: Four years.
THE COURT: — four years, has been to prolong this as long as you possibly can.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, there is no —
THE COURT: You come up with things —
MR. HEALY: — evidence to that —
THE COURT: — that are not real issues and that just isn’t —
MR. HEALY: There is no evidence —
THE COURT: Mr. Healy, I’m speaking. There are no issues here that are real issues. They just don’t exist.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, I accept your ruling.
THE COURT: Now, we need to work together to resolve this. And I’m willing to spend this time. This is a short list; usually, I spend 15 minutes with

people. I’ve now spent far over that amount of time. If we can resolve this, I’ll spend another half an hour with you. I don’t care. But I want this to

go away, for both you and Mrs. Healy. This does — and your family. You’ve got your family here. To drag them through this any more is painful.
It’s painful for everybody in this courtroom. Nobody wants to see this go on anymore.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, I respectfully request your rulings in these matters and the state law that applies to these rulings, and we can move forward

from there. Again, I’m not trying to be difficult and I’m trying not to be unreasonable —
THE COURT: Okay. What I’d like to do —
MR. HEALY: However, if we’re going to do this in accordance with Commonwealth, state, Pennsylvania law —
THE COURT: Do you want to know the funny thing, Mr. Healy? You’re not doing this in accordance with the law at all. I’m doing it in accordance with the

law, you aren’t. You’re writing your own laws.
MR. HEALY: I accept that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, you’ve agreed to return these five things. Are you still in agreement with that? What I’d like to do is maybe we can arrange a time when

you can bring those five things and you can pick up your items, okay? Can you do that?
MR. HEALY: You may, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to get a date and time now?
MRS. Healy: The only thing that might cause a problem is we do have showings; but, actually, I can ensure we don’t have a showing.
THE COURT: Yeah, that’s what’s good about picking a day and time that works for everybody.
MRS. HEALY: This weekend? Does this weekend work for you?

MR. JOHN HEALY: We’re actually going away Saturday. Any evening is good.
MRS. HEALY: Friday evening?
MR. JOHN HEALY: All right.
MRS. HEALY: Friday evening.
THE COURT: Okay. This Friday, which would be July 22. What time?
MRS. HEALY: Seven? Seven o’clock.
THE COURT: 7 p.m. Mr. Healy will be — how do you want to work this? Do you want to have him bring —
MRS. HEALY: If John could bring these five items over? And then we’ll just unload them and then I’ll give him —
THE COURT: So Mr. Healy or John, himself, however you want to work it, Mr. Healy, can come to the residence with these five items. At that
point in time, once those items are put into the house, all of your items can be taken out and put into the van. Okay?
MRS. HEALY: Which will be the office. And is there anything else, Terance, that you want?
THE COURT: CD collections and your office. Is there anything else —
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, I don’t have the itemized list of the items in the house and I don’t have the itemized list of the items in the garage that I

have been denied access to.
MS. ANGST: Well, Your Honor, he lived in the house —
MR. HEALY: I was under the —
MS. ANGST: — for four years before he moved out. And when he moved out, he took the living room furniture, all of the dining room furniture. He had

time to get all that, and he doesn’t know what was in the —
THE COURT: Okay. Is there —
MR. HEALY: Your Honor —
THE COURT: — something you know of today you can tell me you want?
MR. HEALY: I want most of my tools out of my garage, my lawn mower, my bicycle.
MRS. HEALY: He can have his bicycle.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, it’s disrespectful to expect you to sit here and listen to the content of each drawer in the house.
THE COURT: You know, Mr. Healy —
MR. HEALY: It really is.
THE COURT: — if I can prevent you from having to drag yourselves back into court again, I don’t mind doing that.
MR. HEALY: But, Your Honor, it’s not me that’s dragging us here. We’re here because they refuse to do any property splits —
THE COURT: No, we’re here because of your motions. Sorry, but we’re —
MR. HEALY: Okay.
THE COURT: — here because of your motions.
MR. HEALY: But we’ve ignored —
THE COURT: That’s what got us here.
MR. HEALY: But we’ve ignored my motions, haven’t we, Your Honor?
THE COURT: No. No. No.
MR. HEALY: We’re spending time —
THE COURT: Your motions were —
MR. HEALY: We’re spending time on their allegations —
THE COURT: — moot.
MR. HEALY: — of contempt, which are baseless and unfounded.
THE COURT: I’m going to tell you right now. I went through a good 15, 20 minutes of addressing each one of your motions, Mr. Healy. They
were not ignored. They were each dealt with, as they have been more times than I can tell you.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor —
MR. HEALY: — I respectfully accept your rulings as final rulings today and move forward from there.
THE COURT: Thank you. I appreciate that.
MR. HEALY: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Why don’t you, as much as you can give him back, give him back, on that date and time. If there is anything else in the house, maybe you can

provide an accounting of what else is left at that point in time?
MRS. HEALY: Yeah. I mean, there is tools. And I’m asking — he took all of the electronics, hundreds of CDs, all of the good furniture — I mean, what

I’m left with is a garage of tools and the riding lawn mower. If he wants the riding lawn mower, I’ll give him the riding lawn mower.
THE COURT: You know, Mr. Healy, what we can do is we can say, You know what, let’s just split everything. You give back half of the furniture and she’ll

give you half of the tools.
MR. HEALY: Your Honor?
THE COURT: Do you want to do that?
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, Mrs. Healy has already removed half of the furniture once.
MRS. HEALY: It all came back.
MR. HEALY: On October 20 of 2007 —
THE COURT: Yeah, but it was ordered to be put back into the house, if I’m —
MR. HEALY: No, it was —
THE COURT: — not mistaken.
MR. HEALY: — not, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes, it was.
MR. HEALY: No, Your Honor, it was not.
MS. ANGST: She returned it by agreement.
MR. HEALY: The order of September 6 —
MS. ANGST: She returned it voluntarily.
MR. HEALY: No. The order of September 6, 2007, by Judge Toby Dickman, indicated that Sonya would pick up furniture items that she needed out of the

house. They’re referring to the items from the burglary; those, they were ordered to return. But that was six months later. That was the second dip.

That was the second time they came back for half the assets. Now they’re coming back for half the assets for a third time.
MRS. HEALY: Can I describe what I got in October?
MRS. HEALY: It was —
MR. HEALY: Your Honor, she doesn’t have to describe it.
THE COURT: I want to hear —
MR. HEALY: It’s part of the —
THE COURT: — what she’s going to tell me.
MR. HEALY: — court order.
MRS. HEALY: In October, what I was given was my bedroom set, which I purchased before marriage. And he didn’t give me the mattress. I was given my

parents’ — because they were moved into a retirement center — I was given my parents’ kitchen table and chairs and their couch that we were
storing for them.
THE COURT: Okay. So that wasn’t even marital property.
MRS. HEALY: I had no marital property, because even the bedroom set we used, it was our bedroom set, but I purchased before we were married. And the

kitchen and the couch was all my parents’. The dishes that he gave me — he says half of the dishes — they were things that we put in the basement, I

don’t even know why we had them. Nothing good came that day. And, like I said, I didn’t —
MR. HEALY: Your Honor —
MRS. HEALY: — even get a mattress.
MR. HEALY: — I’ve got a catalog of items that she picked up that day. I’d gladly present it to the Court.
MRS. HEALY: Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely, he has.
THE COURT: I don’t really relish — I mean, this is not —
MR. HEALY: I don’t either, but for her —
THE COURT: It’s not for me to go through and pick your plates out, guys.
MR. HEALY: For Mrs. Healy —
MRS. HEALY: Exactly.
THE COURT: Let’s sit down and act like adults and deal with this. She’s willing to say to you, look, all the furniture you took, keep it, just give me

back these few items. Let me have half of the tools. To me, this is very reasonable, Mr. Healy. Why don’t you try to sit down and think about this and

see whether or not you can do this?
MR. HEALY: That’s fine, Your Honor.
THE COURT: On Friday evening, let’s see what gets exchanged. I’m going to schedule a trial date for the sanctions. It shouldn’t take very long.
MR. HEALY: And, Your Honor, you’re denying my list for discovery based on the sanctions?
MR. HEALY: Is that ordered on the record or …
THE COURT: Everything is on the record. I can’t get you in. I’m scheduling in December. Let me just double-check, if I can get you in sooner. It’s

ridiculous to wait that long. Okay. I can squeeze you in August 1, which is a Monday — it’s really soon — for a sanction hearing. How’s that work for

you guys?
MS. ANGST: It’s not going to work for me. I’m sorry.
THE COURT: It’s not going to work for you?
MS. ANGST: I’m actually completely booked for the weeks I’m in in August, because I’m off for two weeks.
THE COURT: This is the only window I have, this little window.
MS. ANGST: Okay.
THE COURT: And then I have Friday, September 23. I might be able to give you a little bit of time on that day.
MS. ANGST: The only question I have, then, do you know if that conflicts with the Jewish holidays? Usually, that’s why that day’s
THE COURT: The first day of Rosh Hashanah is the 29th.
MS. ANGST: Okay.
THE COURT: So does that mean the week before is good?
THE COURT: Okay. Friday, the 23rd, let’s say 10:30. Okay? I’ll give you 10:30 to 12. Does that work for you? Mr. Healy?
MR. HEALY: I can make that work, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. That’s going to be Mrs. Angst’s petition for sanctions. It’s a counterpetition for sanctions, filed July 14, 2011.
Okay. Anything else we need to address today?
MR. HEALY: I still haven’t gotten the copies of those checks, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Where are those copies?
THE COURT CLERK: Ms. Angst has them.
MS. ANGST: You gave me the copies? Oh, I’m sorry. I thought they were my copies.
THE COURT CLERK: No. Do you want a copy?
THE TIPSTAFF: No, that’s only one.
THE COURT CLERK: We only did one copy.
MS. ANGST: That’s fine.
MS. ANGST: We don’t need copies of the backs. We have the originals.
THE COURT: Thank you. So, in open court, we see he does have copies of the checks that he signed. And I appreciate you signing them. Okay. Is there

anything else?
MS. ANGST: I believe that’s it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. And thank you for working with the van. Have a good evening.
MS. ANGST: Thank you.
MR. HEALY: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor.
(At 4:09 p.m., proceedings were concluded)

I hereby certify that the
proceedings and evidence are contained fully and
accurately in the notes taken by me in the above cause
and that this is a correct transcript of the same.
Amy Beth Boyer, R.P.R.
Official Court Reporter

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: