Sonya Healy : #2007-12477
v. :
Terance Healy :


The following is an outline of the malicious actions and impact of Judge Carolyn Carluccio.

Since the case began, and was reassigned and addressed by 8 judges, there has not been a judge who went more willingly into the corruption, ethics violations and conspiracy than Judge Carluccio.

Judge Carluccio embraced her role and acted with an enthusiasm and malice completely devoid of the trust placed in her by the people of Montgomery County.

There has been no justice, no respect and no law in her courtroom.

December 2010

1. Judge Carluccio is assigned the case in early December, one month after the Recusal of Judge Stephen Barrett.

2. There are several petitions awaiting hearings. (Docket #210, #211, #214, #226, #227, #240, #241, #261)

3. Judge Carluccio receives an inappropriate ex parte communication from Angst & Angst.

4. Judge Carluccio, when presented with the lawyers ethical violation, failed to act in accordance with the Code of Judicial Ethics and becomes a party to the ethical violation.

5. Defendant petitioned the court for the ex parte document. (Docket #272) Filed as an Emergency, Judge Carluccio promptly denied the petition without explanation. (Docket #273) THERE WAS NO HEARING ON THE MATTER.

6. Defendant also petition for the ex parte documents which were exchanged with the prior judges in this matter. (Docket #271) THERE WAS NO HEARING ON THE MATTER.

January 2011

7. Judge Carluccio, during her January Short List, refuses to permit the Defendant any opportunity to address the petitions he had filed. Judge Carluccio, indicates she has no time on her schedule for hearings, and Orders hearings for June 1-2, 2011. (Docket #282 regarding #210, #211, #214, #226, #227, #240, #261) Omitted, without explanation, from the scheduling Order is #241 which is regarding ex parte communication between Angst & Angst and Judge Emanuel Bertin.

This was an intentional six month delay in the resolution of the financial and health matters, but the Judge is in control of her schedule.

This scheduling tactic had been played out so many times by the Masters and Judges that it was becoming insulting that they would continue the delaying game as if the Defendant actually believed their statements. Defendant could do nothing about the Courts schedule. Every Judge has played this feigned “sorry, there are no openings any sooner’ scheduling game.

February 2011

8. Angst & Angst file an Emergency Petition. (Docket #283)

Strangely, it is not filed electronically. All petitions filed by Angst & Angst since 2008 have been filed electronically.

9. The EMERGENCY Petition is mailed to the Prothonotary and received by the Prothonotary on February 24, 2011.

March 2011

10. The EMERGENCY Petition is not processed by the Prothonotary until March 1, 2011. A delay of one week processing an EMERGENCY Petition.

11. The corresponding Certificate of Service is filed ELECTRONICALLY on March 2, 2011. (Docket #284)

12. On March 3, 2011, Judge Carluccio grants the EMERGENCY and schedules a hearing on March 9, 2011. (Docket #285)

13. Defendant received the Petition on March 4, 2011, and the Scheduling Order on March 5, 2011.

14. This did not permit a great amount of time to prepare and file a response. That was the intent.

It is worth noting that the quick scheduling of the Petition was intentional. Angst & Angst had not filed any petition to which the Defendant could respond with a counterpetition since December 2009.

Judge Bertin had ordered a Response and Counterpetition separated in August 2009.

In December 2009, Judge Bertin heard the testimony and evidence regarding the petition (the re-filed counter). Judge Bertin ruled that the issues were ‘not cognizable’, offered no explanation as he could not ethically provide legal advice.

Judge Bertin dismissed the petition and ordered the Defendant to pay sanctions.

NOT COGNIZABLE indicated that since the issues were not directly relating to Family Court issues, the Family Court could not address them.

IF HOWEVER, the counterpetition had not be re-filed as ordered by Judge Bertin, it would have been cognizable because it was connected to a Family Court Issue.

The Defendant had been anticipating the opportunity to respond and counterpetition might arise again. The Defendant was able to assemble a Response and Counterpetition and file it on March 8, 2011.

15. The Defendant filed the Response and Counterpetition on March 8, 2011. (Docket #286)

16. The Response and Counterpetition documented the injustices of the Court since August 2007. The document was organized, clearly written, and included a Table Of Contents listing the major issues to be presented. It was also not a complete listing, there were more issues to be documented, however, time did not permit everything to be filed before the Emergency Hearing on March 9, 2011.

17. On March 9, 2011, Judge Carluccio was demonstrating a level of corruption, malice and fraud which could not be ignored.

18. The Hearing did not take place because as soon as Judge Carluccio was caught in several lies and intimidation tactics, she ended the proceeding and indicated it would be continued.

19. Judge Carluccio issued an Order which had nothing to do with the EMERGENCY issues before her. (Docket #287)

20. On March 10, 2011, Judge Carluccio issued an Order which wrongly paraphrased and completely misrepresented the proceeding from the day prior.

21. Judge Carluccio ordered an Equitable Distribution Hearing for March 29, 2011.
Equitable Distribution is not supposed to occur until all other petitions have been resolved. Scheduling the ED Hearing before all of the others would make them difficult to pursue. I believe this was their intent.

22. On March 16, 2011, the Defendant filed a Petition for Judge Carluccio to Recuse herself from the case. The title of the document sums the request up succinctly. PETITION FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE CAROLYN TORNETTA CARLUCCIO FOR CONSPIRACY, CORRUPTION, FRAUD, INTIMIDATION, CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS / PROCEDURE AND DENIAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS. (Docket #289)

23. On March 29, 2011, Judge Carluccio denied the petition without any hearing. Judge Carluccio did not recuse or distribute an Order indicating her denial.

24. On March 29, 2011, Defendant began by asking the Court to address the issue of the June 1-2, 2011 protracted hearings.

25. The hearings had been removed from the schedule on the court website without any notice.

26. Emails/Praecipes to Court Administration had been issued and not distributed to the parties. The secret praecipes had rescheduled the hearings for March 29, 2011.

27. Judge Carluccio indicated that scheduling issue was an error.

28. Judge Carluccio reaffirmed the purpose of the March 29th proceeding was Equitable Distribution and NOT the outstanding petitions.

29. Over the course of the Equitable Distribution hearing, Defendant raised the issues relating to the outstanding petitions and was repeatedly reassured by Judge Carluccio that those hearings would occur.

30. At the end of the day, Defendant reminded Judge Carluccio about the unscheduling of the hearings where upon Judge Carluccio issued an Order scheduling the Protracted Hearings for May 5, 2011. (Docket #291)

It is interesting to note that these proceedings had been rescheduled so frequently and for multiple days.

Judge Carluccio had no time on her schedule for these matters on January 10 when she pushed them out for six months.

Time has been wasted on multiple proceedings where nothing has been heard or resolved.

Judge Carluccio orders the 2 days of protracted hearings originally set for June 1-2, 2011 to be held in 1/2 day on May 5, 2011.

April 2011

31. On April 14, 2011, Judge Carluccio issues her next Order (Docket #294) without any proceeding, incorrectly renaming the petitions she is addressing, and ‘disposing’ of the petitions. The Order includes a footnote attributing the listing of misnamed petitions to the response/counterpetition from March 8, 2011.

32. Judge Carluccio refers to her having conducted a lengthy review of the docket, but the Divorce Clerk records indicate the judge did not have the file from the Prothonotary at the time.

33. The file being promptly returned to the Prothonotary on March 30, 2011.

34. At this point in time the docket had almost 300 entries, a review of the docket without the printed copies would have been EXTREMELY time consuming.

35. Defendant also had repeatedly indicated that the hearings had not taken place and the issues were outstanding.

Yes, the defendant does understand. THEY DO NOT WANT TO HAVE THESE HEARINGS. Any hearing on the matters would permit the introduction of evidence of the injustices, extrinsic fraud and the corruption of the judiciary assigned to the matter.

Judge Carluccio is revealing her active participation in the obstruction of justice.

36. Bear in mind, the Defendant has no choice but to continue to seek justice from a Court which is determined to act in an improper, unethical and corrupt manner. If the defendant fails to point out these ‘indiscretions’, Defendant might not be permitted to present them to a higher court when the time comes. The Court has acted with intent to prevent any order from being appealed. THE COURT HAS FAILED TO MAKE ANY TIMELY DECISIONS RELATING TO THE CASE.

37. On April 26, 2011, Defendant again petitions for the hearings to be scheduled. (Docket #295)

38. On April 29, 2011, Judge Carluccio DENIED that petition without any proceeding further basing her Order on an additional review of the docket. (Docket #296)

May 2011

39. On May 3, 2011, as the Judge’s April 14th order did not correctly title the petitions which she was ‘disposing’ of, Defendant stopped at the courthouse to check with Court Administration regarding the schedule for Thursday May 5, 2011. Interestingly, the court web site was still listing the hearings as scheduled. The renaming issue also could have created further confusion.

40. Court Administration contacted the Judge who indicated there were no hearings scheduled. When asked by Court Admin, the Judge refused to issue any order confirming the cancellation.

41. Defendant had the impression that the goal was for him to not show up at the hearing. The Judge would legitimately dismiss the petition for a no-show. Once Equitable Distribution has been heard, it is too late to introduce any new petitions, so the petitions could not procedurally be re-filed.

42. On May 4, 2011, Defendant received a copy of a letter from Angst & Angst to Judge Carluccio asking about the schedule for May 5, 2011. Angst & Angst had faxed it to Judge Carluccio on May 3.

That evening, Defendant checked the court web site and there was an Order issued by the Judge on May 3rd, but not docketed until May 4th. Defendant did not have a copy of this order and had not been contacted regarding the schedule.

If Defendant didn’t show up, the petitions could all be cancelled.

If Defendant showed up and everyone was there for hearing(s), the tactic would be revealed.

Defendant needed to be ready for nine potential hearings.

If Defendant showed up and no one was there for the hearing(s), then Angst & Angst had information which Defendant did not receive.

Defendant had no choice but to prepare and go to the scheduled hearing, and the Defendant did.

43. On May 5, 2011, Defendant arrived at the Courtroom 5 minutes before the time scheduled.

44. No one was there.

45. Defendant was advised by the Judge’s assistant that the hearing had been cancelled by an order on May 3rd. Defendant was then given a copy of the Order, and left.

46. On the way out of the courthouse Defendant stopped at Court Administration to update them on the last minute Cancellation Order.

47. Defendant and his mother were then surrounded by seven deputies and asked to leave the courthouse. They further indicated that ‘If I did not have business in the courthouse, I should not be there.’

48. When Defendant showed the deputies the scheduling order, they were confused at why they were mislead.

49. Court Admin confirmed the Defendant’s information to the deputies.

50. Deputies indicated they were responding to a false report from the judge that the Defendant threatened her.

The deputies have a job to do. The Defendant understands and respects that.

The deputies also know the Defendant because he has been coming into the courthouse regularly since 2007.

The deputies know the Defendant is not violent – Defendant is also half their size.

The deputies knew they had been given bad information, however they have a job to do.

At the Defendant’s suggestion, an agreement was reached. Defendant would stop and request a deputy escort me whenever he had any business in the courthouse.Deputies agreed.

That is what has occurred ever since. While it is completely unnecessary, it permits the deputies to do their job responsibilities without compromising their careers.

The deputies have to respond to false reports.

51. On May 9, 2011, Defendant had to return to the Prothonotary to provide a document which needed to be re-scanned. The Defendant stopped to visit the divorce file, and was informed that the sign-out sheet was no longer available and now considered an “Internal Use Only” Document.

The sign-out sheet indicates that Judge Carluccio did not have the files or any of the documents during her “lengthy” and “additional review” of the docket to which she refers in her Orders of April 14, 2011 and April 29, 2011.

52. On May 9, 2011, Defendant also docketed several documents which pertain to the case but somehow have not been docketed or have been removed from the docket.

53. On May 9, 2011, Judge Carluccio issued an Order granting a divorce to parties who had neglected to request a divorce, and ordering a malicious and cruel equitable distribution.

54. The errors in the Order prevent it being appealed on a timely basis, and would return it to Judge Carluccio’s courtroom.

55. The Defendant found the errors and petitioned for them to be resolved.

June 2011

56. Judge Carluccio delayed for months while her order made the Defendant homeless, without medical or dental benefits, and permitted the Plaintiff to vandalise and destroy the Defendant’s home (and bill the Defendant for her actions).

July 2011


58. At a Short List Hearing on July 18, 2011, Judge Carluccio further revealed her malice and cruelty.

59. Judge Carluccio also said out loud and on the record that the Order was indeed her Final Order, and that she no longer had jurisdiction in the case. She then went on to schedule another hearing to punish the defendant for petitioning her court to enforce court orders.

60. Judge Carluccio is currently sitting on the appeal paperwork and preventing the Appeal from being filed.

61. There is 5 years permitted for the Appeal.

62. Judge Carluccio is delaying to permit the sale of Defendant’s home which was ordered on a defective order and after committing considerable extrinsic fraud.

63. Judge Carluccio’s malice and cruelty is boundless.


64. This is not the case of a sad divorcee. This is the case of a terroristic divorce.

65. A case gone horribly awry because the Plaintiff’s lawyer told her client to commit a federal crime.

66. Once discovered the case became more about the Defendant’s survival, as the lawyer manipulated everyone in a position to help into wrongful actions.

67. Then the lawyer exposed the wrongdoing, and the actions were covered up by the judiciary.

68. Judge Carolyn Carluccio has fallen into the trap which has affected the other judges.

69. Judge Carluccio has acted with clear malice and cruelty to the victim of 6 years of injustice.

70. Judge Carluccio is above the law. The judge can do whatever the judge wants.

71. That is not the justice that the US is fighting for worldwide.

72. Bring the troops home. The justice system is under attack from the very ones who have been trusted to ensure “liberty and justice for all.”

73. Through Judge Carluccio’s own words and actions she has been exposed.

74. She has disgraced the judiciary.

75. The Defendant has also asked that the following JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD Complaints be re-opened and re-investigated as they are directly related.
JCB Complaint# 2009-099 Judge Tilson
JCB Complaint # 2010-447 Judge Daniele
JCB Complaint # 2010-448 Judge Bertin
JCB Complaint # 2010-449 Judge Tilson
JCB Complaint # 2010-450 Judge Del Ricci

76. The actions of Judge Carolyn Carluccio are intended to destroy the Defendant and prevent any further reports of the injustices committed against him.

77. Since becoming a victim of Judge Rhonda Daniele’s secret order, there has been a clearly unjust ruling on EVERY petition filed.

78. As the petitions were seeking enforcement of existing Court Orders, there is no other place to turn than to the court.

79. The victim of the injustice is forced to return to a corrupt court to seek justice.



Terance Healy

I verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I inderstand that false statements herein are made subject to the Penalties of P.A. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: