PDF Version with Exhibits
DOCKET# 2007-12477-365


SONYA HEALY : #2007-12477
v. :



1. The Defendant has been homeless since June 9, 2011.

2. The Defendant is destitute and has been unemployed since March 2007.

3. The failure to address and resolve the matter continues to have a severe personal, professional and financial impact on the Defendant.

4. Two attorney’s, after hearing an overview of the matter, have raised concerns for the Defendant’s safety and well-being. They were not available to take the case, and have been unable to recommend another attorney.

5. Defendant’s last attorney, who withdrew from the matter after only a few weeks, was experiencing death threats which were investigated by Montgomery County Detectives.

6. Defendant, while residing at his mother’s residence has observed people, whom the Defendant believes to be private investigators, conducting surveillance, stalking, intruding the home’s computer network and other technology, and also vandalizing the property.

7. Defendant has been followed while driving on several occasions.

8. Defendant finds the failure of the matter to be resolved according to procedure and law to be intimidating and threatening to his personal safety, and the safety of persons around him.


9. On July 10, 2012, Judge Richard Haaz issued an order for Court administration to schedule a hearing on this matter. Exhibit A

10. On August 13, 2012, the Defendant sent a letter regarding the failure to schedule the hearing as ordered by Judge Haaz. The letter was sent to Judge Haaz; Michael Kehs, Court Administrator; Cheryl Leslie, Family Court Administrator; and Angst & Angst, who represent the Plaintiff. Exhibit B

11. There has been no response from any of the addressees/recipients to the Defendant’s letter regarding the schedule.

12. On December 13, 2012, Michael Kehs, Court Administrator, issued an Order reassigning the matter, and scheduling a hearing date. Exhibit C

13. Since the commencement of the matter by the Plaintiff, the parties have appeared before ten (10) judges and five (5) masters. In addition, several orders were issued by two (2) additional judges without any proceeding or appearance of the parties.


14. During the July 10, 2012 short list conference, Judge Haaz was surprised to learn of Angst & Angst’s letters to have him removed from the case. Exhibit D

15. On May 16, 2012, Angst & Angst sent a letter to Judge Carluccio requesting that she resume the case. Exhibit D-1

16. On May 16, 2012, Angst & Angst sent a different letter to Court Administration requesting the re-assignment of the matter to Judge Carluccio. Exhibit D-2

17. Angst & Angst failed to file a petition with this court requesting recusal of Judge Haaz, and no objections were filed when Judge Haaz was assigned the matter.

18. Angst & Angst have since made no effort to inquire to the scheduling delay, or to determine the reason for Court Administration’s failure to schedule the hearing ON THEIR PETITION.

19. The December 13, 2012 Order, issued by Michael Kehs, offers NO EXPLANATION regarding what has necessitated, or required, reassignment of the matter from Judge Haaz’ court.

20. Judge Haaz is not included on the distribution of the reassignment order.

21. The Defendant is unaware of the timing, or any explanation, for the re-assignment of the matter from Judge Carluccio which occurred in late 2011.

22. Upon assignment of the matter to Judge Haaz, outstanding petitions which remained to be addressed by the Court were not scheduled by Court Administration.

23. The failure of Court Administration to schedule hearings has additionally prevented the Appeal filed August 15, 2011 from being forwarded to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.


24. It is the policy of the unified judicial system that any matter at any stage of a proceeding be brought to a fair conclusion as promptly as possible, consistent with the character of the matter and the resources of the system. The requirements of this rule further specify and implement this policy in keeping with the Court’s constitutionally mandated responsibility to oversee the prompt and proper disposition of the business of the Pennsylvania courts. (201 Pa. Code Rule 703)

25. The State of Pennsylvania requires every judge to keep a record of each matter that has been submitted to the judge for decision and which remains undecided. Twice annually, this information must be reported to the Administrative office of Pennsylvania Courts.

26. Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court order the Court Administrator, Michael Kehs, to provide copies of all related Administrative Reports prepared and submitted during the six years that this matter has been before the Court.


27. The parties in any legal matter have a responsibility to the Court to act in an ethical manner, and to address issues with the Court directly where a situation could result in embarrassment of the judiciary.

28. The failure of the Court to address these issues when presented by the Defendant has resulted in a clear demonstration of bias, extrinsic fraud, and a nested lack of jurisdiction of this Court’s Orders.

29. The Defendant has made every effort to address the issues with the Court according to procedure and law. Those petitions have been ignored and dismissed without proceedings – as any proceeding would expose the judiciary to embarrassment and disrepute.

30. The Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys Robert and Valerie Angst, have used their knowledge and participation in actions which violate ethics, procedure and the Law to leverage decisions in the matter.

31. Angst & Angst have further provided information which intentionally exposes their ethical and procedural violations to the Defendant, which when presented to the Court has further forced the judiciary to action, or deliberate inaction, to conceal the judiciary’s participation in those activities.

32. While it has never been his intention to diminish the judiciary, the Defendant has been left with no choice but to Petition the Court exposing the activity, and then suffer further losses for attempting to address the issues with an unhearing judiciary which has been retaliatory and vindictive.

33. The Defendant has been terrorized by this situation since 2007, and has now been left homeless and destitute while believing in the justice system and that the truth would prevail.

32. The Defendant has no escape from the situation until the judiciary addresses it’s responsibility, and no alternative but to persevere while the injustice grows.

33. Injustice does not end injustice, it extends it.

WHEREAS, The Defendant witnessed the proper, lawful and ethical actions of Judge Haaz during the Short List proceeding on July 10, 2012 and objects to the reassignment of the matter.

Judge Haaz did not avoid issues raised by the Defendant, and immediately addressed intentional tactical failures by Angst & Angst to create a situation where the judge would lack jurisdiction to rule in the matter.

The awareness of that tactic, and it’s failure, had provided Judge Haaz the insight into how this case, and the judiciary, have been manipulated by Angst & Angst.

The Defendant’s Response and Counter Petition ( EXHIBIT E ), filed timely and served upon the Plaintiff, which has been omitted from the caption of the Scheduling Order, lists the immediate issues which need to be addressed in this matter. Those issues include voiding orders issued where the Court lacked jurisdiction, and the failure of the Court to hold hearings on Petitions submitted by the Defendant.


Respectfully Submitted,

Terance Healy
Defendant, Pro Se


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

Terance Healy

No Comment.

Add Your Comment

%d bloggers like this: