Healy v Healy
#2007-12477 The Divorce Docket
#104 EDM 2011 – Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Notice of Common Pleas Court refusal to transmit Notice of Appeal to Superior Court
Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
#OBSTRUCTED – Superior Court of Pennsylvania
The Carluccio Appeal
This Appeal was obstructed by Carolyn Carluccio.
Notice was not sent to the Superior Court by the Prothonotary, (The Superior Court was notified directly.)
Transcripts were not prepared by Court Reporters.
The Court Record was not sent to the Superior Court.
A Concise Statement was ordered and served.
An Opinion was filed by Carolyn Carluccio, where she failed to comprehend that (1) the Appeal was timely, (2) the Order being Appealed is Defective, (3)(4)(5)(6)(+) the court has been petitioned to address the defect, (*) the Order being Appealed is Void.
#1330 EDA 2013 – Superior Court of Pennsylvania
The Page Appeal
The Appeal has been obstructed by Judge Page who, upon receipt of the concise statement, personally notified the court reporters to NOT PREPARE the transcripts for the matter.
A partial record has been sent to the Superior Court which fails to include transcripts and ALL EXHIBITS submitted during the hearings before Judge PAGE.
Judge Page lacked jurisdiction to conduct hearings or to rule on the matter as the previous appeal is pending.
#401 MT 2013 – Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
#155 MM 2013 – Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has routinely affected the status of the matter without consideration, or logic, or proper application of facts, procedure and law.
IN FEDERAL COURT
The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
#13-4614 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
The Defective and Void May 2011 ‘Order’ is submitted by Defendants. Judge Weilheimer deliberately ignores sworn testimony and ALL evidence.
Evidence from the court record of the courts lack of jurisdiction was clearly presented during the hearing.
No evidence of the validity of the Order was presented during the hearing.
Judge Weilheimer has knowingly and deliberately enforced a void and defective order.
Judge Weilheimer fails to address the court’s jurisdiction which is a necessity when challenged.
|Judge Weilheimer entered the proceeding planning to dismiss the case, and thereby rendering the MOTION TO STRIKE A DEFECTIVE AND VOID ORDER to be moot. And she proceeded according to that plan.
The Defendants presented the ‘defective and void order’ in support of their claim of ownership, Plaintiff challenging the courts jurisdiction to issue that ‘order’ was appropriate and properly before the court. Counsel for the Defendants neglected to provide ANY information, evidence or exhibits to support the jurisdictional challenge. As a result, there is no evidence to assert/present proper jurisdiction in the Appeal, a mountain of evidence which demonstrates the courts lack of jurisdiction, and a transcript where the judge ignores everything – law, facts, the court record, everything.
Judge Weilheimer sacrificed her integrity.
Judge Weilheimer acted without any concern for the law, justice or constitutional rights.
Judge Weilheimer also failed to recognize that the MOTION TO STRIKE was simply a formality should the court choose not to act sua sponte to strike the defective and void order.
The passage of time, continued disrespect, denial of rights, and punishment of additional injustice will not affect the validity of a judgment where the court which did not have jurisdiction to act.
Injustice does not end injustice. It extends it.
Treason and judicial misconduct ignored because the District Attorney is a lawyer who must follow Rule 1.6. Prosecution of Judge Weilheimer would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.
Treason and judicial misconduct protected because the Attorney General is a lawyer who must follow Rule 1.6. Prosecution of Judge Weilheimer would adversely affect the integrity of the judiciary.
The Superior Court cannot review an appeal where a judge neglects to file an Opinion.
An Opinion (not yet delivered) for this APPEAL will expose the Judge Weilheimer’s treason and the further demonstrate the conspiracy to conceal the corruption of the entire Montgomery County judiciary. I have stood before 20 judges since 2007. I have only asked two to recuse. One recused immediately. Judge Carluccio was obstinate and refused. Several times. As judge, president of the bar association, and a former employee of the US Attorney’s office… Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio would be difficult to have prosecuted even without Rule 1.6 to conceal her malice and corruption.
Judge Weilheimer is also not likely to self-incriminate by attempting to support her improper decision. Again, the process fails because of an injustice which occurs within the courtroom, leaving the litigant without opportunity for resolution – a denial of a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
– Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information causes an denial of the constitutionally protected right to petition the Government for redress of grievances. (First Amendment)
– Rule 1.6 causes a denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law. (Fifth Amendment)
– Rule 1.6 causes a denial of the constitutionally protected right not to be denied of life, liberty or property without due process of law by a State. (Fourteenth Amendment)
Rule 1.6 mandates a judge sacrifice their integrity for prior judges who lacked integrity.
In August 2007, Rhonda Daniele issued her secret order without jurisdiction and then concealed it from Terance Healy, additionally deliberately concealing the order from the court record, the resulting injustice has been inescapable. The secret injustice was leveraged and undermined every proceeding before the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas where every person in a position to help acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information prevented any resolution and MANDATED no explanation to the victim.
The Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas participated in the conspiracy to deny CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS.
Each judge conspired to conceal the injustice to protect the integrity of a judiciary which lack any integrity.
The deliberate obstruction of the Carluccio Appeal is permitted (mandated) under Rule 1.6.
The deliberate obstruction of the Page Appeal is permitted (mandated) under Rule 1.6.
The inaction permitted under Rule 1.6 is now causing an obstruction of the Weilheimer Appeal, and an overall failure to resolve matters which are a right guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Rule 1.6 causes an unconstitutional denial of rights of a litigant.
Healy v Miller
#2013-29976 Action in Ejectment
#900 EDA 2014 – Superior Court of Pennsylvania
The Weilheimer Appeal